Bob...

[BobProbst]

I'm unsure if it's the right action but it's better than doing nothing.

A failed economy -- a real depression -- would reduce our ability to collect taxes. Would the lost taxes equal $700B minus any recovered assets? I don't know but I also don't want to find out.

One thing that seemed funny to me was that many of the more conservative minded detractors are saying: "We shouldn't bail out those crooks from Wall Street" while in the same breath saying "We should let capitalism and free markets play out."

Isn't crooks in Wall Street what you get in a free market?

 

[thormagni]

I'm unsure if it's the right action but it's better than doing nothing.

Sure. It may be better than doing nothing. But is it better than taking the time to figure out what the right thing is and then doing the right thing, whatever that may be? I say "No."

My analogy of the day. You are cooking in the kitchen and a fire breaks out. Do you just grab the first thing you can find and throw it on the fire, whether that is cooking oil, or grease, or water, or gasoline? Or do you take a breath and figure out what exactly will put this fire out? Then throw that?

For the past week the administration has been screaming as loud as they can "Quick, grab the first thing! Don't look at it! Just throw it or our whole house will burn down! Ohmigod! Do it NOW!"

I believe something should be done, but I certainly don't believe it should be predicated on a starting point of giving this administration either a) exactly what it wants or b) almost exactly what it wants.

Now that it has failed, we can move this load of manure off of the table and move on to something better. Seriously, wouldn't it be nice for a change if W and his cronies had to enact a bill written by Democrats with progressive values in mind because they were too scared to vote against it?

And really, today was like the buildup to the Iraq war all over again. The mad race toward dubious ends, loaded up with fear and proclamations of doom and gloom. And if you vote against doing exactly what these fear-meisters want, then by god you are responsible for the coming calamity.

"It's a nice stock market you have there. Be a SHAME if anything were to happen to it, 'cause you didn't pay up."

Let W blink for once.

 

[InzeladunMaster]

I've been trying to get a better grasp on the situation. Here is the clearest explanation I have found so far:

Impact of Wall Street bailout becoming clearer - Eye on the Economy - MSNBC.com

 

[thormagni]

NPR had a really good piece back in May on how we got to where we are:

Link

I haven't actually listened to it, but read the 20 page transcript. Eye-opening stuff.

 

[Grimhelm]

I believe it is necessary. I don't like it, but I think it is necessary. The optimistic view is that the government might make the money back with profit. We'll see. As for predictions, I think the stunt has only hurt the Republicans, as it is them blaming Pelosi and then storming out like children. I predict the bill will pass soon with some conservative amendments, maybe even by the end of the week.

Is this talking politics? Are the forum police going to spank us? I hope so!

 

[chachi]

I appreciate everyone's two cents on this. You fellas are smart, and hearing smart people discuss important things is always to be encouraged.

For me, I don't like this thing at all. Of course, my economics knowledge is pitiful on a good day, but the bailout doesn't pass the sniff test for me. When Bush gets really ramped up about doing something right now, I'm leery. That's how we ended up with the Patriot Act, as an example. If something is worth doing, it's worth doing right. And this feels too fast, too slapdash and too fearmongered (I don't think that's a word) for my taste.

And there are too many ties between Wall Street and Washington to make me believe that my best interests are being served. Too many lobbyists, too many corrupt politicians, etc. etc. There are just too many pockets to be potentially lined by something like this, and they're not mine. Sure, if the economy collapses that will hurt everyone. Of course. But there's no gaurantee that even $700 billion will prevent that. Nobody seems to know one way or the other.

And ultimately, it's our kids who would deal with the repayment of this thing (and all the rest) to China someday. I don't buy for a minute that the government is going to get all of this money back, or even a substantial portion of it. If these are assets that will likely pay off at some point, the governemnt wouldn't need to step in and buy them, would they? And so if the tradeoff of this bailout is economic stability for the short term (the next several years) in exchange for economic unstability in the long term (when our kids are prime earners and we are playing RPGs in a nursing home), then I'm against it, pure and simple.