« Stan Back, Lucy. Ees Gonna Splode! | Main | The Theory of Everything and John McCain's Descent Into Clownish Desperation »

09/26/2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

These are Republicans who have been repeatedly elected to public office, not fringe outsiders ranting on a public thoroughfare. They're influential and respected within the party, and they'd accept not just an economic downturn but another Great Depression for the sake of ideological purity.

I'm the last guy here who thinks that you are a political partisan for the sake of partisanship. But the actions taken by senate republicans are exactly the reason I once identified myself as a republican.

This is not a rescue of the american economy, its toast anyway. This is little more than a life preserver thrown to the uber wealthy as reward for gaming the system for so long. It won't do what they claim and allows Hanks bandits to rob you blind during both the real estate run up and real estate crash. They will get to cherry pick all the good and stick the taxpayer will the trash. That was the result of the Savings and Loan bailout and it will be the result of this one as well should it pass. Hank fucking Paulson down on one knee coaxing Nancy Pelosi out of her panties....theres a sobering image...we used to have more dignity.

Wouldn't you really want the government to have access to those funds after the crash when they might really do some good!

Try not to let the Hank Paulsons of this world scare you into a bigger mistake.

It is amusing that a free market capitalism group is suddenly emerging in the Republican party. That is certainly not consistent with their past. But the Democrats have been just as guilty as the Republicans in trying to rein in/control capitalism and enforce communistic type ideology.

It was a Republican president who threw out the gold standard. It was a Republican president who mandated wage and price controls. It was a Democratic president who formed the failed Great Society. It was a Democratic president who eased credit for more homeownership and encouraged banks to make riskier loans.

Perhaps we should just let the markets crash, rid ourselves of these current idiot elected officials and maybe then we can just start over in a truly free society after all the chaos ends.

If I didn't consider calling someone president an insult I'd nominate "Catch Her In the Wry"!

I would disrespectfully decline any nomination.

I would disrespectfully decline any nomination.


Which is why you are eminently more qualified than either of the two graspers currently pursuing the position.

It's rather the inverse of the Groucho Marx line about never wanting to be in a club that would consider him for membership.

Historically, there have been depressions every 75 years or so. It seems we're overdue for one.

As for the bailout, it's a terrible idea. The profits remain private, but the losses would be socialized. How is this fair--or just? What is right about making the taxpayer pay for private corporations' poor performance? In any case, a bailout would be yet another step towards socialism. I would rather have proper regulation (instead of the PC rules imposed by Democrats on the banks that forced them to make loans to the uncreditworthy) than to take another step into the socialist hellhole our liberal overlords have planned for us.

Oh, and Tom, you're full of horse flop when you say that Commies built fences keep people out: they built them to keep people in. You also seem to have confused the words immigrant and invader. The former are invited and legal; the latter are uninvited and illegal.

Just thought I'd clear that up for you.

> Politco is reporting that the House Republicans who torpedoed negotiations over a solution to our pending economic collapse are basically of the belief that their ideology is so important that economic collapse may be a small price (for others) to pay for it's implementation . . .

It's not about the ideology, it's about the best practical solution. And in this case, the best practical solution may very well be a market crash rather than establishing a precedent of further government intervention.

The reasoning is that this intervention itself may be the cause of future failures of this nature. The expectation that the government will swoop in to fix the problem (with other people's money) will encourage greater and greater heights of unrestricted and unsafe risk-taking.

> They're influential and respected within the party, and they'd accept not just an economic downturn but another Great Depression for the sake of ideological purity. They look at 25% unemployment and a 42% drop in the output of goods and services and the evaporation of just about everyone's life savings not as a horror, but as just one of those things that happens every now and then, perhaps even as something we deserve for being so damned moderate.

Once again, I think it is uncharitable to ascribe their resistance as mere enforcement of ideological purity. They *should* resist the urge to steal hundreds of billions of dollars from the American people to save a few banks.

Just wanted to point out that I didn't read this post because the title is stupid.

Hope I didn't miss anything!

Yeah - OK, I'll cop to the basic thrust of Tom's post, minus the hyperbole.

Screw the most practical solution; I've always believed in Capitalism because it is indeed the most moral system, its results be danged.

But having said that: yes, the big bail-outs so far were indeed the result of too little capitalism. Why? Because our government forced us to help the high-risk losers who voted them into office, on the pretext that there's a certain level of human dignity that all are entitled to and that includes a mortgage.

And now, here we are, reaping the benefits of those toxic loans, because people like Tom berated us for not caring enough and we listened.

The comments to this entry are closed.