To those against the Bailout, are you honestly ready for a Depression?

[weezie1317]

What kind of jobs do you all have that you make enough money and you can't be let go? I don't think you guys really get how bad this could be.

[Cronus Protagonist]

1. False dichotomy

No baillout does not equal a depression NOR vice versa. There are better options available which I won't bore you with, but they're there if you would take the time to look.

[lunatica]

112. Yeah. This is like the abused wife believing her husband is saving her from poverty

if she leaves him. He abuses her anytime he feels like it but she sticks with him because he's 'taking care of her'. She would be so much worse off if he wasn't around to 'protect her' and the kids would grow up to be losers if he didn't 'teach them discipline'.

It's definitely a false premise.

edited for spelling

[evlbstrd]

2. Do you honestly think the bill would have prevented one?

[live love laugh]

3. How do you know how bad it will be? What experience do you have

with this?

[weezie1317]

13. We have the largest bank failures in US history happening. That's the beginning, not the end of it.

[Tallison]

4. As an RN, I definitely support the bailout

although I'll always have a job, either way.

[David__77]

5. How hard is to realize we don't agree that this bill would help?

It wouldn't help, and it would be yet another giveaway to the super rich. There is a progressive solution. Seize failing banks, extend public credit. Start a national bank. There are numerous solutions.

[weezie1317]

8. It's easy to just be against the bill. But what other solution do you have?

[Renew Deal]

20. Any "solution" that doesn't solve the problem is not a solution.

The market needs to correct itself. There is no consensus that we're headed back to the depression. In fact, it's more likely if we pass this bailout bill.

[weezie1317]

26. There has NEVER been a concensus on a Depression before it happens. If that's what people are ....

waiting for, we're screwed!

[Orsino]

117. Well, heck.

We could agree to stand on our heads until the market corrects itself. Would we then be entitled to blame a subsequent depression on those who failed to stand on their heads? Do you believe that yesterday's bill was the only solution, or do you think that maybe a different bill passed tomorrow might be as good?

Because the Senate has yet to speak, and whatever happened yesterday, the Senate version was always going to be different, and a third version would have been delivered to the White House for signature.

Why must the choice be between yesterday's bill, which is lost forever, and another Depression?

[Veilex]

95. the solution is to

redirect the intended bailout out to the general American. The average American will spend more when they have more to spend...

[timtom]

98. Either the Kucinich plan or the Bernie Sanders plan

is far superior to the current Paulson fiasco.

[annabanana]

103. Here Here!. . . . . n/t

[Hannah Bell]

153. he just mentioned a couple. did you not notice?

[Tallison]

11. We have a national bank: It's called the Federal Reserve

and the public credit you speak of is called the bailout (a misnomer if there ever was one) a $700B line.

[David__77]

24. No, that's not true on either point.

The national bank was disbanded long ago. The Federal Reserve is not a public institution. Further, the $700 billion is not a loan, it's a giveaway in the form of the "purchase" of crappy "assets." If this were a loan package backed by solid collateral, I would maybe support it.

[Tallison]

31. The $700B is designed to purchase and be loaned

in to-be-determined combinations. If the assets that it buys turns out to be worthless, we're screwed with or without the bailout, but real estate always maintains some value. Remember we're on track for the $700B to be dispersed by a Democratic appointee who will set the purchasing price.

[sinkingfeeling]

37. The 'assets' in the bill weren't real estate.

[Tallison]

41. Their collateralization does consist of real estate and its commensurate value nt

[girl gone mad]

143. There might be some real estate..

but the bulk of the debt the banks want to offload is in Credit Default Swaps and other such instruments.

[Two Americas]

150. then we are screwed

I think you know that to be the case, if you are honest about it.

If the "assets" were not worthless, we wouldn't be in a crisis. Yes, I know, hope springs eternal that the magic carpet ride can be restored. They might be worth something. Maybe. Someday. Running the damned economy on inflated real estate and stock prices was always a bad deal, and the public was coerced into this. Of course. I can remember when deregulation first happened and the first salesmen started peddling this snake oil.

Oh, no, they said. These investments have real value - as defined as whatever a person is willing to pay, by using credit and in the hope of making a killing. Let's be honest about this for once.

The "value" was an illusion. It was all a shell game. Now these "assets" don't seem to have any real value, do they? Gee. What happened? What a scam. What a pack of lies.

So the question is no longer whether or not we will be screwed, whether or not there will be an economic crisis, but rather whether or not we will be free so that we can fight back and so that we can dig ourselves out of this mess and rebuild the country that the free marketeers have destroyed.

After 30 years of Hell can we now finally see through this shell game and be free from the tyranny of the market that Reaganomics place is in?

The pro-bailout arguments are all 180 degrees from the sales pitches that got people into this flawed and dangerous game to begin with. Both cannot be true - the promotion that started this game and the defense now of bailing it out.

They are in a rush, they are spreading panic (pro-market people spreading panic! Now isn't THAT telling?) not to avoid an economic crisis, but rather to escape judgment and responsibility, to avoid facing the truth, to pull the wool over our eyes - to keep the game going, the very game that itself caused the crisis, and to skip ahead quickly before the public catches on to the scam, and then to force us into a tyranny that will prevent us from overthrowing it in the future.

[redqueen]

125. Err I thought The Fed was a private corporation. (nt)

[MannyGoldstein]

6. The Bailout Is As Likely To Make Things Worse As It Is Better

So says the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, along with a good number of economists.

I'm for doing something - but only if it's something with a high probability of succeeding and not sodomizing me. For example, what Sweden did to bail out their markets would be fine by me.

[Satyagrahi]

107. "CBO head sees "chaos" without Wall St. bailout"

CBO head sees "chaos" without Wall St. bailout
Wed Sep 24, 2008 11:24am EDT

WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - The head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday warned of possible "chaos" in U.S. financial markets if Congress did nothing to address a sweeping Wall Street crisis.

In testimony to the House of Representatives Budget Committee, CBO Director Peter Orszag was asked to speculate what would happen if Congress refused to pass an aid package as requested by the Bush administration.

Orszag responded: "Having created the expectation in financial markets there will be a package, if there's no package whatsoever, there is a very substantial risk of utter financial market chaos."

Asked by Rep. Chet Edwards, a Texas Democrat, whether the result would be similar to the market crash of 1929, Orszag said: "You would have a financial market meltdown that would cause very severe dislocations ... maybe on the magnitude of the Great Depression."

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USWBT00980520080924

The impression that the bailout (Paulson 1.0, not necessarily Paulson-Dodd-Frank) could make things worse was based on this passage in his testimony:

Statement of Peter R. Orszag before the Committee on the Budget U.S. House of Representatives

Federal Responses to Market Turmoil
-snip-

Ironically, the intervention could even trigger additional failures of large institutions, because some institutions may be carrying troubled assets on their books at inflated values. Establishing clearer prices might reveal those institutions to be insolvent. (To the extent such insolvencies were revealed, the net effect might not be deleterious. Providing more transparency about the lack of solvency at specific institutions may be necessary to restore trust in the financial system.)

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/97xx/doc9767/MktTurmoil.htm

[ProfessorGAC]

122. So, We Should Go With PR, Rather Than Sound Economics

And, the second is wrong. There isn't a solvency crisis. There is a capital to asset ratio problem at the troubled banks. They're not all like that. And, the big caps have loads of liquidity.

The problem is grossly exagerrated. It needs to be fixed for certain, but there is no evidence that failure to do it instantly will lead to catastophe.
The Professor

[David__77]

7. "To those against the Patriot Act, are you honestly ready for another 9-11?"

This sort of political dialogue isn't useful.

[OhioChick]

9. No guarantee that a bailout will thwart a depression. n/t

[Honeycombe8]

109. No, but it's pretty much guaranteed we'll have one without a rescue. nt

[Tangerine LaBamba]

10. We're already in a depression

Unless and until banks are nationalized and the government starts making capital available to consumers for investment, we're not going to get any better.

Bailing out these richbitches is only postponing the inevitable and further enriching the rich.

[weezie1317]

29. No, this is a recession now, not a depression (yet).

[Dogtown]

35. Differentiation?

and citations, please.

[weezie1317]

45. Length of time and severity, to be general. Refer to financial dictionary if you need more.

[Dogtown]

66. Hardly

You made the claim, back it up.

I KNOW the difference. I also know you don't. So do the research if you're going to try to run a con on us, because you'd better expect to have your bluff called.

[weezie1317]

75. Calm down. I'm not conning you and I'm not going to play your silly little game.

[Dogtown]

82. This is no game.

You made a claim. When queried, you have to back up your claim. This isn't a faith-based forum where you can state an opinion as fact and leave it up to us to disprove.

If it is mere opinion, label it as such and stick around long enough to have a reputation before you expect people to be impressed by your opinion.

If you evade your responsibilities you're going to get frustratingly lonely around here.

[weezie1317]

87. Yes, your game of "I'm right unless you prove me wrong" is a silly, little game....

Definitions of recession and depression aren't opinions. It's readily available information. Get it yourself. I'm not your servant and I won't play your little game of "I'm right unless you prove me wrong." It's a poor approach to any discussion and people in general.

[Dogtown]

96. I made no claims, hence;

I have nothing to prove. When I make claims, I'm prepared to support my position; I expect others to be adults also.

Is this your first discussion forum?

I don't believe you. I think you're lying to attempt to spread panic. If you're *not* a liar, prove your attestation.



Now you're trying to wiggle out of the discussion. It's ridiculous to make a claim and expect others to do your research. If you expect us to spoon-feed you and wipe your lip when you're done, you are definitely in the wrong place. If you expect to make pronouncements without us questioning your credentials, you're in the wrong place. "It's a poor approach to any discussion and people in general." Are you suggesting we should accept the word of others until we can prove them wrong? If so, I have a used car I'm sure you'll be interested in; I assure you it's in pristine condition, and you can trust my information blindly and with complete confidence. 'Cause I typed it on the intertoobs...

[weezie1317]

116. Definitions of recession and depression are not "claims". Get yourself a dictionary.

[Dogtown]

119. THIS is a "claim":

"No, this is a recession now, not a depression (yet)."

I repeat, I *know* the definitions.

You've claimed we're in a recession. How do you know that? Are you an economist? Or just another fraidy-cat spouting the administration's meme?



You claim we're headed for a depression. Same query. Explain, in particular, what will bring about this depression you fear.

NOTE: Since you are so anxious, you should be able to explain how our present situation fits the definitions. With specificity.


Or admit you're a fear-monger with absolutely no basis for your presumption, that you didn't even bother to think it through before you began pontificating.


You just can't broadcast your lame opinion with out being able to support your premise.

[weezie1317]

127. Because the current conditions fit the standard definitions. Stop bullying people

[Dogtown]

128. IN WHAT WAY?

Jesus, quit whining. I'm not bullying you, I'm asking you to explain your position in a way that doesn't include faith in your pronouncements.

If you can't take that much heat, you have no business posting threads.

Do you know what you're talking about? In WHAT WAY do which current condition fit "standard definitions"? All you've done is push a panic button. Thanks for nothing, Chicken Little.

Now, disappear or support your premise.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. I'll give you the NCRB definitons, dummed down by the way

Recession: The BCDC Definition

The Business Cycle Dating Committee at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) provides a better way to find out if there is a recession is taking place. This committee determines the amount of business activity in the economy by looking at things like employment, industrial production, real income and wholesale-retail sales. They define a recession as the time when business activity has reached its peak and starts to fall until the time when business activity bottoms out. When the business activity starts to rise again it is called an expansionary period. By this definition, the average recession lasts about a year.

Depression

Before the Great Depression of the 1930s any downturn in economic activity was referred to as a depression. The term recession was developed in this period to differentiate periods like the 1930s from smaller economic declines that occurred in 1910 and 1913. This leads to the simple definition of a depression as a recession that lasts longer and has a larger decline in business activity.

So how can we tell the difference between a recession and a depression? A good rule of thumb for determining the difference between a recession and a depression is to look at the changes in GNP. A depression is any economic downturn where real GDP declines by more than 10 percent. A recession is an economic downturn that is less severe.

http://economics.about.com/cs/businesscycles/a/depressions_2.htm

Now I purposely went and FOUND a simpler defintion

[weezie1317]

156. Thank you. I thought I had simplified it enough upthread, but yours is clearly better. ()

[Tangerine LaBamba]

56. The answer you got was a joke;

the poster doesn't know what s/he's talking about.

The difference used to be that if there was a decline in the GNP by more than 10%, you had a depression. Now, with all the inflation and worthless dollars, I'm not sure that rule applies.

The oldest joke in the world was that a recession is when your neighbor loses his job.

A depression is when you lose your job.

I say, employ some common sense. Look around you. Banks are failing. The dollar is close to worthless. People are losing homes and jobs and savings. We manufacture nothing. We're bogged down in a couple of occupations of countries in the Middle East, both of which are sucking us dry.

And we're horribly in debt to other countries, with no way to pay them back on the horizon.

That's not a recession. That's a depression.

[Dogtown]

70. I didn't get an answer

Just more drivel and a refusal to cite sources.

Well, because that poster has no sources, except the little voices...

[Tangerine LaBamba]

81. My preference is to be polite

For instance, I have been known - not recently - to refer to George W. Bush as "human."

It's a failing, I know.......................

[Dogtown]

83. But a nice failing

I've noted your generosity before.

:hi:

[Tangerine LaBamba]

85. Aren't you something?!!!

:applause:

Thanks.............

[timtom]

101. Just to help settle any dispute:

Depression: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression

Recession: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession

This is supplied for all and sundry (including myself, who would not be able to give a definition right off the bat).

[Dogtown]

129. Thanks, Nate

But you know what I'm looking for. The OP is spreading doom/gloom. If she can't use the extant definitions to logically defend her premise, it folds on it's own.


*I* make no prognostications; were I to do so I would have facts at my disposal to support my position and refute detractors. I won't stand for intellectual laziness and whimpering.

If the OP just wanted some feel-good vibes, she should visit the lounge. General Discussion is just that, a place to *discuss*.

[tama]

104. The official GDP

is hoax, just like official inflation numbers etc.

Recession since dotcom collapse, debression since august 2007.

[Renew Deal]

12. Do you believe that the baiout bill will prevent the depression?

If not, why is it worth it?

[Lost-in-FL]

Are you going to believe what the WH is saying??

By the way... the Y2K never affected anyone.

[Pale Blue Dot]

14. I honestly believe that a depression is unavoidable,

and would have been worse after the bailout.

[avaistheone1]

19. Many of experts including those inside our own government agree with you.

[Blue Meany]

33. I think at best this is just one more Ponzi scheme that will

delay the ineviteable and leave us worse off. We are probably going to enter an era of hyper-inflation rather than a depression, but the results for most of us will be largely the same. I don't see how this can be avoided with the kind of borrowing the govt. has been doing and the fact that oil is starting to be de-coupled from the dollar. China and other countries that own our debt, of course, will try to stop this so that they will be paid back in currency that is worth what it was when they loaned it, but we will reach a tipping point where it's no longer worth for propping up the dollar or lending to us. And then we will learn what it feels like to live in the Third Wrold.

[RainDog]

159. I agree

we are seeing the outcome of thirty years of Reganomics.

Or rather, we are most definitely in for a hard recession, no matter what. I'd prefer that to the stagflation we will get by republicans and corporate democrats who refuse to accept reality.

It's the economic equivalent, to me, of Hitler in his bunker in Berlin saying let it burn because the German people did not try hard enough to fight for Nazism. It is ideological insanity, in other words.

People who think any bail out is going to create some magical financial miracle are only fooling themselves. Better to be realistic and prepare yourself for hard economic times. Better to align yourself with small-scale localized institutions and organizations that can start to create a recovery from this mess.

I think we saw, on Monday, the physical evidence of the failure of the U.S. empire based upon republican financial and neocon ideology. The longer people fail to see this, the harder it will be for them.

[Bluebear]

15. Do we want the next warning to be a mushroom cloud in New York City?

Really, can we discuss this without the panicky warnings? I think it's the 11th hour panic and urgency to ram a bill through that really worries people.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

16. how bad will it get either way?

I am firmly of the opinion ALOT of corporations need to die.

[Pale Blue Dot]

17. I honestly believe that a depression is unavoidable,

and would have been worse after the bailout.

[liberalmuse]

18. "Bring it on!"

FUCK no. You ask this as if no one here has thought about this. I have agonized over this, and have not slept for several nights. There is absolutely NO GUARANTEE THIS BAILOUT WILL WORK. Do you want to gamble your grandchildren's money on a plan whose roots were proposed by Paulsen, Bush, Cheney and the Wall Street investors who sat in on meetings with Paulsen while he was 'crafting' this? Really???

For those FOR the Bailout, are you ready for a Depression where we won't be able to dig ourselves out because all our money, and our children's money has already been committed to the people who got us into this mess?

[dmallind]

21. I'ma against THIS bailout.

Even though I am certainly not one of the doom and gloomers I did not liek this bailout.

It's better than the original idea, but that's it.

Give me a bailout that involves regulation, restriction of derivatives, mortgage insurance and mandatory refinancing, and that gives us an equity or at least option stake in the companies taking taxpayer money and that might work.

Remember this financial issue is all about trust. There is a manageable number of actual mortgages which will default. The ripple effect has changed that issue into whether banks trust each other. More psychology than economics> So injecting a bunch of cash will be at best a short term boost. If we want to fix this, fix the system. It will be cheaper AND more effective.

[wtmusic]

22. My favorite depression flavor is without $700B debt scooped on top. nt

[struggle4progress]

148. !

wat e sed!

[dkofos]

23. The bailout would not have worked. It has never worked before and it

will not work now.
I really hate to say this but we have to let this dog of an economy die
and rebuild it from the bottom up.

[stillcool]

54. Isn't it what JPMorgan did..

way back when?

[dkofos]

55. Yes and the japasese in the 80's or 90's

[peanut2010]

25. I have already been in on one past 8 years

so not much change here

[brazos121200]

27. Sometimes, great suffering is necessary for great acheivement.

Every great liberal achievement in history was brought about in some way by great suffering. First, the suffering of the serfs and indentured servants, later, the suffering of the slaves. Later still, the suffering of the lower classes who lost it all in the great depression. Without suffering, the country will likely contunue on in the present mode, with Bush's and McCain's crony bankers and CEO's controlling everything.
There is no guarantee, by the way, that this bailout package would have really done anything to prevent your suffering in the long run. It would more likely simply have delayed it for a little while.

[Tallison]

34. So hell, let's sabotage!

After all, it all works out in the end?

[brazos121200]

64. Its not sabotage to let people clean up their own messes.

Tough love, perhaps?

[Tallison]

65. It's myopic to think we all don't share the same yard it which the mess lies nt

[brazos121200]

71. As I've always said, Liberals are born enablers. Let's

bail out the repubs just one more time, and then they'll finally behave nobly. If we just give the greedy bankers and CEO's what they want, our billions of dollars, this will surely convince them to protect our mutual funds and retirement savings, since they surely deep down care for our welfare.
If you think collaborating with the republican bankers will win over their concern for your welfare, you are mistaken. They care only for themsleves, and the public be damned.

[Tallison]

74. IT'S ABOUT CREDIT LIQUIDITY, NOT THE STOCK MARKET!!!!!

(It's all caps because I'm yelling).

It's NOT about fat cats, it's about enabling small business to survive and maintain their payrolls. I'm ALL about the little people, being one myself.

[iiibbb]

113. The "Fat Cats" have plenty tucked away. They won't suffer. they'll get fatter.

It's the "middle-class" that's going to suffer.

They have enough assets to live comfortably as long as things are stable. They're the ones who lose everything.

The Fat cats actually will probably get fatter because of this. They have the assets to snap up real-estate bargains.

[LeftishBrit]

115. Exactly!

The fat cats will be among the survivors in any scenario. The middle clas, and even more, the already poor, are the ones at risk of suffering.

[brazos121200]

132. So if the government (us) gives them the 700 billion they will

have less, and the middle class will have more somehow. I'm not saying they won't, I just don't see how this would work. I know people are afraid of what might happen without the bailout, but to me it looks like ransom, somehow.

[LeftishBrit]

114. Yes, tough love worked so well in 1929; and less dramatically under Thatcher and Reagan!

The point is, the bankers would probably clean up their messes enough to survive themselves - but possibly with massive job losses and damage to huge numbers of other people.

What frustrates me here is not that I think the bailout is all that great, but the implied idea that toughness and laissez-faire are good for an economy; that the deserving will survive and those who fall must deserve to. The idea here seems to be that the frugal and the non-greedy would be the 'deserving' survivors, as opposed to the Thatcherite/Reaganite idea that the enterprising and industrious would be the 'deserving' survivors. But both are wrong IMO. The already-rich, those with connections, the tough, the healthy young adults, and the just-plain-lucky tend to be the survivors in such situations. Not the deserving, however this is defined.

I think that there needs to be SOME intervention, and the rich individuals and businesses need to pay for it by greatly increased taxation and regulation in the future, and without any more golden parachutes or huge bonuses. But not by allowing a huge bank failure that will drag everyone else down.

[brazos121200]

131. I certainly see your point, but my point was I guess that

in order for the citizens to get any real fundamental economic control of this economy, the rich bankers & industrialists (and unfortunately they will drag us down with them to be sure) must be allowed to hit rock bottom. It stinks, it is cruel, but what other path is there? Giving them what they want now will only convince them they did nothing wrong and that they can do it again, and again.
I was being facetious about the tough love, there is no love involved.

[LeftishBrit]

42. Achievements, liberal or otherwise, are NOT WORTH great suffering!!!

That's what Maggie and Ronnie and other right-wingers believed: that suffering and hardship are a good medicine for the economy and will force people to work harder and achieve more. That 'shocks to the system' are good for us.

The exact ideology may be different, but the willingness to allow the poor, sick and elderly to fall (and yes, these and not the rich are the ones who WOULD fall first!) to reform society is the same.

And by the way it was economic disaster and suffering that led to the 'achievement' of electing Hitler.

I am NOT happy about the excess power and influence of high finance; the golden parachutes; the replacement of an industrial economy by a money-for-its-own-sake economy. I hope that the crisis is resolved *and* that it serves as a wake-up call for lots of reforms, including increased taxation of the rich and less worship of the market. But I am not prepared to accept worldwide economic disaster, nor do I think that such a disaster would have the effects desired.

[brazos121200]

52. I don't WANT anyone to suffer, least of all the poor. But

sometimes suffering is inevitable. The thinking that if we just go along with and give the wall street tycoons what they want, our money, this will somehow alleviate our suffering, is false. This is a form of economic blackmail. The Republicans with their policies of rampant deregualtion over the past twenty or twenty five years have led to this mess, so let THEM get us out of this,if they can. If they can't, WE will when Obama comes to power in January.

[weezie1317]

46. What great achievement came from the oil crisis in the 1970's? Reagan's presidency?? What...

about the Great Depression? What great achievement came out of that? What great achievement came out of 9/11? Or World War I? The Vietnam War?

[brazos121200]

62. Not all suffering results in great achievement, but almost all

great achievement comes from the result of suffering. The Great Depression led to the election of Franklin Roosevelt, which would not have been possible without it. All of the great New Deal legislation, from Social Security on down, many of which we still have today, was a result of the suffering of the American people during the depression.
I'm not talking about suffering resulting from war, which is usually an exercise in insanity, but suffering of people as a result of economic or social inequity, which usually results in one way or another in great social reforms. An exception was World War II, which, among other things, led to the final dissolution of the colonial system and led to many great social social changes in this country. Among theses, the establishment of the GI Bill of Rights, whcih gave many lower income soldiers the ability to attend college, whcih they would never have been able to do had the war not occurred. Women, having worked in the factories during the war years would never go back to existing only for "children, church, and kitchen".
The excesses in power which GW Bush and the repub Congress assumed as a result of the 911 attacks may yet result in a disgust with this republican grab for power with a resurgence of Liberal Democratic ideals for a long time to come.

[weezie1317]

67. You're using consequential theories instead of direct cause and effect analysis. I disagree.

[leftofcool]

28. Fail

[MyNameGoesHere]

30. No one is prepared

And it's not about money it's about survival. Yes I think i am prepared. Because i know the difference between a "want" and a "need".

[RaleighNCDUer]

32. Since the bailout would not address the real fundamentals that are

wrong with this kleptocracy it would not stop any coming depression, which we would then have to face while dealing with yet ANOTHER 700 billion of debt.

Want to revitalize the economy? Pass a national universal healthcare plan, so workers can go where they want without fear of losing their health insurance; so entrepeneuers can start up new businesses on their very thin margins without risking losing everything to an accident or illness; so businesses are not hobbled by having to pay for their employees' healthcare, competing with foreign businesses which do not have that liability.

Want to revitalize the economy? Develop green technology, producing that tech here at home so we are not dependent upon foreign sources of energy and sending hundreds of billions of dollars overseas annually. That would create thousands of jobs, good quality jobs, and would move the US into leadership of one of the prime technologies of the coming century, instead of playing catch up with Japan and France.

You want to bring about a 21st century Great Depression? Give Wall Street hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars which will not go into addressing any of the screwed up fundamentals of this economy, but merely keep their ponzi scheme going for a few more months.

[RainDog]

164. you get it. too bad so many here do not.

[TexasObserver]

36. No, but I am ready to wait and let the markets move on their own.

Until the DOW loses 4000 points, talk of a Depression is silly.

This market has air in it, and no amount of bills from congress will change that.

Better the congress should wait, and when the public really wants congress to act, they'll let us know.

[bowens43]

38. There is nothing to support your assertion that there will be a depression.

You really have no idea what is going to happen, no one does. The hand wringing and doom and gloom here is really pathetic.

[coalition_unwilling]

58. Are you aware of what happened last week to

the spread between the rate at the Fed's discount window and the LIBOR rate?

If you are not aware, you probably should be.

If you are aware, are you saying that doesn't scare the be-jesus out of you?

I'm a Democratic Socialist (with a minor in classical econ) and it scared the shit out of me.

[live love laugh]

39. When you have to be FOR one to be AGAINST the other, you might just be talking RW BS. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

40. And, paying $700bn to the fat cats is supposed to prevent it?

It's like someone eating your food then demanding you pay them for it.

[Subdivisions]

43. Who says there will be a depression? Hell, according to some, we're not

even in a recession yet.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

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

[weezie1317]

49. There are a few foreign banks, but the assets the US govt would buy are US assets -- mortgages ...

of people in the US and US property. You need to bone up better on what the bill actually proposed before you go pointing fingers at people.

[weezie1317]

51. There are a few foreign banks, but the assets the US govt would buy are US assets -- mortgages ...

of people in the US and US property. You need to bone up better on what the bill actually proposed before you go pointing fingers at people.

[Renew Deal]

53. This is not how we talk to each other on DU.

Save the insults for your knitting forum.

[riverdeep]

47. No, this would have merely delayed the processes taking place now.

A 'rescue' plan that doesn't include rescuing those most in need is not a rescue plan at all. The economy would've started to tank when Obama, or McCain, got into office rather than now.

Now the financiers are going to have to stand or fall on their own two feet like the rest of us, and the market is reflecting that new reality.

[sinkingfeeling]

48. What depression? We will be seeing a recession. The stock market 'crash' doesn't even begin to

compare to any of the 10 worst crashes we've already experienced.

http://mutualfunds.about.com/cs/history/p/crash10.htm

[Ediacara]

50. I'm not against *a* bailout, I'm against *this* bailout

From what I've read (which admittedly could be totally wrong), it's essentially Paulson's plan with minor tweaks.

[Ah Xoc Kin]

57. this is an american problem not a global one

the rest of the world's banks are fine
their debts are not enough to drive them under, which stabilizes a decline in the u.s.

Germany already said they're not helping buy bad assets because
they're not worried enough to bother.

[coalition_unwilling]

59. Self-delete - n/t

[coalition_unwilling]

60. You need to pay attention to what is going on in the UK, before you

assert that the problem is strictly an 'American problem'. Some pretty big names in British banking are on the ropes right now, due to their heavy investments in CDOs and CDSes.

[donco6]

69. Do you even read the news?

Wake the hell up.

[Tallison]

77. Uh, five European countries have implemented their own 'bailout' programs over the last 48 hours

Germany, Holland, Iceland, Luxemburg, and Belgium.

[MillieJo]

133. No they are not, read about Bradford and Bingley,

the Lloyds/TSB - HBOS deal which is now indoubt because your congress voted against
the bailout. Read about the European stock market today, about the property market in the UK,
about the airlines in Europe under threat and the hyper-inflation in Africa.
Many other countries were counting on this Bailout, Gordon Brown looked ill last night, nobody
expected the bailout to be denied.

[screembloodymurder]

61. Yes I've been practicing, in fact

I'm already in one.

[Greyhound]

63. I don't think you get how bad it's been for those of us you've ignored for decades. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

68. No, but a Depression is coming, WITH or WITHOUT this pissant bail out.

Settle in ... no need to give the corporate crones a wet kiss as they relocate to Paraguay.

We're heading there and CONGRESS is not going to "fix" the economy. No way! No how!

Bank on it! :(

[depakid]

139. Another remarkably stupid thing to say

[Not the Only One]

72. If you want to stop a Depression, it'll take a hell of a lot more than $700B.

This was just a stimulus check for the wealthy fat cats. That's all.

Maybe we will go to a Depression, but it's not because of a failure to give Wall Street a paltry $700B.

[Kip Humphrey]

73. I'm ready.

[paparush]

76. No. But, I am ready for a better bill.

One that begins "I, Henry Paulson, do hereby resign immediately due to my gross incompetence and catastrophic lack of leadership."

[OnionPatch]

84. Yes. I want a better bill as well.

The Fat Cats are going to be walking away with much too much. Rightfully, they should be ruined for what they've done. But I don't want them to bring us all down with them. I think there must be a better answer.

[paparush]

88. For 8 years, Bush has done NOTHING for the middle class and working poor.

The original Paulson plan was more of the same; a big F-U to working people.

I know my life might change dramatically, but right now, I see this as a victory.

[Rockholm]

92. Against the current bill, but I believe it needed to pass.

The whole damned thing was shoved down our throats with a spoonful a fear to make it go down easy. That said, doing nothing is going to make things really bad.

[paparush]

94. I have a feeling we'll see a better bill by the end of the week.

Yes, markets are going to continue to tank. Nobody wants bread lines.

I don't think we'll see a ideological stalemate.

[Blue Diadem]

78. Yes if it should happen. There is no guarantee the bailout would work.

It might be a temporary fix but I still think the housing prices have to hit bottom and then level out and something has to be done about the derivatives.

We've already heard that our daughter will be losing her job, not due to the recession, but due to greed. Her job will be outsourced within the next year. She and my granddaughter live with us. If Dh loses his job, we will be lucky, we have a place we can go, and I won't hesitate to turn our keys over to the mortgage company. There was a time when the very thought of that would have killed me.

We've been through 2 plant closings, income 2/3 of what it was...which was never a lot. We've gone without medical insurance, gone without health care, had to use our savings, DH's pension was taken over by PBGC with their word that someday he'll get it at a considerable reduced rate.

I've reached a point of just not caring anymore. People didn't care when the jobs were being shipped overseas and when some states were suffering long before others. Many people looked down on factory workers..but as someone earlier said here..they were the canaries in the coal mine.

Some of us spoke up when housing prices were going wild. Our area was/is so economically depressed that we never had the steep housing increase that other parts of the state and country saw. But we still knew that housing prices simply did not and could not honestly go up that much in value in such little time. There was simply no way the economy could keep going at the rate it was, with people buying and buying and no way that housing could rise to unaffordable prices without consequences.

According to our former state AG this past Feb., about 50% of the foreclosures in my state were from job loss and/or medical crisis. 25% were people getting in over their head with sub-prime mortgages. The last 25% is from mortgages that involved outright fraud, where the buyer, the seller, the appraiser—everybody was cut in.

[leftofthedial]

79. the sky is falling! the sky is falling!

king george and Unka Dick done tol' me! The sky is falling!

[scisyhp1]

80. Not just Yes, but hell Yes, I am ready.

If it takes a depression to explain to people why capitalism
does not work and needs to be replaced by a better system, so be it.
Besides, it's not like the bailout was going to prevent the depression
anyway. Capitalism does not work because it is a stupid, cruel,
inhumane and, most of all, grossly inefficient economic system.
Not because a government refuses to spend the citizen's (and their
children's) money to prop it up. The longer they keep that charade
going the harder it will be on everybody to embrace the much needed
change. Sure, some will have to do without a new car for a few years.
And some even without a new mansion in the Hamptons. But our children
and their children with say us all a big Thank you some day. If that
is not a good enough reason for some people, all I can say is tough
shit for you.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

86. no job, here

Jobs were tight when I got whacked in December 2007. Things haven't improved since. What does this bailout TODAY have anything to do with my job prospects? Unless, of course, you are saying that this bailout TODAY would have guaranteed me a job. In that case, I'd say you have a point.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

97. nope...won't guarantee you a job

but if something doesn't happen your prospects for finding a job will be much worse...predicting 100,000 job losses this week...

sP

[ddeclue]

89. EXTORTION TACTIC...

Real simple to solve really... tell the Wall Streeters we're gonna nationalize (seize from them and take ownership) of anything that they can't fix - watch how fast they fix it. They won't want to give up that power and money.

Ultimately we must break up all the big companies into lots of little companies and restore the balance of power so that they can't pull this extortionist CRAP on us again.

Doug D.

[greguganus]

90. My job is safe. I work for a defense contractor. n/t

[Two Americas]

91. ready

While there may be some who, as you say, do not "get how bad this could be" it is more the case that they full well now how bad it already is.

If jobs are the problem, as you say, then that would suggest the exact opposite approach to the one you are frantically advocating, and trying to frighten people into accepting.

You are acknowledging the need for another New Deal, not a rehashed version of the same old deal that caused the crisis in the first place.

I agree - jobs must come first. Small businesses must come first. Bailing out Wall Street places working people and small businesses at the bottom of the list, not the top.

"This Nation asks for action, and action now."

"Our greatest primary task is to put people to work. This is no unsolvable problem if we face it wisely and courageously. It can be accomplished in part by direct recruiting by the Government itself, treating the task as we would treat the emergency of a war, but at the same time, through this employment, accomplishing greatly needed projects to stimulate and reorganize the use of our natural resources."

"The task can be helped by preventing realistically the tragedy of the growing loss through foreclosure of our small homes and our farms. It can be helped by insistence that the Federal, State, and local governments act forthwith on the demand that their cost be drastically reduced. It can be helped by the unifying of relief activities which today are often scattered, uneconomical, and unequal. It can be helped by national planning for and supervision of all forms of transportation and of communications and other utilities which have a definitely public character. There are many ways in which it can be helped, but it can never be helped merely by talking about it. We must act and act quickly."

"Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency."

- FDR

In other words -

- Jobs first

- Keep people in their homes

- Rein in the speculators and re-regulate the financial industry.

- Adequate, but sound, currency.

With that, we are all on board.

[krabigirl]

93. I don't agree that the bailout would stop a depression. I think it would make one worse.

The sky will not fall. But, a bailout bill in some form will pass. So, we'll have an economic crash AND our kids will owe $?? billion.

[Honeycombe8]

110. We're not "giving" $$. We're buying a piece of the action, and will get some of $$ back...maybe all

maybe all of it.

[JonLP24]

99. I agree something should be done but not the wrong thing

I'm not willing to support just anything to free up te markets. It gives too much power to the treasurer and it relies on the shoulder of taxpayers. Democrats should use their majority power and not worry about how the republicans will vote(look where that got us) and design a legislation that looks out for us.

[mdmc]

100. yes

I could suck it up...

[theDash]

106. I am already there

I have lost everything except my job. So if I lose my job, so be it, I can find something to do. I have 15 years experience in the IT profession, but I am not above doing any job, I will work wherever there is work in order to get by. In the past I have worked various second jobs or temporary work after a layoff until i found another job doing anything from waiting tables to construction work. Right now I am living with a relative who is also struggling who has his own home remodelling business. We share expenses and do what it takes to make it through these tough times.

Doesn't mean I want everyone to have to go through this, but there has to be another way other than hand over a blank check with no real oversight so that they can continue this obscene transfer of wealth from lower and middle class to the top 1-10%.

[Honeycombe8]

111. I've lost almost all my 401k. My job is hanging in the balance. I feel for you...

but hope I don't have to join your situation. I'm worried. I'm middle aged...it's unlikely I'd find much of a job, if I lost my job...if I'm lucky enough to get hired by anyone at all. My future has already been ruined, what with my hard earned money in my 401k disappearing. I am furious at this situation. I did everything right. Frugile. No debt. I saved and saved and did without vacations, new car, you name it. And now this. I am FURIOUS!

But this bill needs to be passed so I don't lose my job, too.

[mdmc]

120. the thing is

even if I lost my job I could manage.

But I don't think a bailout will save us for long.

We need real overhaul, not some bank bailout bs

[Honeycombe8]

135. How could you "manage" without income? This isn't a bailout, strictly speaking.

The govt is buying the loans, and will hopefully restructure them and recoup at least some of the money. That is what has happened in the past. People have suggested giving $ to the homeowners so they can pay off their mortgages. That would be a bailout, strictly speaking. Both the person who made the bad loan and the lender who gave the bad loan would benefit, and we taxpayers would be out all that money totally.

Regulation is necessary, obviously. But that's too complex to structure in a week. The experts....all of them that I've heard and read....say that something needs to be done very soon.

Soon. That's the key. We'd all like things to be different, the bill to be different. But something needs to be done soon.

[mdmc]

166. we need a game changing bailout

not the paulson plan with lipstick

[MillieJo]

134. Our leaders are in the UK

now fighting to stop us from losing their savings,to save masses of jobs and keep our banks in business.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7644818.stm

UK businesses have been folding for weeks. Anyone in the UK who can't buy or sell their homes, that was stuck in Florida while a huge
travel company folded, that is working for HBOS, Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley and who works in The City or has a heating bill, knows we are in serious financial trouble. If America is in trouble, so is Europe and so is the rest of the world.
The bailout may have bought time until the US election, which will no doubt have a huge impact on the world economy and confidence in
Wall Street.

[girl gone mad]

152. Your housing bubble was probably much worse than ours. n/t

[tama]

102. You don't have any idea

how bad this will be.

To answer your questions, I'm learning gardening hoping to be able to grow what I need to eat. I don't plan to live dependent of money in any form.

[NNN0LHI]

105. I keep posting this to these kinds of threads but never get a reply so I will try again

Both my parents lived through the Great Depression

They both swear things improved for them mightily around the time that the Depression began.

They said before the Depression began their families with their meager incomes (Whatever they could scratch up.) were trying to compete in a marketplace where most people had plenty of money which kept prices for food and other necessities high. Higher than they could afford. For a treat they would have the electricity turned on for a few days around Christmas if they were really lucky. They were literally starving.

It wasn't until a lot more people found themselves in my parents families shape that things improved for them. The jobs programs like WPA and other help began because almost everyone found themselves in the same boat as my parents.

Right now we have a number of people are really hurting in this country. Probably close to the same shape as my parents were in before the Great Depression. But right now the majority of people can still afford to pay the high food and energy prices which tends to keep those prices high. Supply and Demand.

Just thought I would throw that in.

Don

[Honeycombe8]

108. Not me! I get the message. My 401k is almost gone. My job is at risk! nt

[RadiationTherapy]

118. I am psychologically prepared to survive for a while. perhaps outside of society.

That's about it. I am unsure about what direction I want to take with "survival stuff". I am unsure if I woill be losing my house or not if this crisis rolls on.

[ProfessorGAC]

121. Next!

When you have proof of the consequences, let me know. In the meantime, crawl back into your fetal position and leave me alone.
The Professor

[TahitiNut]

130. (lol!)

I'm sure glad I've taken the "against THIS kind of bailout" stance ... without your more able guidance and input. It sure stinks to high Heaven to me.

[pipi_k]

123. In case nobody else mentioned it...

there is no guarantee that this bailout will even work.

In fact, things could end up getting worse anyway, according to some economists I've heard.

Then what?


What do we do...just fork over 700 billion and then say, "Ooopsie" if it doesn't work?

Not with my money, they don't.... And not with the money of tens of millions of other Americans from the looks of things...

[redqueen]

124. I think many expect a Depression-style collapse no matter what we do.

Hence the lack of any urgency to forestall it.

[earth mom]

126. We're already in a depression. How many have lost homes & jobs?

:grr:

[davidthegnome]

137. I'm in the middle, but..

I'm leaning against it, even though my opinion regarding the matter is pretty much irrelevant. I've read as much as I could stomach regarding this, and I still don't come close to understanding it completely. What I do understand is that we've passed a military defense budget that was enormous, without so much as blinking an eye. It was overshadowed by this bailout plan, which involves more money than the federal budget.

Do I think the American people should give up seven hundred billion dollars to a shitty plan that will do little if anything to help them? Should they sacrifice seven hundred billion, that they and future generations will be paying for? If I was in a position where I had money... I would say no. Give us a plan that does something for the other 95% of the American people. At the very least... it needs to be more clear.

Could I support myself in the event of a depression? I can't support myself now, no jobs available, no income, no way to get into school. I live with my parents, who I think could survive, but I'm not certain. When they get old, I get to repay the favor they've done me all these years by supporting me, and I will. Don't care what they think about the bailout.

Overall though... this whole thing has nothing to do with me. I guess I'm adding my input because it (the plan) sucks, and because it obviously sucks. Even Ben Stein thinks it sucks. Kucinich, a man famed for his honesty, tells us it's worse than shitty.

That's my ten cents... or would be, if I had ten cents.

[TexasObserver]

138. THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!

This hasn't been as bad as the late 80s, yet.

We are lightyears from the Great Depression.

If you like to scare yourself, watch that Freddie Kruger bunch of films. That's about as real as the collapse you fear.

[depakid]

141. You no idea what you're talking about

You posted in another thread that you walked around your area and "everything looked fine" so therefore it doesn't look like there's a problem!

Here's a clue- if the credit markets spiral out of control- you'll be seeing double digit inflation, 15% easy- and if at the same time oil rises to $200+ per barrel and keeps, you and everyone else is going to be in for a world of hurt every bit as bad as anything that happened in the 1930's.

[TexasObserver]

145. First, stop lying about what I said.

I am well paid to know what I'm talking about.

I said in another post I have been talking to people in banks and in businesses in many venues, finding out from them if they are seeing any effects of a credit crunch. The answer is NO.

Unlike you, I actually get paid to advise people what to do with millions of dollars they invest. Part of my work includes being in contact with many people in many venues, people who are well placed in business and lending. Unlike you, I know what I'm talking about. You've yet to post anything demonstrating more than half-baked misconceptions typical of low rollers.

In summary, you're a lightweight who hasn't got a clue.

[depakid]

146. That's basically what you said!

and I haven't seen one lick of evidence that you "advise people with millions of dollars." Quite the contrary.

If you actually knew anything- and if you actually talked to bankers, they'd tell you that yeah, we've never seen numbers like this before- much less credit markets being frozen (which is unprecidented).

[TexasObserver]

147. Believe what you want to, kid.

But stop lying.

[depakid]

149. Typical Texas arrogance- long on the boasts

and impoverished of content.

[TexasObserver]

151. That's the sign of a guy who knows he's beat: the appeal to bigotry.

Texas is a state with a lot more Democratic congressmen and women than Tennessee.

[lligrd]

140. Nope, I Think We Should Bail Them Out And Put The Depression Off

until after Christmas.

[NickB79]

142. I've been thinking about how to survive a 2nd Great Depression for 3 years now

I began preparing after I discovered the concept of Peak Oil.

In the short term, I work as a food safety technician for a major dairy company, so unless people stop eating yogurt, sour cream, and cheese my job should be fairly safe. My fiance is a pharmacy technician, and again that appears to be a fairly safe job compared to most others in the service industry. People need to eat, and people need their medications.

If the crap really does hits the fan, I have my father, 6 uncles, and my grandmother who all own small family farms (120-500 acres) in central Minnesota. All the farms are paid off, and several of my uncles and my grandmother are literally millionaires. My grandmother raised her boys to be as frugal as possible, since she and my grandfather grew up in the Great Depression. We could easily move in with any one of them and be welcomed with open arms.

I already know that we could grow all the food we need and then some to get by. We have large organic gardens, fruit and nut orchards, chicken coops, livestock, and extensive knowledge of wild, edible plants and huntable game species. We know how to can, dry, jar and pickle food for long-term storage. We know how to save seed from one season to the next without harmful cross-pollination. All the tractors and equipment are 50+ years old but in VERY good condition, more fuel-efficient than the monster tractors currently used on megafarms today, simple to repair, and there are numerous old tractors on hand available for spare parts. My great-grandfather's Elis Chalmers tractor that he purchased in the 1930's is still being used on a daily basis by my father! It would be ironic that a tractor that plowed the fields during the first Great Depression should be plowing fields during the Second. Even if gasoline and diesel go to $10/gallon, we could afford to plow enough acreage to make ends meet. If things got REALLY bad, I have actually researched how to press soybean oil from soybeans, and convert it to biodiesel or convert engines to accept SVO instead. Central Minnesota is still a close-knit community, with neighbors taking care of each other in times of need. Many of my classmates from high school have actually stayed in the area, so even though I moved away 5 years ago even I still have roots in the community.

It would be tough, no question, but we would at least have plenty of food, well-insulated roofs over our heads, warm wood-burning stoves stoked with logs from our own woods, and no debts. I can live with that.

[lligrd]

144. I've Been Mentally Prepared For Even Longer

I thought when * got selected the first time that he would bankrupt the country and I knew it when he stole it the second time. Still not looking forward to it though,nor do I think it an ill planned, rushed bailout will do an iota of good.

[JVS]

154. If it were really so serious, Wall Street would accept less favorable terms.

The bailout can happen without my objection when they no longer profit from it.

[TexasObserver]

155. It's a boondoggle. We're being played. Again.

You tell them: It's unconditional surrender to Democratic terms, or go fuck yourselves.

[TBF]

157. Yes I hope the whole damned thing crashes.

I'd love to see a country in which we could start anew. That's probably not what you're going for, but I'm sick of the scare tactics and I'm certainly not afraid of you. Who do you work for anyway?

[cui bono]

158. OMG... STOP ALREADY!!!

These posts are ridiculous. It's not an either/or scenario. Can you not see past your fear? You are acting EXACTLY the way Bush and the CEOs want you to?

There are better ways to get the money than to transfer wealth to bail out not only Wall Street, but FOREIGN BANKS! Have you researched this at all?

I'm sick of posts like this saying those who are against unregulated legalized theft are for a depression.

[RainDog]

160. exactly

or the bullshit response that those who oppose the currently structured measures are irrational.

what is irrational is to throw more money into a junk financial structure.

[eowyn_of_rohan]

161. i don't think passage of this bill will either prevent nor cause a depression

[tuckessee]

162. What's your guarantee this will stop a depression?

How do you know it won't merely forestall a depression which would be worse when it finally occurs?

How do you know it will work at all, even temporarily?

[chicagoexpat]

163. Please, it's the internet -- they'll never accept responsibility for their inane views --

they'll just spout their nonsense all over again the next time some issue comes up

[NotGivingUp]

165. Great replies. A very intelligent thread. OP...I hope you've come around to your senses. n/t