Thread: Should we activate our network to oppose the bail out?

Originally Posted by redpony353

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

Another problem is that if we oppose the bail out and other groups rally against it, no bail out happens and a crash occurs then our opposition will release propaganda blaming us Americans for the disaster.

Also, I have to warn you that many of our McCain and Palin supporters would be unhappy with us because they see the bail out as a way to stop the crash till after the elections. Any crash before the elections will fall hardest on McCain's campaign.

W

I AM PRETTY SURE THAT "JUDICIAL WATCH" HAS FILED A LAWSUIT TO STOP THE BAILOUT.

I AM SORRY. THE ORG THAT IS FILING THE LAWSUIT TO BLOCK THE BAILOUT IS "WE THE PEOPLE FOUNDATION".
I HAVE NO IDEA WHY I SAID IT WAS JUDICIAL WATCH. MUST HAVE JUST BEEN AT THEIR SITE BEFORE POSTING THAT.

Bush is the same guy that called Iraq a threat to us. They didn't even have a real army. Why anybody even listens to him is beyond me.

A crash is going to occur. There's no way around it. We, as a country, are out of money, so we can't pay our bills.

This "bailout" is only allowing Wall St to steal more of our money before it happens.

We should suck it up and let it happen. It will only be painful for a year or so, unless the government helps. In that case, it will be painful for 20 years.

I haven't seen any economists saying this will even work! The closest I came was a guy who said this was the first step.

I do not want to sell my kids into slavery to bail out the executives on Wall Street, and that's all this is.

So, my answer is yes, yes, yes - a thousand times yes! Oppose the bail out vehemently.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

Airborn,

This debt is backed by the full faith and credit of the American taxpayers which means that each of us, our children, our grand children and so on will be taxed to death to maintain these debts.

You and me and every American citizen is having an IV tube stuck in our arms that will pump our life blood straight into the hands of wall street "investors"

W

We already work more than 6 months a year to fulfill our tax obligations. It is time to stop it!

Originally Posted by MW

Jean wrote:

Thank you MW for your kind comment.

You're welcome, however, no thanks are really necessary because I strongly support your position on having a wait and see attitude.

Wait for what? Congress to pass a bill that taxes us into 100% slavery of the state?

They're getting set to adjourn. They're going to cram this down are throats before they hold a single hearing, and then leave so they can campaign for reelection.

The only thins this bail out might do is postpone the crash until after the election! That is absolutely the only thing they're concerned about.

They are the lot that should be adopting a wait-and-see attitude - not us.
We have to stop them.

And note that the bailout isn't limited to $700 Billion. It's $700 billion at any one time. Paulsen used to be the CEO at Goldmand Sachs! Our Congress is going to allow him the right to take our money and give it to his friends.

No thanks! I can save myself, no help needed! Here's what Downsize DC has to say about it:

Can we downsize the Big Bailout?

Categories: Wealth & Poverty, Quality of Life, Government Failure, Downsizer-Dispatch

Quote of the Day:
"It's a rather brief bill, with lots of money."
-- Senator Chris Dodd

Subject: Can we downsize the Big Bailout?

Today's message is a complex one. It's pretty clear to us that few politicians understand the financial crisis before us -- particularly their role in creating it. But I have confidence in the ability of DC Downsizers to understand what we write here.

So what about Treasury Secretary Paulson's Big Bailout Plan . . .

Here's some "good" news: The legislation authorizing the Big Bailout of U.S. financial institutions in only 3 pages long. This means that every member of Congress is likely to read it, even though the "Read the Bills Act" isn't yet the law of the land.

Here's some really bad news: The bailout legislation is only 3 pages long, meaning that all the details are going to be left to the unelected bureaucrats in the Treasury Department. This is the kind of thing our "Write the Laws Act" was designed to avoid.

Here's some more bad news: The 3-page bill is likely to grow longer as members of Congress rush to stuff it with special projects.

Here's even more bad news: The bill will raise the federal debt limit from $10.6 trillion to $11.3 trillion, and authorize the Treasury Secretary to buy distressed assets to the tune of $700 billion. This will be the largest expansion of government, and increase in the national debt, in the shortest amount of time, in the history of the country.

Here's some "good" news: The authorization for the Treasury Secretary to buy distressed assets will only last two years, but . . .

That's also bad news, because politicians and lobbyists will then have two years to wrangle sweetheart deals for themselves.

Here's more "good" news. Many "experts" believe the federal government will be able to turn a profit on this deal, much as happened with the Savings & Loan liquidations in the 80s and 90s. But that's also bad news, because . . .

If this can be done at a profit then why does it need to be done by the government at all? Why couldn't the bad assets be liquidated through the normal bankruptcy process?

One answer, of course, is that other companies could fail too as the firms currently in trouble start to no-pay or slow-pay their bills under the bankruptcy process. But wouldn't such failures be good for the economy going forward, as firms change their behavior to reduce risk, thereby making a future repeat of this episode less likely?

Those who favor the bailout argue that they're trying to avoid panic, which could destroy companies that are perfectly sound. Unfortunately, the last time the federal government intervened in such a major way to prevent panic the pain lasted for 12 long years. It was called the Great Depression. Prior to that . . .

Financial contractions had been short and sharp. Prices, wages, and employment fell quickly to clear the market and then things started moving forward again. The federal interventions of the 1930s prevented the market from clearing and thereby preserved the misery for more than a decade. On the other hand . . .

Those who favor intervention can point to the S&L liquidation of the 80s and 90s, which did not result in a prolonged contraction. This is probably the strongest argument for the current proposal. Therefore, those of us who favor smaller, limited government must be prepared to deal with it. One counter argument is that the government is using your money to bail out the fat cats, but . . .

This argument is no longer as strong as it once was. Many more Americans own both stock and real estate than was the case during the Great Depression, or even during the S & L crisis. Many of us are also dependent on private pension funds that are in turn dependent on both the stock and real estate markets. An argument can be made that most of us are being bailed out, not just the fat cats. But this contention also overlooks one crucial point . . .

We're all going to pay the price for bailing ourselves out. We can either pay the price through asset devaluation or through increased government spending. Either way, the price is going to be paid. There is no such thing as a free lunch. An argument can be made that the price could be higher or lower if we simply let these companies fail, or if the bailout proceeds, but the fact is . . .

The bailout is very, very likely to happen, and to happen quickly. We need to find a way to react to that.

But we also need to be proactive.

WE NEED TO CHART A COURSE TO PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF THE CURRENT CRISIS.

The two key words here are react and proactive. First of all, how should we react to the bailout?

We think you should oppose it, on general principles, and to make the politicians both nervous and cautious about how they proceed, especially in terms of manipulating the bailout to reward friends and punish enemies. You can use our general campaign to cut federal spending for this purpose. Use your personal comments to tell Congress you oppose the bailout. You can send that message using our easy-to-use Educate the Powerful System.

Second, we need to be proactive in terms of how the bailout is handled. The Democrats in Congress say they want to adjust the bailout bill to make sure the taxpayers benefit if the bailout turns a profit in the same way the S&L liquidation did. This sounds good. The problem is that for Democratic politicians having the "taxpayer benefit" is often code for giving Congress more money to spend to supposedly benefit the taxpayer. We need to make sure that . . .

Proceeds from the asset liquidation are used first to retire the debt the government assumes to fund the liquidation, and that any net profits from the sale of these assets is used either to reduce taxes, or rebate taxes to YOU.

You can use our general cut taxes campaign for this purpose. Use your personal comments to ask for the provisions in the above paragraph. You can send that message using our free Educate the Powerful System.

Finally, I said we need to be proactive -- that we need to chart a course to make sure this current crisis doesn't happen again. We need to start campaigning to end of all of the various means by which the federal government creates asset bubbles, including but not limited to the Federal Reserve.

This is going to be a major undertaking. We hope we will have your continued support to make it happen. You can contribute to our work at our website.

Or you can print out the form at that same link, and mail a check to the address listed there.

Thank you for all you do as part of the growing Downsize DC Army.

Jim Babka
President
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

Economist Steven Landsburg gives a short concise argument about why it should not happen: http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/archi ... ing-it.php

Why Secretary Paulson's plan to bail out the financial industry needs a better explanation.

We are embarking on the most radical transformation of the American economy since the New Deal, committing hundreds of billions in taxpayer money to save banks and other financial institutions from the consequences of their own bad investments. This, we are told, is the cost of averting a crisis. But I sure wish someone would explain to me exactly what crisis we're trying to avert.

What's clear is that a bunch of financial institutions have made mistakes and lost money. What's unclear is why anyone (other than the owners and managers) should care. People make mistakes and lose money all the time. Restaurants fail, grocery stores fail, gas stations fail. People pick the wrong stocks, they buy the wrong cars, and they marry the wrong spouses without turning to the Treasury for bailouts.

So what's special about banks? According to what I keep reading, it's that without banks, nobody can borrow, and the economy grinds to a halt.

Well, let's think about that. Banks don't lend their own money; they lend other people's (their depositors' and their stockholders'). Just because the banks disappear doesn't mean the lenders will. Borrowers will still want to borrow and lenders will still want to lend. The only question is whether they'll be able to find each other.

That's one reason I feel squeamish about the official pronouncements we've been getting. They tell us bank failures will make it hard to borrow but never that bank failures will make it hard to lend. But every borrower is paired with a lender, so it's odd to state the problem so asymmetrically. This makes me suspect that the official pronouncers have not entirely thought this thing through.

In the 1930s, a wave of bank failures did make it hard for borrowers and lenders to find each other, and the consequences were drastic. But times have changed in at least two relevant ways. First, the disaster of the 1930s was caused not just by bank failures, but by a 30% contraction of the money supply, which is something today's Fed can easily prevent. Second, as any user of match.com can tell you, the technology for finding partners has improved since then. When a firm wants to raise capital, why can't it just sell bonds over the web? Or issue new stock? Or approach one of the hedge funds that seem to be swimming in cash? Or borrow abroad?

I know, I know, the rest of the world is in crisis too. But surely in the vast global economy, it should be possible to find someone capable of introducing a lender to a borrower. (Note that I'm not talking about going to foreign lenders, though that's another option. I'm just talking about the same American borrower and American lender who would have found each other through Bear Stearns finding each other through Barclays instead.)

In other words, I'm not sure these big Wall Street banks are really necessary, and I'm not sure we'd miss them much if they were gone. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but if so, I think it should be incumbent on Messrs. Bernanke, Paulson and above all Bush to explain what it is.
— Steven Landsburg

Here's the contact information for the Senate Banking Committee.

http://banking.senate.gov/public/index. ... ntact.Form

Originally Posted by AngelaTC

Here's the contact information for the Senate Banking Committee.

http://banking.senate.gov/public/index. ... ntact.Form

Thanks Angela, time to ROAR PATRIOTS!!!! SHOUT NO WHILE WE STILL CAN!!!!

For those who want to foolishly do the wait and see approach, chew on this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... tly-added/

That's right these crackheads want to add student, car loans and credit card debt. Hell lets be on the hook for the whole damn thing. We'll be paying for every irresponsible jacka-- in this country. No accountability, no responsibility, this is socialism at it's finest. We are closing in on becoming a third world cesspool. All of this under Bush's watch along with a little help from his friends. We need to fight like hell. Waiting for congress to act is suicide. I'd rather them do nothing then pass this abomination. This is worst then amnesty for illegals IMO.

Originally Posted by dman1200

For those who want to foolishly do the wait and see approach, chew on this:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... tly-added/

That's right these crackheads want to add student, car loans and credit card debt.

The only beauty of hyper inflation is that as prices rise, outstanding debt virtually disappears. If a loaf of bread costs $100, suddenly a $2000 credit card bill is really nothing.

What gets me *really* riled about the mortgage bailouts is that those people didn't put any money down on their homes. Then they took out equity loans, second mortgages....they don't have any cash even invested in their homes!

ANyway, on a lighter note:

Dear My Friend Great American:

I need to ask you to support an urgent secret business relationship with a transfer of funds of great magnitude.

I am Ministry of the Treasury of the Republic of America. My country has had crisis that has caused the need for large transfer of funds of 800 billion dollars US. If you would assist me in this transfer, it would be most profitable to you.

I am working with Mr. Phil Gramm, lobbyist for UBS, who will be my replacement as Ministry of the Treasury in January. As a Senator, you may know him as the leader of the American banking deregulation movement in the 1990s. This transaction is 100% safe.

This is a matter of great urgency and requires much secrecy. We need the funds as quickly as possible. We cannot directly transfer these funds in the names of our close friends because we are constantly under surveillance. My family lawyer advised me that I should look for a reliable and trustworthy person who will act as a next of kin so the funds can be transferred.

Please reply with all of your bank account, IRA and college fund account numbers and those of your children and grandchildren to wallstreetbailout@treasury.gov so that we may transfer your commission for this transaction. Also, we will need a blank check to expedite the transfer to my friends. After I receive that information, I will respond with detailed information about safeguards that will be used to protect the funds.

Yours Faithfully In God's Great Country,
Minister of Treasury Paulson