35 replies to this topic

[IndexTrader]

I see it as the conservatives finally getting their wish to wipe out social programs like medicaid and social security amongst other programs that assist poorer Americans. Deregulation isn't part of the liberal philosophy. It's about government protecting the less powerful from the most powerful. Seems like the former is getting the short end of the stick as "unfettered capitalism" has turned into "socializing the losses."

I disagree with your post, but I'll play along. First, I'm not sure where you saw "unfettered capitalism". But rather than argue that point, I assume then that we'll considerable outrage from the liberals over the bailout plan. I presume that liberals will recommend that the free market be left to operate here.

IT

Interesting. I thought that was a conservative philosophy. Actually, the Democrats are looking for greater legislative oversight of the Treasury Department, more direct assistance for homeowners and limits on the pay of top executives whose firms seek help amongst other things.*

* http://www.nytimes.c...amp;oref=slogin

OK, well then that's the point isn't it? Everyone seems to be in favor of "socializing the losses" as you say. Doesn't really matter which party or persuasion. I'm suggesting that we allow the free markets to work here. If some of these companies are going to fail, let's let them fail. Then we don't need to worry about executive compensation, etc etc.

IT

[pcp]

Democrats are socialists and seem to be sticking to that principle. Conservatives are supposed to be for small government, constitution and free markets. Seems to me, when the going got tough, they caved and saw the socialists solutions as their own. Worst of both possible worlds.

[milbank]

I see it as the conservatives finally getting their wish to wipe out social programs like medicaid and social security amongst other programs that assist poorer Americans. Deregulation isn't part of the liberal philosophy. It's about government protecting the less powerful from the most powerful. Seems like the former is getting the short end of the stick as "unfettered capitalism" has turned into "socializing the losses."

I disagree with your post, but I'll play along. First, I'm not sure where you saw "unfettered capitalism". But rather than argue that point, I assume then that we'll considerable outrage from the liberals over the bailout plan. I presume that liberals will recommend that the free market be left to operate here.

IT

Interesting. I thought that was a conservative philosophy. Actually, the Democrats are looking for greater legislative oversight of the Treasury Department, more direct assistance for homeowners and limits on the pay of top executives whose firms seek help amongst other things.*

* http://www.nytimes.c...amp;oref=slogin

OK, well then that's the point isn't it? Everyone seems to be in favor of "socializing the losses" as you say. Doesn't really matter which party or persuasion. I'm suggesting that we allow the free markets to work here. If some of these companies are going to fail, let's let them fail. Then we don't need to worry about executive compensation, etc etc.

IT

Understand me, I'm pretty ticked about this too but, you've got a lot of retirees with both or combinations of retirement investments in the stock market and pensions who will be blown away if these banks are allowed to fail.
Not to make too fine a point of this but, from a political standpoint, these folks actually go out and vote too.

I'm all for hearing another solution that won't create breadlines, homeless elderly as well as other people living under bridges and what not like those pictures you saw during of The Great Depression. There is national security to think of along with this.

[IndexTrader]

Understand me, I'm pretty ticked about this too but, you've got a lot of retirees with both or combinations of retirement investments in the stock market and pensions who will be blown away if these banks are allowed to fail.
Not to make too fine a point of this but, from a political standpoint, these folks actually go out and vote too.

I'm all for hearing another solution that won't create breadlines, homeless elderly as well as other people living under bridges and what not like those pictures you saw during of The Great Depression. There is national security to think of along with this.

It appears there's virtually no limit to those who you would bail out. And it also appears that everyone agrees with you. I would simply suggest you go back and read my original post. We've made full circle here.

IT

EDIT: Here is my original post:

"Nothing has directly impacted the majority of the people yet, so they aren't complaining. And too, while you might think that there would be some outrage at the dismantling of any semblance of a free market system, no one really understands why capitalism is or should be important to them philosophically. Is anything regarding the philosophy of capitalism taught in our high schools or colleges? I think not.

You might even think there would be some outrage that the reason for this bailout is being kept "secret". The people for some reason aren't qualified to know.

So bottomline, the liberals have done their job well. It started in the educational system, such that at this point we have a population of sheep, willing led down the road to increasing governmental interference, and nationalization of key industries."

IT

Edited by IndexTrader, 22 September 2008 - 12:59 PM.

[milbank]

And all that deregulation and easing of existing regulations over the last 30 years that gave us amongst other things 40:1 leveraging had nothing to do with it. It's all the liberals fault. Hmmmmmm.

[dasein]

[quote name='IndexTrader' date='Sep 22 2008, 01:57 PM' post='399295']

"Nothing has directly impacted the majority of the people yet, so they aren't complaining. And too, while you might think that there would be some outrage at the dismantling of any semblance of a free market system, no one really understands why capitalism is or should be important to them philosophically. Is anything regarding the philosophy of capitalism taught in our high schools or colleges? I think not.

You might even think there would be some outrage that the reason for this bailout is being kept "secret". The people for some reason aren't qualified to know.

So bottomline, the liberals have done their job well. It started in the educational system, such that at this point we have a population of sheep, willing led down the road to increasing governmental interference, and nationalization of key industries."

IT

This has impacted the majority, they just dont recognize the magnitude yet - just as they were impacted by the budget deficit but voted for tax rebates, they were told defined benefit is passee and enriched IBs with their retirement 401Ks, because everyone in the 80s said the market always goes up - the public generally works at a ful time job, NOT in quant engineering or economics, and has a lot of trust in "authorities" as Pausons proposal shows - you will trust with no recourse. The public may not understand capitalism, but they elieve it is the magic bullet and their mantra to fix anything since Reagan has ben "free markets"

The liberals? We havent had one in office since TR or Wilson, OK, maybe Carter. As to school, I remember dicussing the theory of capitalism in HS, it most certainly was taught - today, do they even teach math anymore? NO - if they did we might not have upside down hoe owners.

Id say the non-liberals have done their job, they have raped the country, but will pass on the mess and the blame onto the next president, (4 or so) generations, or whatever fall guy is convenient, and probably start another war into the bargain.

I am dam#*d scared and I think it is time to get as much money out of the USSA as possible.
klh