Bail Out Failed

[ClarkStreetKid]

Originally Posted by OhBeeHave

My question to toss out to everyone is this: seeing as more people could get mortgages than in previous years, did the onset of new mortgages help to artificially inflate the value of starter homes? (Supply and demand type situation?)

Supposedly that was Greenspan's plan to keep us from going into a recession after the dot com bust. In a way he replaced one bubble with a much larger bubble.

[ClarkStreetKid]

About those wooden arrows.

Just came across this on CNBC. What kind of nitwittery slaps a tax on something that is greater than it's value? What the heck is wrong with our elected officials, do they just want to tax American business into oblivion?

Tax Break for Arrows? Why It's Part of the Bailout - Politics and Government * US * News * Story - CNBC.com

[Kbinspections]

Originally Posted by ClarkStreetKid

Supposedly that was Greenspan's plan to keep us from going into a recession after the dot com bust. In a way he replaced one bubble with a much larger bubble.

That is exactly what happened. He pushed off a recession right into a nightmare. The sad thing is that this should have happened in 2004 or 2005 but they just waited until the bubble burst. That delay magnified the issue. We are in for a rocky few years.

[Jrprofess]

[quote=dman72;5515721]

Originally Posted by Jrprofess

To play devils advocate, pork has always been a part of getting bills passed. The structure of this bailout bill is basically the same as the one that failed. The leaders just went to a few reps with some pork to get them to change their votes. This makes some people so angry, but this is a fundamental part of our system and has been for centuries!! If you wanted this to change, you would have to switch to a parliamentary type system, which would require re-writing the whole constitution.

Hey Dman,
I am totally understanding of the pork inclusion in these bills and understand it to be typical practice. But there is nothing typical about this bill.

I would hope (and that was probably my error) that on a bill like this (addressing the economic breakdown of government/markets), and with the anger of the american population and scrutiny it would receive in the press, the senate would know enough to not conduct business as usual and tuck in these silly tax breaks/pork. Where is Homer Simpson to cry out "D'oh!" when you need him. It only perpetuates people's anger with how things are done.

Yes, this is how compromise is typically achieved, but how stupid could you be to include these political "bribes" in this historic bailout. Nobody in the Senate had the the sense to think in this particular instance it might not play well...am I off here? At this moment on this bill, with constituents calling in 100-1 against the proposal, somebody should have had enough sense from a public relations standpoint to exclude these. Granted they are trying to buy the House Republicans and others that voted no, but how stupid can you be. I do not think my stance connotates a need to move toward parliamentary procedures and a constitutional revision. Just use a little common sense. When the public is fed up with government maybe you should avoid doing the very thing that supports the perception.