Comments on: The Fallacy of the Bailout

By: unlawflcombatnt

unlawflcombatnt — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:19:06 +0000

The Fed is acting like the ultimate goal is only to increase lending, not spur the economy. If the true goal of providing more credit is to promote investment and spending, wouldn't it be better just to give the $2.2 trillion directly to consumers and business. That way it would be guaranteed to get spent, instead of going only to restore bank balance sheets and pay executive salaries and shareholder dividends.

By: John

John — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 16:55:02 +0000

Don't bash Republicans. I'm a registered Republican who has already voted for Bob Barr as a protest. Republicans have been getting the worst of this, because RON PAUL, who stands for what we want, was kept from debating by Fox News. JOHN MCCAIN is one of the Keating 5, and has been in the corrupt Senate for far too long to trust.

Republicans have been cheated by EVIL poltical insiders. They know what we wanted, and they plotted to make certain we could never have that. Instead, we get bashed by everyone. Don't bash me. I'm mad as hell already, and I don't want any blame for this thing, when I'm they guy who has been cheated.

By: Neocon666

Neocon666 — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:39:07 +0000

You are so correct. If everybody would NOT vote for the incumbents, that would send a message that WE THE PEOPLE can vote you morons who are selling us out from office. GOP, DEMS, YOU ALL SUCK!
Sing with me. Its the end of the world and we know it. And I feel fine.

By: Malahuna

Malahuna — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 20:14:27 +0000

To Boomer555: I think maybe you've hit on something: Not electing ANY of the incumbent politicians. If the American voters could possibly get behind this and, in fact, turn every one of them out over the next 2 years, perhaps our future "representatives" would get the message that we're all pretty fed up and pissed off.

By the way, it seems to me that the public that took the time to phone and email their "representatives" was over 90% AGAINST this bailout, yet they did it any way.

Time for a Tea Party?

By: Johnny

Johnny — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 10:49:22 +0000

If you think electing the 'intelligent' guy is the way to go then you had better open your history books.

The problem is these so-called intelligent people who actually think they can 'fix' this problem with a little economic science (or scientific socialism). If Ben Bernacke, Hank Paulson and Alan Greenspan had had the humility and intelligence to realize they cannot successfully manipulate the world economy through interest rates and bailouts we would be experiencing a mild recession rather than facing a once-in-500-years depression and economic meltdown.

Until the USA returns to commonsense policies (and that includes getting rid of the Fed, getting government out of the economy, and letting deadbeats go bankrupt) you are SCREWED.

Your only hope is a President who thinks like Ron Paul on economic matters (please note that I didn't say Ron Paul himself). But since your country is quickly acquiring a nanny-state mentality that will never happen.

By: ANN

ANN — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 00:03:25 +0000

Morgan you are right in your calculations. Maybe the powers that be read the aricle this week that stated that America is far behind in its maths skills.. However, I don't think that BASIC addition is a problem…

That 700 billion wasn't even icing on the cake it was more like the finger full taste that your mother would let you have BEFORE the cake was iced….I expect that this weekend will give us more great global news…

By: Boomer555

Boomer555 — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:53:43 +0000

And thanks for the support Ralphy and Mike

By: Boomer555

Boomer555 — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:51:02 +0000

Well Max - show me where to look? As to your claim of "evil Dems" and "liberalism", I personally believe in a smaller but more efficient government. I believe that we taxpayers are entitled to know what goes on behind closed doors in Congress. But most importantly, I believe in financial responsibility. Our country should only spend what they take in and invest heavily in domestic manufacturing processes. We cannot compete against the Chinese because the Chinese do not pay their workers a decent wage, unemployment benefits, health care and a pension. Our government's solution is to try to deprive U.S. workers of a decent wage, health care and forcing the workers to assume responsibilty for their own pensions. American workers are being punished in order to reduce costs so that the U.S. manufacturing base can compete against foreign manufacturers (mainly China) I do not think that to be the answer. I think that we should figure out exactly how much of these "social costs" our manufacturers are paying per vehicle, or per piece of equipment, and assess a tariff against incoming products from China. That way, we would be competing on a level playing field. In order for China to avoid having to pay a tariff, they then start to pay their employees a wage comparable to that we pay our workers, institute an unemployment insurance program, contribute towards the Chinese worker's retirement plan and institute effective pollution controls. We will then see how "cheap" their products will become. (Not to mention the additional costs of shipping their goods half-way around the world to the U.S. market).

I would then employ this same strategy to Mexico and Latin America.

As things exist now, it has become a race to the bottom. Is this a race we really want to win? Instead of foreign manufacturing processes taking U.S. manufacturing lower to their level, we should be forcing foreign manufacturers to rise up to our level.

And Max, I am not claiming that the Democrats are innocent because Lord knows they are not. But it has been the Republicans who have effectively controlled economic policy over the last eight years. It is only natural to look to them first?

By: Reality Check

Reality Check — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:42:41 +0000

Let's start with root-level political self interest then–there's nobody who doesn't feed at the trough (including us). That transcends party affiliation. Replace any use of “conservative” or “liberal” with “political” in most indictments and it probably applies to all of them. Anyone who believes otherwise is delusional.

As to the “surplus” you think we've had in the recent past–try again. As long as the Social Security and Medicare “trust” funds are funded with IOUs you'll never see one. Our government runs as much off balance sheet as our ponzi-crap companies do.

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:23:44 +0000

Liberalism? You mean like the government handing out tons of taxpayer money to people who did nothing to deserve it? Yeah – I think you're right!

Last time we had a Democrat in the White House we had a surplus. Don't start in with that boneheaded “Liberalism” nonsense.