Nate Silver: "The schadenfreude of certain liberals on this issue is absolutely obnoxious."

[BzaDem]

"Having said all of the above, the schadenfreude of certain liberals on this issue is absolutely obnoxious. A lot of people are going to be hurt by this, and not just those in the investor class. I tend to see this more as a failure of our democracy than a reaffirmation of it. The congressmen who are retiring this year -- and who therefore can perhaps be described as the most neutral arbiters of the public good -- voted overwhelmingly for this measure."

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

What he said.

(I figured that instead of saying what I really thought about the people on DU who are opposed to any kind of bailout, I would take the safer route and quote someone else.)

[rocktivity]

1. In the words of the illustrious President Dick Cheney

So?

:headbang:
rocknation

[BzaDem]

3. What do you mean? Are you one of the people I am referring to?

[GodlessBiker]

2. You mean the congresspeople who are retiring, and who could care less what people think since ...

their election does not matter to them, are the best arbiters of what the people really want?

[BzaDem]

4. There is a reason we have a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

Look it up.

[GodlessBiker]

8. Put whatever word you want in front of "democracy," there is an election in a matter of weeks, ...

and it is unreasonable to think that representatives should disregard the will of the people.

Or are you saying that they should ignore the will of the people, in this matter and in every matter on which they vote?

[BzaDem]

29. No, that is a ridiculous spinning of my position.

I never said on EVERY matter on which they vote. But obviously (unless we have a direct democracy, in which case the world we would live in would be much closer to Ron Paul's vision for America than I think you would like), there are some issues on which the people are not informed (or at least the people who don't want to do anything), and this is clearly one of them.

[GodlessBiker]

70. I leave it to you to tell the people that. And if a congressperson so tells the people,

please don't hold it against the people if they choose to vote for someone else.

[Teaser]

5. people are people

even liberals.

[RollWithIt]

6. Well, my grandparents lost 4.2% of their retirement funds today....

And I'll be laying off 5 people from my company next week. So ya, reading the "let it all fail" posts has been sobering to say the least.

[NEDem]

9. I lost 6.7% today in my 401K,

Granted I have 25 years til retirement. But my parents lost that much too, and they are a couple years away. They'll probably have to put it off a bit now.

[emilyg]

36. I lost today

and I'm retired and scared.

[eshfemme]

85. I'm sorry

:hug:

I don't know what to say but just hold on. We'll ride this one out together, okay?

[emilyg]

87. Thank you nice person.

:pals:

[JuniperLea]

96. I lost too...

There's nowhere near enough to retire on, and there isn't enough time to recoup by the time I wanted to retire. We have to take it a day at a time. I freaked out at first, then decided freaking out isn't going to help either. I'm ready to risk the measly leavings on getting this thing fixed. And I don't mean a bailout that would only need repeated in 10 years.

Hang in there... there are a lot of us in this boat!

[emilyg]

98. ...

:hug:

[seabeyond]

12. just tell them all for the greater good. they should celebrate, cheer getting those ole fat cats

and just mosey along.

i am being a bitch cause i listen to your story and so many others working their ass off to save and had people this afternoon fuckin CHEERING the drop in stock. it was well and truly disgusting. what kind of people are those

my husband started putting in all he could out of his checks into 401k for a year, with a new job. i am not even gonna look or think about it, just figure it is gone and may get a good surprise some day.

i on the other hand have not trusted the market since 2003 so the chunk of our money is sittin in cd with really low rates, but what the hell, better than losing it

[avaistheone1]

97. Get a grip. This current bailout only throws good money after bad.

Even the Direct of Congressional Budget Office says the bailout as it stands could make things worse.

[delete_bush]

30. I'm curious, if you don't mind...

"I'll be laying off 5 people from my company next week."

When you say "my company", are you the owner?

What business are you in, and how many employees do you have?

Just trying to get a handle on how this mess is affecting business owners. Thanks!

[Better Today]

39. Why will you be laying off five people. It can't possibly because of this bill, no way.

[blondeatlast]

89. On the contrary. Many small businesses need short term credit to survive. That isn't going to happen

and the effect will be very immediate.

Economics 201.

[NEDem]

7. Great quote. Right on the mark.

I feel like you do.

[RichardRay]

10. You beat me to it...

I just read the same blog entry at 538 and copied the same paragraph. I came back over here to DU, but you were already taking care of it.

Second the motion. Move to have Nate Silver be in charge. (of something, anyway).

[susanwy]

83. Cubin - Yea

I never thought I'd ever agree with a vote of hers, but she did the right thing for once.

[Union Thug]

11. I stand guilty as charged. And here's a big f*ing TOLD YA SO to all those

dumbfuck Reagan Democrats of thirty years ago who helped set this thing up, and to every subsequent free-marketeer democrat that has preached this bullshit since then.

I do, however, support bail out plans that place the financial burden directly on the backs of the wealthy - like what Sanders has proposed. But to the big stinking pile that they tried to push through today I say GOOD RIDDANCE.

[SoxFan]

20. A guy with a Che icon...

has no business accusing anyone else of being a "dumbfuck".

[Runcible Spoon]

49. HAHAHAHAHA says the "bluedog".

dumbfucks in glasses houses shouldn't throw stones. DLC motherfuckers have just as much blood on their hands as their neocon masters.

[arKansasJHawk]

21. Good riddance, indeed ...

No one that I know is cheering the real financial hardship this is putting people in. But who is standing up and talking about the financial hardships of hundreds of thousands of Americans that existed BEFORE this consumer-class created crisis came along?

I know a lot of people who'd give just about anything for a 401K that's down 20 percent. I know a lot of people who rent crappy apartments because they can't even qualify for those pesky high-risk mortgages.

And, no, the solution is not to blow the whole country to hell just to see it burn. But I, for one, can understand the visceral reaction that a lot of folks are feeling.

But the solution is also NOT to give the fucking Bush administration the bailout they want with a few damned crumbs thrown in for "concerned" Democrats. The rethugs did the right thing for the wrong reasons. The Democrats in the house who voted against it did so for the right reasons. It was a bad bill.

[ContinentalOp]

76. What on earth are you talking about?

No American was facing any kind of financial hardship until today when a bunch of evil radicals in the House stole $700 billion that rightfully belonged to the banking industry. :sarcasm:

[WeDidIt]

13. Silver is spot on

We're on the brink of the Greater Depression.

Or perhaps history will remember it as the Greatest Depression?

[Extend a Hand]

14. That's disingenuous

There is no real evidence that the proposed bailout bill would have even worked.

[NEDem]

17. No it's accurate, dead on.

is there any proof it wouldn't have worked?

[Extend a Hand]

32. 160 economists thought it was a bad deal

Dennis Kucinich opposed it. In this kind of situation, given the track record of bush, Paulson, and Bernanke I don't think I want to make a $700 billion bet that they'll finally be right this time.

[BzaDem]

34. I'm sure you could find 5000 economists who are absolute ideologically pro free market in any case

who would agree with you on nothing but this.

[Extend a Hand]

41. This isn't about pro free market ideology

Those on the left that opposed this bill, opposed it because it was a bad deal for US citizens, this was nothing more than a wall street give away that wasn't going help create jobs, stop forclosures, or address the lack of oversight that got us into this mess.

[donco6]

40. 400 scientists don't believe in evolution.

And there you go.

[Extend a Hand]

43. well that's certainly important in an economic crisis

[donco6]

53. It is when you're making a point -

that you obviously missed. Wake up or butt out.

[Extend a Hand]

61. You are misguided

in your support for this very poor excuse of a bill and I don't appreciate the snark.

Democrats that oppose this bill have better arguments than those that support it. This is one of those rare cases where I really think both sides feel that they are acting in the best interest of the country.

[donco6]

63. I didn't appreciate the sarcasm when you knew my point.

But let's forget it. I agree that there are good arguments on both sides. I just honestly don't believe people really comprehend what's at stake - and it's not just a "fat cat's" wallet.

[Extend a Hand]

67. ok, truce ;)

[anigbrowl]

78. Comparison fail.

the point is to point out that finding 160 economists opposed to the bailout doesn't mean squat without context. You can find a minority of experts on any complex topic - evolution, global warming, whatever - who will sign up to an idiotic argument.

[Extend a Hand]

65. you want me to prove a negative?

It seems to me that BEFORE we spend taxpayer money we ought to see some evidence that the plan has a chance to actually prevent the crisis from worsening since all the anecdotal evidence thus far suggests that throwing money at the problem won't work.

[girl gone mad]

19. In fact, there is clear evidence that it would not have worked.

The Fed pumped 630 Billion into the markets today, and we still saw a drop in stocks and more credit freezes.

[NEDem]

22. Not the same thing.

[girl gone mad]

33. The fed added enormous liquidity to the markets..

which was the stated intent of the bailout.

[Marsala]

23. That's totally different from actually buying the bad assets

Flooding the markets with liquidity has always been only a short-term solution.

[girl gone mad]

35. How would buying the bad assets fix things? n/t

[donco6]

42. It removes the bad asset from the balance sheet.

Thus eliminating a liability, thus making it possible to securitize a loan.

[girl gone mad]

54. assuming an investor could be found..

and enough of the bad debt could be removed.

[donco6]

55. So are you arguing for more than 700 billion? n/t

[NEDem]

56. there you have it, you just answered your own question

Who is bigger then the federal government? Who could remove enough bad debt....

[girl gone mad]

60. I guess I didn't make my statement clear.

Assuming a private investor could be found after the bad debt had been bought.

[NEDem]

62. Sorry Mrs. Palin, didn't realize it was you.

:P

[girl gone mad]

64. The reality is that nobody wants to have anything to do with these banks.

We're in a panic now. Bernanke and Paulson might be able to stop the death spiral by cutting rates to 0%, flooding the market with $2 trillion or more, and raising the FDIC cap to $1 million. We'll see what they come up with, but opportunities will abound.

This was going to happen with or without the bailout. 700B is just a drop in the bucket.

[anigbrowl]

79. You just wait

More than likely most of those assets will turn good eventually, but we'll have to wait for the recession to be over and the housing market to start tracking upwards again, so it might take a decade or so to recover the investment + interest.

[mhatrw]

88. But printing money to pay a high price for garbage is a long term solution?

Get real.

[Extend a Hand]

31. That was the point I was making

(not too clearly, I guess)

[natrat]

26. i am amazed that people would feel comfortable buying near worthless

assets and somehow think it would serve the country well. That money could be spent on real issues rather than handing money over to obvious crooks. no thanks, but they will put something together by friday, and each of us will suddenly be 12,000$ poorer and any type of "change" will suddenly be unaffordable.But paulson and the like will continue to get richer and 99.5% will become poorer

[Canuckistanian]

15. Guilty, your Honor

If it weren't so damn serious, I'd actually be laughing.

But it DOES give me a certain sense of "We tried to TELL you, you fucking bastards".

[MikeNearMcChord]

16. What makes you think this bailout would help?

The poor would still be getting F*(&cked! People still would lose their homes. Where was the help for the little guy? Want a rescue plan how about something for us peasants, instead of saving the Treasury Secretary nest egg on Wall Street? Oh by the way, how do you and the rest of the Bailout-o-crats respond to this tidbit from the Daily Kos?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/29/19138/6703/400/614879
It looks like the Democrats on the hill were going to be made out like suckers, Treasury was reassuring the robber barons the CEO still would have gotten their ill gotten gains.
F&^% THA RICH!

[Extend a Hand]

18. Disingenuos

The market was already down OVER 12% since it's high last October. Further there is no real evidence that the proposed bailout bill would have improved the situation.

[Spider Jerusalem]

57. And now it's fallen 7% in ONE DAY

which, you know, is a hell of a lot worse than 12% over a year.

[NEDem]

58. but hey

they got to "stick it to da man"

[mhatrw]

90. Oh, really. So you studied econ at Single Data Point University? n/t

[truthisfreedom]

24. SUCH BULLSHIT. "The congressmen who are retiring this year -- and who therefore can perhaps be

described as the most neutral arbiters..."

BULL FUCKING SHIT. Retiring Congresspeople have the MOST TO LOSE. They're the ones with 401Ks and investments that have to get them through life in style. If the market tanks, they lose more than any of their fellow Congresscritters who can continue manipulating the system for their own personal gain.

[BzaDem]

37. So you are saying they should have voted against the bailout, and screwed all retiring people?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't want to mischaracterize your position, but it seems to me you are saying that they voted for the bill because of their 401ks (and not because they were thinking about the American people's 401ks).

[anigbrowl]

80. Wrong.

Most retiring members of Congress can count on picking up directorships, speaking engagements and so on for the rest of their lives. Your argument also assumes that they'll be unable to manage their investments after leaving Congress but will have to continue to draw on a fixed portfolio. Your statements make no sense.

[mhatrw]

91. They are also looking to cash in on lucrative "private industry" positions. n/t

[grantcart]

25. as you can see from the responses on the thread - some undertstand what you aret talking about

and others don't.

[TheKentuckian]

27. People would change their tune quick

should they stop getting paid, are unable to get currency for their work, or a stretched food supply goes south.

I'm willing to bet most that are raging against the bailout and calling for fiddling while Rome burns across the spectrum bought the Iraq bullshit and are in "won't be fooled again mode".

The failure to see actual signs in broad daylight versus buying nearly impossible nonsense dismays me. Well, thanks for not a lot guys, Bush is still spending the money!
As usual nobody wins, BushCo fires out this 655 billion and we'll still have to do the bailout too.

[NEDem]

28. exactly

[ShortnFiery]

45. This bail out is just for the large banks - it has little to nothing with regard to people getting

laid off. Wake up and smell the stench of the Executive Branch of the BushBotBorg. With "little to no true safeguards" we are going to hand OVER the middle class's tax dollars to the LARGE Banking conglomerates. This will not help us "average peons" at all = no not even our 401Ks.

[stillcool]

66. I don't think so...

I've been reading that it is a credit freeze that is the problem, and in that case it is not at all limited but systemic.

[anigbrowl]

81. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

Anyone who knows anything about the commercial paper market can tell you otherwise.

[mhatrw]

92. The Fed can simply issue commercial paper itself.

That should make money rather than cost several trillion.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GarbagemanLB]

44. AMEN. Some people here have no fucking clue that there is more to this than the 'fatcats'.

[HughMoran]

46. I've lost so much money so far - $20 grand today alone

This is killing me. No college for the kids :(

[mhatrw]

94. I have an idea.

Move your money into gold.

[LiberadorHugo]

47. Wrong...

The most neutral arbitrator of the public good is a populist, anti-authoritarian leftist who routinely wins landslide victories and has even had cross-over support from Bush voters; I refer, naturally, to Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT).

Now admit it: If he were electable nationally, you would all get behind him. :-)

[NEDem]

48. I've never seen so many Democrats

acting and sounding like republicans all in the name of sticking it to da man.

So many people running around here essentially saying "Screw the retirees or anyone trying to save for retirement, fuck them, at least we're sticking it to da man"

[lostnotforgotten]

51. All The Lies, All The Back Room Shenanigans, All The Golden Parachutes

Have to end sooner or later.

If you lost it is quirk of timing.

[NEDem]

52. so

fuck the retirees and anyone trying to save, at least you stuck it to da man.

Pathetic

[lostnotforgotten]

59. Well The Electorate Has Been Asleep At The Wheel For Almost 20 Years Now

Maybe these folks need to look in the mirror!

[stillcool]

69. You'll be looking in the mirror too...

it's kind of odd that anyone would want the entire nation to suffer for what? Revenge? And the electorate has been asleep for far more than 20 years. You should be looking in the mirror there too. I wonder if we will have a military dictatorship if the economy collapses. How do you feel about that?

[NEDem]

71. Thats the point I was making

It seems many people have given up the very nature of what makes us democrats, all in the name of sticking to to "wall street." What is the motive, why are there so many people wanting to see regular people suffer just to prove some point.

[stillcool]

74. I think it's anger..

people venting, and a lot of conflicting views on what all this means, what the problem is, and how to fix it. And a complete lack of trust in anything our government does.

[lostnotforgotten]

73. Don't Own Stocks - All My Money And Gold Is In The Matress!

eom

[depakid]

100. Not only that- but almost none of those who behave like that

have the foggiest clue about macroeconomics or how businesses run their day to day operations.

They cheer at the stock market falling- and then shout conspiracy! when the markets rise, completely missing the point that's been stressed to them time and time again that the core problems (very dangerous problems) are with the global credit markets.

I've unfortunately lost my cool a couple of times with a few such posetrs, which is not my style and I regret- but I mean, crikey.

[dapper]

50. Being Happy? about the ney vote....

I'm not happy or sad about the result... but I also do not want to pay for two wars and a bail out for the rest of my life.

Short term, stocks and investments will go down. Long term, the stock market generally recovers long term. That may not be good for people who are looking to retire in the next year or few.

Like you and me, our Government needs to be fiscally responsible, the banks/mortgage companies need to be fiscally responsible. I do not want the next 10 years of my taxes to be "spoken for".

Why can't the banks take over the mortgages or bail each other out?


Dap

[Lilith Velkor]

68. Nate Silver can kiss my unemployed, uninsured ass

When there is a deal that bails out the likes of me, then I'll deign to give a shit about all the stuck up motherfuckers who, until very recently, thought it couldn't happen to them.

[TheKentuckian]

72. You realize that a crashed out economy

hits you the hardest, right? No personal recovery because there will be less jobs not more and the price of everything skyrockets.

You can't stick it to the man this way at all. He'll still have his and he'll send his shit rolling down a hill near you.

I'm fucking angry too, I've been through four shutdowns and a cutback since 02. I've lost about everything and have lost so much buying power that it makes my stomach knot thinking about it. Still, that doesn't make me think its wise to throw a matcha nd some gasoline on the mess to fix it.

We have to build up our foundations before taking this hit that is surely coming. The economy needs to be propped up to allow us to build a future.
New energy is priority one, after that and proper infrastructure we'll be able to bounce back. No new energy and we're cooked. We'll burn everything we can and wipe ourselves out.

[Lilith Velkor]

86. Don't trickle down my back and tell me it's raining

We're talking about enough money to fund an alternative energy Manhattan Project, give us free health care, and fight a war or two.

The jobs created would help build a future, but nooo, we gotta help out the fuckers who robbed the public blind.

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

[BlooInBloo]

99. Indeed. Let everyone else go down, so you don't have to look up.

[depakid]

101. Wow

Another bitter angry person who wants to drag everyone else down so that they can share in wallow in their own misfortunate.

That doesn't reveal very flattering character traits.

[Lilith Velkor]

107. Neither does sucking up to those who profited from my 'misfortunate'

but I guess it pays the bills...until you get sick.

[sam kane]

75. Wall Street *is* schadenfreude to its core.

This is such a false, false dichotomy. Liberals are the ones who are actually concerned about those who need help most.

[BzaDem]

77. If all Liberals actually care about other people, then many posters on DU are not liberal.

This post was in response to a whole bunch of posts that say something along the lines of "I don't have anything, so I don't care if everyone who has more than me suffers, including people just slightly above the poverty line who had nothing to do with the causes of this crisis."

There is no difference between those self-described "Liberals" and Wall Street.

[Warren Stupidity]

82. I'm opposed to this specific bailout.

I would support an intervention that:

1) re-regulated the mortgage industry and re-established glass-steagal separation of commercial banking from wall street by repealing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

2) provided oversight by the GAO or other similar agency of all funds used to purchase assets, and of the price paid for those assets and released no more than 250B in funds at any time prior to reauthorization by congress of additional funding.

3) put all enterprises availing themselves of the bailout under strict compensation control for all officers partners etc. of these enterprises, limiting such compensation to levels comparable to federal employees.

4) provided for immediate relief through a special court system for individuals facing foreclosure on their place of residence.

[PretzelWarrior]

84. you're full of it. they need to go get a better bill passed

simple as that, dude. Our Democracy is working JUST FINE. The Conress critters still up for election are listening quite keenly to what we, the people, are saying.

[ourbluenation]

103. I think the point of the OP is that people are taking pleasure in the financial plight of others

schadenfraude

[Dr Fate]

93. Include a bail out for some of my debt, and I will fully support such a bail out.

Politics is all about give & take, right?

Let me on on some of the "give" and then we can talk about the take.

As it is, I dont see this bailout reducing or eliminating any of my expenses or debts. I just dont see any trickle here.

Unlike the millionares who are getting $700 Billion of my tax dollars, I have to sell stuff or cut back on my groceries when I go into debt-yet no one is asking these millionares to sell there stuff to come up with $700 billion.

Where is my bail out package? Once I know that, I'll support it.

[depakid]

102. How about keeping you employed?

If the credit crisis spirals out of control, we'll surely be looking at double digit undemployment rates- and there's no telling how high they'll go.

20% wouldn't surprise me one bit if along with a crash, we see $200-$300 a barrel oil.

[Dr Fate]

104. Oh- so I get stay where I already was before the crooks blew all the cash? I feel so fortunate.

No- I want to get some free cash out of this- you know, like the millionares are going to get.

If I have to give millionares money, I need an extra benefit, not just a black-mail situation that "allows" me to keep my job.

No sale- if I lost my business, no one would bail me out- I'd be asked to sell my belongings and cut back on my expenses.

Were the millionares & billionare bankers asked to do this before some of us decided to give them our tax money instead? If not, that means they are getting free money. I want an equivalent if I'm to support this bill.

If 20% unemployment is a result of not passing Bush's bill, then they should include something that benefits people like me so that it will pass with public approval rather than under blackmail.

[Forrest Greene]

95. "When You Ain't Got Nothin,' "

"...you got nothin' to lose" might help explain some of that mean old schadenfreude.

[grantcart]

105. kick

[treestar]

106. Is there such a thing as non-obnoxious schadenfreude?

I guess that is the type republicans experience. :sarcasm: