Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I usually have alot of respect for CNN's Lou Dobbs. But my respect for him went down hill when he said he was against the bailout. He does not want it but seems to lack an alternative. I have watched him quite a few times and he will not admit the truth, that our nation is facing a serious credit crisis and something has to be done.
I have nothing against anyone who is not supporting the bailout but I do not think Lou Dobbs is being intellectually honest because he does not layout a real alternative. Or did I just miss it?
I hope this question does not get alot of people debating the pros and cons of the bailout. Instead I woud hope it would get people talking about media types who come out against something but have no alternative.
I usually have alot of respect for CNN's Lou Dobbs. But my respect for him went down hill when he said he was against the bailout. He does not want it but seems to lack an alternative. I have watched him quite a few times and he will not admit the truth, that our nation is facing a serious credit crisis and something has to be done.
I have nothing against anyone who is not supporting the bailout but I do not think Lou Dobbs is being intellectually honest because he does not layout a real alternative. Or did I just miss it?
I hope this question does not get alot of people debating the pros and cons of the bailout. Instead I woud hope it would get people talking about media types who come out against something but have no alternative.
Dobbs has been a lot more straightforward than most of the other mediamouths.
If you want to put some perspective on all this - the 700B bailout roughly translated moneywise to less money than was involved in the 777 drop in the DOW on Monday. The world didn't come to an end with that drop, and it started the road to proper valuation of some stocks that had been over-valued.
The crisis is that the banks don't trust other institutions enough to lend them money now. Throwing money at the situation does absolutely nothing to resolve that. When you say that "something" has to be done, you are absolutely correct. However that something has to be a real solution, not something that would have no effect except diluting the power of the dollar.
Don't believe for a second the claims that the taxpayers can make a profit on the bailout plan. There are four very clear reasons why not.
1. The economic stimulus rebate didn't work and won't be repeated.
2. Government NEVER gives back money that it takes without some strings attached. It ALWAYS has other debts to pay down, other projects to fund, and other people to pay off.
3. Remember those houses that the plan would hold the mortgages on? Here is a big clue. A lot of them are in Florida. Have you ever been in a building in Florida that hasn't had AC on during the rainy season? I have. I was in one movie theatre that was closed for less than six months, and there was a coating of mold on every seat, all the wall fabric, the counters, the walls, the floors, the ceilings, everywhere. Most of those houses will be toxic with mold, to the point that many will need to be razed.
4. Of the houses that aren't attacked by mold, the price of scrap metal and the economic conditions of the poor are causing plumbing and wiring and all metal to be stripped out of houses that aren't secured.
To summarize, the bailout plan does not address the root problem, puts an unreasonable burden on taxpayers, rewards greed, has no chance of recouping losses, puts the government in a weaker position, does not allow for market corrections, promotes inflation, and tramples on the Constitution.
If Paulson had suggested that everyone give up a puppy to save Wall Street it would have made as much sense as the plan proposed. Rejecting a plan to give up puppies would not make Lou Dobbs intellectually dishonest. Rejecting the plan that Paulson proposed does not make Lou Dobbs intellectually dishonest.
I hope this question does not get alot of people debating the pros and cons of the bailout. Instead I woud hope it would get people talking about media types who come out against something but have no alternative.
This is what I don't get, everyone that is for the bailout always questions those that are against it and wants to know what their plan is. Why can't someone be against what is proposed and leave it at that, because they don't agree with what was drafted doesn't mean they have to provide a better solution. Why do those that oppose it need to have a plan formulated in order to be against something, all they need to do is give reasons why they're against something. Sometimes the best action is no action, just look at what happened to Japan when they tried to correct their issues in 1990 by subsidizing failing banks.
Look, part of the problem with the pro-bailout crowd is that they are just perpetuating the propping of the house of cards under the logic that being against the bailout amounts to inaction. Flawed logic at best, soft-bellied self interest when you peel the layers off the onion and identify the true motives for being philosophically pro such bailout.
I'm glad that lou dobbs is speaking truth out there at CNN, because everytime I go by that channel all these journalism majors turned talking heads are yapping back and forth with indignation as to why the governemnt hasn't passed the bailout yet. It's misinformation at its best.
People need to recognize that attempting a continuation of the status quo because the alternative doesn't give you a warm fuzzy is not a "realistic option", it's just a temporarily convenient option. As much as this is about wall street's financial vehicles shenanigans, it's really more about the average american and what they philosophically believe in. If you believe the talking head news anchors in CNN with their arguments that short term debt is what makes our world go round and therefore these vehicles of credit must be greased at all times, then you're part of the problem. They are not addressing the real problem, they are just catering to your fears all while looking like they have a clue (which they don't). They keep harping this BS about: "I just want to ask the caller if she has a job, cause if she does and doesn't support the bailout she better be aware that without short term credit access her company WILL NOT make payroll..." to which I almost krav maga'd my TV screen.
All this bailout does is a continuation of the artificial propping of a system based on a service economy that shifts wealth to fewer private hands, while socializing the burden and bad paper, all the while keeping the tax base aloof to the fact that you cannot afford the american dream on a taco bell job and a 400K mortgage that you HOPE will be solvent by virtue of your one (AND ONLY) investment vehicle (your precious baby the 4 walls with a roof on top) to eternally skyrocket in value so as to afford you the expensive life your inconsequential non-real-goods producing service economy job does not and will never be able to afford you.
If you think of your house as a family member or otherwise have put your hopes of college funding, retirement and discretionary expenditures primarily on it, I can see why you're pro the bailout. If you hold a F.I.R.E. job that depends on the fundamental obidience of the tax base to the idea of a service (consumption is wealth) economy I can see why for the bailout. If you have no idea what the fundamental aspects of a free market are vis-a-vis what government intervention does to the market, and more importantly, have no understanding as to what the degree of "free" the american market is, I can see why you're pro this bailout.
The fact of the matter is that the world won't come to an end overnight if the bailout doesn't go through. It's already proven that it won't. What will happen is a long term sets of corrections which will make people adjust their expectations to their lifestyle in this country and re-shape the socio-economic mindset of this country fundamentally. It takes us closer to a re-hashing of our monetary policy and away from the crack addiction of ponzi scheme asset valuations such as the "house" fever in this country. It also takes us closer to a reclamation of the real goods production economy as opposed to a bubbles-substantiated economy (bio industry is the next fat turkey on the eyes of wall street, like effin clockwork...).
But this also means that people will have to part with their artificially propped up standard. People won't go out en masse to the bread line, but tell the median american who's in debt up to their eyeballs that they'll have to part with their overpriced home (which coincidentally they planned to use to afford the next 30 years worth of their lives with), the new car every 4 years, their service economy job for that matter, their "need" to send timmy to 20K/yr public college to end up at a taco bell economy job anyways, and their constant habit of financing consumption instead of using liquid on consumables......well you might as well tell them they're going to the breadline because to that american I just described, their soft bellied self-interest and addiction to this lifestyle makes them unable to distinguish one condition from the other. That my friends is the ugly truth about our situation, these media clowns are just pandering to your fear of the necessary pains. Get with the program. Buck up. The sun will shine tomorrow and if you want to stop pawning the inevitable on your children (another american classic, "eff this, keep me hooked, screw my grandkids i wont be here to live it") then be a freggin patriot if you're not gonna sign on the line and stand post for 4-20 years, and demand fundamental monetary and fiscal change. This transcends party lines btw, as we have seen with the house vote, which I applaud but know won't last a second round if we don't bring pitchforks out the street. But don't tell me we need this bailout while not disclosing your fundamental addiction to the McLifestyle, Lou dobbs my be all over the board on many subjects, but he's spot on regarding the bailout. Hell no to the bailout.
Sometimes the best action is no action, just look at what happened to Japan when they tried to correct their issues in 1990 by subsidizing failing banks.
Agreed.
Look folks, get over it already! Whether we have a bailout plan or no bailout, the result will be the same - a prolonged deep recession. If you think we can change something with a piddling $700 B when the leveraged derivatives are in excess of $1 Quadrillion - yes, a quadrillion! - then you need to go back to the drawing board.
Last I heard, the 'new' bailout plan is so loaded with pork it's enough to give you indigestion. The first one was bad enough. This latest version is just politics as usual.
Doing nothing is just throwing the ball back into the bank's court. It's their serve, anyway.
I wonder when in the future the Federal government will implement Bail out's again? I wonder what the cost will be? 2 to 2.5 trillion dollars? Will it happen in 2012 or 2016?
No bailout! Call your representatives and tell them no bailout. Bailout no good!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
