This question may be best answered by another question.

Assume that you are in a prison shower room and have dropped your soap and bent down to pick it up.

What happens then?

You have just dropped 300 million bars of soap in that same location and you and I are going to get the same treatment for picking it up.

Smile!

'Smile!'

Posted by keith204

Don't forget the K-Y jelly!
You'll need it, suckers.

******Billions for Bailouts! Who Pays? ******

Depends on who you elect next President.

Elect McCain............you pay
Elect Obama.............you pay + millionaires pick up their share

.......either way...if you've got a job..you will pay....

** Billions for Bailouts! Who Pays? **

The Question Should Be : Who Benefits ?

The Richer you are..the more shares you have on Wall Street..the more you benefit...

.........this is a scheme to bail out "Capitalists" on a losing streak.......

If these firms are being bailed out by taxpayer money, and taxpayer money is our money, do we now own those firms? And where's my next rebate check??

I've an idea, but I doubt those fascist fucks in power would go for it.

Why not bail the borrower? After all, who's really taking it up the chocolate chute on this? The fucking banks? My heart bleeds.

Simple, Bush wants to purchase all that bad paper. Cool. Send me the goddamned money, and yes, I'll forward it to the bank. Done. House is mine, bank is paid off, there goes that.

Gee, wasn't that simple?

"Send me the goddamned money, and yes, I'll forward it to the bank. "

I'd gladly check that box on my ballot.

Ya know the other day I was going to the Whole Foods and this guy got out of an H2 and ran in to buy some organic produce and a couple of NY Strip steaks and when he got to the counter he was paying with federal bailout stamps.

Ya know I used to get mad when I saw that kind of abuse of the system but then I started thinking, this guy probably has a trophy wife he has to support and you know those are expensive, might have a kid on coke in LA or NY thats not cheap just in the lawyer bills, probably has only has 2 or 3 houses left and can barely hold on to those, he might have even had to sell his private jet on Ebay. I mean until I walk a mile in his Allen Edmonds how am I to know what burdens he has. It does worry me a bit that he might develop an entitlement mentality and turn into a leach on the system but then I remember oh yeah we are the richest nation on earth, we should be able to take care of every one.

we give the loan
as american citizens

they pay the interest
as bailed out corps

and the us govt keeps the checks

what they do with it.

line bush/cheney/mccain and the alaskan peoples pockets

Nice feudal system we have going on here, eh.

** Billions for Bailouts! Who Pays? **

The Question Should Be : Who Benefits ?

#4 | Posted by skizziks

The question you forgot!

Who authorizes the bail-out?

Sanders is not a (D-Vt.), arbusto.

He's the other independent.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.): The current financial crisis facing our country has been caused by the extreme right-wing economic policies pursued by the Bush administration. These policies, which include huge tax breaks for the rich, unfettered free trade and the wholesale deregulation of commerce, have resulted in a massive redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the very wealthy.

Exactly what I've been posting on here for months.

Bush's globalism and free trade schemes are destroying our country.

chris
one correction

bush/mccain's globalism..

I stand corrected, Klifferd. : )

"Bush's globalism and free trade schemes are destroying our country."

Obviously, but some here still play partisan "I hate Dems" games. They may change their tune when the economy actually does melt down and some economists predict that it is a matter or weeks.

"bush/mccain's globalism.."

McCain wants MORE Freeeeeee Trade, we haven't outsourced enough manufacturing jobs yet.

Why is this Man not President of the United States??? Because we get what we deserve...

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis

...But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years....

Obama has no background in economics. Who advises him? Franklin Raines is his advisor on mortgage and housing policy. Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed extensive financial fraud. Raines made millions, Fannie Mae collapsed.

Then lets not forget Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae CEO. Fanny cooked the books and Johnson made millions. Then, Obama asked him to pick his VP and raise thousands for his campaign.

If you adjust for years in the Senate Obama recieved more lobby money from Freddie and Fanny than any sentor in history, period.

And you still try to blame Bush? I don't know if your libs are just that stupid or that corrupt.

MUTT, that may well be true but it still doesn't replace a Republican Majority and a Republican Presidency. It does make those individuals look bad but doesn't explain how the regulatory agencies did nothing for the past 7-1/2 years. I compare it to Katrina, illegal immigration and the corruption of the Iraq reconstruction fund. YOu want to just make it political because you might have to face the fact that the REpublican Party (with some cooperation from some Dems) has allowed a disaster to occur.

"Then, Obama asked him to pick his VP and raise thousands for his campaign."

Almost as bad as McCain having Phil Graham for his chief financial advisor.

"Under Raines, Fannie Mae committed extensive financial fraud. Raines made millions, Fannie Mae collapsed."

That is an allegation, not a fact. Probably picked it up as a talking point from some right winger.

"And you still try to blame Bush? "

No, by all means, let's ignore the guy at the top, or the party in power for most of the last decade, and blame it on some Junior Senator from the midwest.

So, you are saying that whoever is in the power gets the blame, right?

Well how about Clinton buying votes with FEMA money.

Buying votes with disaster relief: critics say the Clinton administration has rewritten the rules to more than double the opportunities to dole out federal funds under his presidential emergency powers

How bout we put the lot of em in irons? Every last one of em; then we will see what can get done.

"failue(sic) of the economy under Carter "

Ah yes.
Back when the national debt was the lowest since WWII.

That is an allegation, not a fact. Probably picked it up as a talking point from some right winger.

#23 | Posted by danni at 2008-09-22 03:08 PM

Wednesday, December 22, 2004; Page A01

Franklin D. Raines stepped down yesterday as chairman and chief executive of Fannie Mae, as the company's directors ended days of tense and emotional deliberations and bowed to pressure from regulators who wanted him out. ....

..The departures come less than a week after the Securities and Exchange Commission directed the giant mortgage-funding company to make accounting corrections that could erase $9 billion of past profit....

"How about the massive and I do mean massive failue of the economy under Carter, does he get credit for that?"

The old attack Carter distraction even as the economy spins around and around the toilet bowl....

I was working during the Carter administration, yeah the oil embargo was a bitch, other than that though today is far worse. There was no melt down under Carter, the debt was low and our biggest problem was the inflation he inherited from Nixon/Vietnam.

Mutt,
Did you even check the link you provided? The answer at FactCheck is "No. Fewer soldiers died during Clinton's presidency than during Bush's.

"do you know know many died under Clinton, I bet not.
Posted by Mutt at 2008-09-22 03:18 PM"

That's because it's not true.

From the FactCheck article linked by Mutt

Most of the numbers in this e-mail are completely made up. We were particularly amused by its bravado in providing a supposed source for the information but anyone who bothers to check that source will find that it contradicts the information presented. The truth is that more military personnel died during the first six years of the Bush administration than died during the eight years Clinton was in office, even counting military deaths in the U.S. from accidents, murders, suicides and natural causes.

"I don't know read into it what you will, or not."

I did read it and I also read some other articles about Raines and there is no strong consensus that he did anything wrong. There was disagreement about accounting practices but no accusations of wrong doing. He resigned for the good of Fannie Mae not really in response to proof that he had done anything wrong.

Both parties work towards the "privitised profits/ publicly subsidised risks" thing but with the Rightnuts it's like a fucking religion or sommat.

Quite simply if you aint a millionaire and you vote Rethug this time around you are effectively cutting yer own throat.

This election is such a geek test of Americas ability to see through the shit.

Good luck with that.

Be Well.

******And you still try to blame Bush? . ...
..Posted by Mutt ******

......is he still the President ?........

And you still try to blame Bush?

~Mutt.

No moron the real question is why you still try and defend BushCo's Reign of Errors with pathetic rightwing talking points like the Raines thing.

Sheesh!

......is he still the President ?........

~Skizziks

Was he ever really?

Be Well.

If these firms are being bailed out by taxpayer money, and taxpayer money is our money, do we now own those firms?

In the case of the AIG bailout, we own "warrants" that entitles the US to 80% of the company if AIG doesn't pay us back.

I suspect that one of the fights regarding the new bailout will be whether or not the government takes a similar ownership position in companies whose mortgage backed securities we purchase. It has been reported that Bush would veto any bill that includes the US taking an ownership position. I suspect Democrats and Republicans in congress would unite to override such a veto.

"In the case of the AIG bailout, we own "warrants" that entitles the US to 80% of the company if AIG doesn't pay us back."

Conveniently for them they got their bail out before this big bail out, when the inflationary effect of this bailout percolates through they will be paying back the government with dollars worth less than what they were loaned even with the 11% interest charged.
What the banks are saying is give us one trillion now and we will give you back one trillion later when it is worth far less, possibly 0.

Any bailout funds should be tied to the rate of inflation and they should be repaid at the inflation rate + interest.

Skizziks, I guess your paycheck must be signed by a poor person. Be careful on how far you can push your boss. At some point, he will have to decide if it is worth being in business.

Danni,

Screw that. Charge them 25% interest just like they would the average consumer.

At some point, he will have to decide if it is worth being in business.

Um, yeah sure.

Is that why there was no American businesses in the 1950's when the top tax rate was 90%?

"Screw that. Charge them 25% interest just like they would the average consumer."

+ the rate of inflation. Their bailout, they know, will bring on the mother of inflations.

I think by 24 hours from now the bailout idea will be public enemy number one. America isn't quite as dumb as we were a few years ago, seems two terms of Bush have forced millions of us to become far less trusting of our government.

Good article from Senator Sanders. While he rightly points the finger at the Bush administration, no one should overlook this:

"(3) Legislation must be passed which undoes the damage caused by excessive de-regulation. That means reinstalling the regulatory firewalls that were ripped down in 1999."

Some of the deregulation that led to the problems we have had in the last 10 years -- including the Enron debacle and now the problems in the financial services sector -- started under Clinton and was supported by him.

Don't let any of these bastards off the hook, regardless of party.

There is a huge fight looming between congress and the administration and it centers around what the US will get in return for this bailout.

This bailout is beginning to sound more and more like Social Security Privatization as pushed by Bush a few years ago. The American people said...."no sale." I think we are going to say "no sale" on this crap too. The urgency they are trying to frighten us with is beginning to sound more and more like WMDs in Iraq.

Capitalism works about as well as Communism.

Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. Too big to fail but not too big to exist with no regulation or oversight. What a great scam. No wonder our recent elections have been about God, gays, guns, abortion and flags.

726,
This isn't the 1950's.

No way do any of the execs involved get their bonuses.
It's time for corporate America to review their entire "bonus" system. Since the cat is out of the bag, I favor legislation limiting those bonuses in this country.

dumb as rocks,
Capitalism worked just fine until politicians learned how to interject socialism into the process.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: "It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing."

AIG, at the time of reporting second-quarter results in August, disclosed that a residential mortgage-backed securities portfolio held about $16.6 billion in debt issued by the GSEs.

Capitalism worked just fine until politicians learned how to interject socialism into the process.

Tell that to 1929, ya putz.

Pure capitalism like pure socialism is unworkable.

America was founded on the notion that a system of checks and balances is required in order to prevent the advantaged from screwing over the disadvantaged in perpetuity.

A nation is only as great as the value of it's social contract.

Is called "promoting the general welfare"

Be Well.

#53

726,
This isn't the 1950's.

#50 | Posted by kindabusy

That's right, the economy wasn't on the verge of collapse in the 50's. Maybe they were doing something right then. In fact, the more tax breaks the rich get, the worse the economy does.
And rich people don't sign your check out of their personal accounts unless you're a butler, a maid, a pet groomer, a personal shopper or any other 'profession' that directly caters to the aristocracy.

"And rich people don't sign your check out of their personal accounts unless you're a butler, a maid, a pet groomer, a personal shopper or any other 'profession' that directly caters to the aristocracy."

Hmmm, of course the rich don't consume any products or services they are rich and do business with satan directly. It's not like they eat, sleep, drive, cloth themselves, require shelter, wish to be entertained, oh wait. How many out there depend on a rich guy wanting a 7,000 desk or a 80,000 car? Oh, so because their checks go through your employer first they do not support you at all. That makes perfect sense, by the way food does not sustain the body and breathing air does not keep you alive.

This isn't the 1950's.

Post WWII America was manufacturer to the globe, producing almost half of the globe's sold goods.

Today America no longer produces much of anything and has become the world biggest consumer of goods.

That'll tend to have a negative impact on the economy in the long run.

Be Well.

will the HONEST PEOPLE IN CONGRESS, Kucinich, Paul, Sanders... ANYBODY please form a quorum and filibuster this crime. Three guys can talk in turns day and night until Christmas. By then the Corporate crooks will have BKed.

How many out there depend on a rich guy wanting a 7,000 desk or a 80,000 car? Oh, so because their checks go through your employer first they do not support you at all. That makes perfect sense, by the way food does not sustain the body and breathing air does not keep you alive.

Considering the 'rich' are only 2% of the population, I'd much rather have 49 people spending $200 than 1 person spending $7000 on a desk. Besides, how many $7000 desks do you have to sell a year to keep your company afloat? And do the rich always buy American? The spending by the middle class drives the economy, not that of the rich. The makers of luxury items will always have a clientele whether american or not, and they don't represent a significant portion of the American job base in any case.
The only poeple who will 'suffer' if the rich are taxed more are drug dealers, whores, golddiggers, lawyers, the international makers of luxury goods, the GOP and their spoiled, useless kids.

Pathetic. Socialist Sanders just toting the liberal line that the "rich" are getting a free ride. The proportion of income tax paid by the rich continues to RISE, not fall. They did not get a tax BREAK, they have (always) paid a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of their income in income tax. The lowering of this rate (along with EVERYONE ELSE - thanks, Bush) was more than offset by the increase in income that they EARNED. Taking someone's fairly-earned money away and giving it to someone else is immoral, socialist, and Obama's policy. Under Obama's plan, everyone will pay higher taxes, either directly or indirectly. The economy will be ruined - making these days look like a party. Wake up people.

They did not get a tax BREAK, they have (always) paid a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of their income in income tax. The lowering of this rate (along with EVERYONE ELSE - thanks, Bush) was more than offset by the increase in income that they EARNED.

I'm sure sitting on your ass by the pool waiting for your dividend check to come in (taxed at %15) can be construed as EARNING a living, if you have your head up your ass. BTW, I doubt your plummer has eleven cars, but I wouldn't doubt he's porking your wife.

Disney-
re: The lowering of this rate (along with EVERYONE ELSE - thanks, Bush) was more than offset by the increase in income that they EARNED.

Is that how Bush nearly doubled the nat'l debt in under eight years?

"The proportion of income tax paid by the rich continues to RISE, not fall."

And if that occurs despite lowering rates, it means the rich are making much, MUCH more.

"(The rich) did not get a tax BREAK, they have (always) paid a HIGHER PERCENTAGE of their income in income tax."

Not true. Tax rates depend on the type of income. A wage earner making $100,000 is paying a higher marginal rate of federal income tax than a billionaire making qualified dividends.

"just toting the liberal line that the "rich" are getting a free ride."

They ARE getting a free ride. The former huge gains were privatized. These massive losses will be socialized.

Under Obama's plan, everyone will pay higher taxes, either directly or indirectly.

Actually under Obama's progressive tax structure the vast majority will see greater returns.

The economy will be ruined - making these days look like a party. Wake up people

The economy is already teetering on the brink of ruination, Dumbass.

4 more years of McBush/Failin will guarantee it falls.

Be Well.

/Question. Are you actually rich yerself or are you just a toadying bootlick?

Shed some reality and the cockroaches sure get stirred up. No, the "plummer is not porking my wife", but thanks for asking, genius. Unlike you lying liberals, whether I'm "rich" or not doesn't affect my opinion on the matter. Wipe the shit from your eyes. The economy is on the brink of a major setback, but GDP is still up, employment is a few percent from full employment, we've successfully endured a major natural disaster with relatively minor human losses, and the only people wishing and hoping and praying for a true disaster are the "dumbasses" that want Obama in regardless of the cost. Obama's plan wipes out the Bush tax cut for all, and replaces it with a weaker version. And the "rich" paying more don't have enough income even if taxed at 100% will not pay for Obama's trillions of give-aways. Do the math, if you can. Look to Dodd/Frank and other Democratic indiscretions for the cause of the regulatory let-down. And your Democratic-led congress with an approval rating below Bush's. And you want Obama, with his Fannie Mae insiders on his executive staff (and his pockets lined with their money) to run things? And you expect an improvement? Dream on.

#68 | Posted by Dinsey at 2008-09-22 06:38 PM

What a pointless rant. Reminds me of grandpa Simpson. Isn't it bedtime already grandpa?

"What a pointless rant. Reminds me of grandpa Simpson. Isn't it bedtime already grandpa?"

Right on, Darth. I haven't seen "Dinsey" (a typo for Disney?) before, but s/he strikes me as full of youthful enthusiasm while following lemmings off a cliff. It's the sort of crap I could spend a day refuting point by point. but "Dinsey": wouldn't get it, and the rest of the readership already knows all that.

I mean ... the only ones who don't see a depression being Obama supporters ... That would qualify for the laugh of the day. But only TODAY. herm

"Free Market" practices got these corporations in big trouble.

NOW they're ALL for 'socialism'.

This Bush's scumbag moment.. Push the expectation of a bailout onto the public and argue congress is holding it up..

All while negotiating that CEOS and execs get sweet bonus's for running their companies in the ground..

yes that is what is holding up the bill which sucks donkey dick..exec golden parachutes that BUSH and co are negotiating to leave in..

AMAZING..

people that failed this miserably in china would be executed.

We are more socialist than FRANCE

And your Democratic-led congress with an approval rating below Bush's. And you want Obama, with his Fannie Mae insiders on his executive staff (and his pockets lined with their money) to run things? And you expect an improvement? Dream on.

#68 | Posted by Dinsey

of course selective amnesia from captain cumshot.

Who the fuck ran congress since 1994 .. yes that is right your fellow scumbag republicans.

And your Democratic-led congress with an approval rating below Bush's. And you want Obama, with his Fannie Mae insiders on his executive staff (and his pockets lined with their money) to run things? And you expect an improvement? Dream on.

#68 | Posted by Dinsey

You're fucking right I do !!! Fuck George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and every other Republiscum in this country in the ass for what they have done to the USA in the name of greed, war mongering, and corporate cronnieism !!!

And you want Obama, with his Fannie Mae insiders on his executive staff (and his pockets lined with their money) to run things? And you expect an improvement?

As opposed to AncientMac and his FannieMae Campaign manager?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

A vote fer McSame is just plain nuts.

Dream On?

Dream until yer dreams come true!

Be Well.

WE NEED TO MARCH TO WASHINGTON, DC AND MAKE THIS STOP. THIS IS A SEPTEMBER SURPRISE THAT IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY EVERYONE'S MONEY!!!!!!

Anyone checkout Section 8 of the bailout proposal?

It says that Paulson, with complete authority and autonomy, can direct the $700B in funds however he sees fit.

Here's the kicker:

WITHOUT ANY OVERSIGHT OR THE ABILITY TO BE REVIEWED BY ANY COURT OR ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY!!!!!!

In other words, he can do as he pleases with this money and not be held accountable.

I love it when bernie sanders is brought up because I can remind all of you that he is NUMBER TWO

obama ranks ahead of him on liberal votes in the senate and the only one that sanders beats in that same chart is joe biden..........