$700 Billion Bail-out?
09-30-2008, 12:08 PM
#31
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Union City
Posts: 14,983
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
This is what Ron Paul had to say with Wolf Blitzer: "Wolf Blitzer: What do you say to the president who wants you and your fellow Republicans and Democrats to quickly pass this $700 billion bailout package?
Paul: Well, I think that's a mistake because we don't have the money. But that doesn't mean you have to do nothing. I mean, we could reform the system. We could return to sound money. We could balance our budget. We could change our foreign policy. We could take care of our people at home. We could lower taxes.
There's a lot of things that we can do. But the worst thing that we can do is perpetuate the bad policies that gave us this trouble in the first place, and that is that we no longer, over the last quite a few decades, believed in free-market capitalism. Capital is supposed to come from savings. We're supposed to work hard and save.
As a matter of fact, the Chinese work hard, right now, and they save, and they're buying up the world. But we borrow and spend and consume, and now it's caught up to us and it's undermining our whole system. ... So this $700 billion is not going to do it.
Paul also argued that ...
... contrary to the White House's contention, this plan does not help Main Street.
"This is Wall Street in big trouble and sucking in Main Street, now, and dumping all the bills on Main Street. ... And you can't solve the problem of inflation, which is the creation of money and credit out of thin air, by more money and credit out of thin air, and not changing policy. We have to change basic policy.
"Yes, it would be painful, but it wouldn't last so long. What they're doing now, they're propping up a failed system so the agony lasts longer. They're doing exactly what we did in the Depression."
"So, yes, there are going to be losses, but everybody lived beyond their means when the prices of houses were going up. Nobody cared about it. They kept borrowing against it. Oh, yes, that was fine and dandy. Everybody was making money, and the owner of the home kept borrowing and living beyond their means. Now they have to live beneath their means.
"What the government is doing now -- and this new program is trying to prop up prices. You want the price structure to adjust. You want the price of houses to go down. You don't want to fix the price of housing. You can't price-fix. We've had too much of that.
"We need a market economy. We need to believe in ourselves. We need to believe and understand how the economy got us -- how the government got us into this mess. And believe me, it wouldn't be that tough. It would be a bad year. But, this way, it's going to be a bad decade."
Paul: Well, I think that's a mistake because we don't have the money. But that doesn't mean you have to do nothing. I mean, we could reform the system. We could return to sound money. We could balance our budget. We could change our foreign policy. We could take care of our people at home. We could lower taxes.
There's a lot of things that we can do. But the worst thing that we can do is perpetuate the bad policies that gave us this trouble in the first place, and that is that we no longer, over the last quite a few decades, believed in free-market capitalism. Capital is supposed to come from savings. We're supposed to work hard and save.
As a matter of fact, the Chinese work hard, right now, and they save, and they're buying up the world. But we borrow and spend and consume, and now it's caught up to us and it's undermining our whole system. ... So this $700 billion is not going to do it.
Paul also argued that ...
... contrary to the White House's contention, this plan does not help Main Street.
"This is Wall Street in big trouble and sucking in Main Street, now, and dumping all the bills on Main Street. ... And you can't solve the problem of inflation, which is the creation of money and credit out of thin air, by more money and credit out of thin air, and not changing policy. We have to change basic policy.
"Yes, it would be painful, but it wouldn't last so long. What they're doing now, they're propping up a failed system so the agony lasts longer. They're doing exactly what we did in the Depression."
"So, yes, there are going to be losses, but everybody lived beyond their means when the prices of houses were going up. Nobody cared about it. They kept borrowing against it. Oh, yes, that was fine and dandy. Everybody was making money, and the owner of the home kept borrowing and living beyond their means. Now they have to live beneath their means.
"What the government is doing now -- and this new program is trying to prop up prices. You want the price structure to adjust. You want the price of houses to go down. You don't want to fix the price of housing. You can't price-fix. We've had too much of that.
"We need a market economy. We need to believe in ourselves. We need to believe and understand how the economy got us -- how the government got us into this mess. And believe me, it wouldn't be that tough. It would be a bad year. But, this way, it's going to be a bad decade."
We, as a country, are stupid... we are going to deserve the downfall that is to come someday for the idiocies of electing people without really looking into them. I mean, dammit, how did we put Bush in office? How did we put Pelosi into office?
****
09-30-2008, 12:10 PM
#32
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Union City
Posts: 14,983
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
One last thing: and this is going to sound condescending but oh well: email or fax your senators guys.
I really mean it, if enough people tell their senators/representatives that we will not vote for you come re-election if you vote yes on this bill, we will see it defeated.
I really mean it, if enough people tell their senators/representatives that we will not vote for you come re-election if you vote yes on this bill, we will see it defeated.
09-30-2008, 12:14 PM
#33
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Los Altos, CA
Posts: 2,585
Car Info: The Latest From WayneTech.
Ron Paul is considered too much of a 'loose cannon' by right wing standards (even though he is Libertarian, so that doesn't make sense to me) thats why he didn't get a nod.
I don't think he's a loose anything - the man has *****. Conhones. Chutzpah. That and he recognizes the China threat while the rest of our politicians run around with their heads cut off.
I don't think he's a loose anything - the man has *****. Conhones. Chutzpah. That and he recognizes the China threat while the rest of our politicians run around with their heads cut off.
09-30-2008, 12:40 PM
#34
I don't need more cowbell dammit!
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Equally as important as Walter
Posts: 3,203
Car Info: E82
The credit market is frozen for the most part. Liquidity is not to be had anywhere, not even in banks without subprime exposure. I know this for a fact. It is impossible to get a loan, banks do not have enough deposits and there is not enough interbank credit to be had to jumpstart the credit market. There needs to be a capital infusion, however Washington is going about it in the incorrect way. They have the big banks by the ***** and are acting as though there are no alternatives other than to just give away this money and recieve nothing in return. If they do issue this money in exchange for warrants, which may or may not be redeemed for almost useless stock, it is essentially giving the big banks the power to do as they please. If they were to examine what Warren Buffet did with Goldman, that is purchase $5 Billion in preferred stock, they would gain a voting position in many of the big banks not to mention a seat of the board of directors in many of them as well which gives the fed power to steer the banks in the direction they want them to go in and eventually could sell the stock and see a positive return on their investment, which is what the bailout should be, rather than a blank check rescue plan which is what the defeated bill essentially was.
09-30-2008, 12:57 PM
#35
Old School
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Union City
Posts: 14,983
Car Info: '99 RBP GM6
The credit market is frozen for the most part. Liquidity is not to be had anywhere, not even in banks without subprime exposure. I know this for a fact. It is impossible to get a loan, banks do not have enough deposits and there is not enough interbank credit to be had to jumpstart the credit market. There needs to be a capital infusion, however Washington is going about it in the incorrect way. They have the big banks by the ***** and are acting as though there are no alternatives other than to just give away this money and recieve nothing in return. If they do issue this money in exchange for warrants, which may or may not be redeemed for almost useless stock, it is essentially giving the big banks the power to do as they please. If they were to examine what Warren Buffet did with Goldman, that is purchase $5 Billion in preferred stock, they would gain a voting position in many of the big banks not to mention a seat of the board of directors in many of them as well which gives the fed power to steer the banks in the direction they want them to go in and eventually could sell the stock and see a positive return on their investment, which is what the bailout should be, rather than a blank check rescue plan which is what the defeated bill essentially was.
I mean, that's the right thing to do, reward the banks that were smart and invested well, and didn't shell out credit to every schmuck that walked through the door.
09-30-2008, 01:05 PM
#36
I don't need more cowbell dammit!
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Equally as important as Walter
Posts: 3,203
Car Info: E82
As much as I would like to see them get their come-uppance as well, especially since it would benefit me and my employer greatly, that would be devistating to the economy and would take years and years to recover. Our government just needs to lose the attitude that we owe the big banks something where as the fact is that the big banks owe the american people something. However the government getting the bad paper in their control and renegotiating the terms of the loans to be manageable and then selling them back as good loans wouldn't be the worst thing in thew world. However, I dont think that is necessarily the plan.
09-30-2008, 06:42 PM
#43
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Rohnert Park, CA
Posts: 1,828
Car Info: nothing
last time a vice president ran the country....?? I think Palin will serve biden.
Well i'm glad we all agree on ron paul.. it's too bad he dropped out god damnit!!! I really did like the dude!
Well i'm glad we all agree on ron paul.. it's too bad he dropped out god damnit!!! I really did like the dude!
09-30-2008, 07:22 PM
#44
If the credit market are frozen - why do the 0% and 1% balance transfer offers keep rolling into my mailbox? A few days ago I recieved a one year 1.99% balance transfer offer from Bank of America and yesterday I received a zero percent balance transfer offer until 2010....and take a wild guess where that came from..... WAMU!!
F this bailout, I already emailed our reps - I suggest you do the same. No more printing money out of thin air!!
F this bailout, I already emailed our reps - I suggest you do the same. No more printing money out of thin air!!
09-30-2008, 07:23 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: I was up above it, now I'm down in it
Posts: 5,686
Car Info: New Government Motors SUV!
As far as Palin serving anybody, you said the same thing about Friday's debate. Either way, I'd like to see Sarah "Interview To Nowhere" Palin and "Slow" Joe Biden. This should be much more entertaining than last Friday.