Are certain lives in danger?
#1
Posted 21 September 2008 - 07:37 PM
What about the news media?
For the first time, I heard Chris Wallace of Fox News give a kid glove interview.
Of course, he was talking to Henry Paulson.
From what I gather, government intervention in the financial markets is getting 100% support in congress. This kind of support is impossible unless there is some type of coercive force that is bringing minds together.
Is it possible these peoples lives are in danger if they take the other side of the issue?
I have made the contention since summer of 2005 that here orchestrated government sponsored efforts to bolster asset prices.
The following is from back in 2006 when most people still believed that the PPT was a myth.
Article From 2006
I have never doubted that when Henry Paulson took over as Treasury Secretary in the spring of 2006 that it was with the understanding that he would do everything within his power to bolster stock prices.
I have to confess though, I didn't think things would ever go this far and that all dissenting opinions in government would be squelched.
The pentalties for dissagring with this plan must be awful because without coercion it is just not that reasonable that people who can't agree on anything else, line up like soldiers and support the essence of this plan.
James
#2
Posted 21 September 2008 - 07:56 PM
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
--George Bernard Shaw
"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
#3
Posted 21 September 2008 - 08:03 PM
Edited by selecto, 21 September 2008 - 08:05 PM.
#4
Posted 21 September 2008 - 08:25 PM
Big orders from overseas. Its a terrorist financial wmd attack.
We must act now to pass a financial patriot act.
really that's it. it's freedom fries and "you're either with us or against us" all over again. the dissenters will be villified....at least for now .
ed rader
#5
Posted 21 September 2008 - 08:37 PM
~ Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe ~
#6
Posted 21 September 2008 - 08:38 PM
Its a terrorist financial wmd attack.
Problem is that financial markets are very vulnerable right now to something out of left field. So it moves beyond the unimaginable.
cheers,
john
#7
Posted 21 September 2008 - 08:43 PM
I think Balancing the budgets should be considered a matter of national security.
hear hear. we're going to get the massive tax increases for sure but not the spending cuts.
ed rader
#8
Posted 21 September 2008 - 08:55 PM
I'm all eyes James. What is "the other side of the issue." What is the alternative to the "essence of this plan" that cannot be spoken for fear of death?
I would guess that others might argue something like this.......
"Mr. Paulson, I think that the damage being done by government intervention in the financial markets will outweigh the short term benefits of a bailout."
Or, "Mr. Paulson, my understanding of free market economics is that suffering the consequences of poor decisions is an essential ingredient, to a strong economy. I think it is best that the government remain on the sidelines. My vote is no! A bailout would hurt my constituents."
Or, "Mr. Paulson, in my recollection there has never been a Treasurary Secretary who has assumed the kind of duties you are now perfoming. Sorry, but I don't trust your motives. I would rather put my faith in market generate outcomes. Thank you, but I am voting no."
I would guess that at least one or two comments along those lines would bubble to the surface.
James
#9
Posted 21 September 2008 - 09:15 PM
#10
Posted 21 September 2008 - 09:41 PM
I'm all eyes James. What is "the other side of the issue." What is the alternative to the "essence of this plan" that cannot be spoken for fear of death?
I would guess that others might argue something like this.......
"Mr. Paulson, I think that the damage being done by government intervention in the financial markets will outweigh the short term benefits of a bailout."
Or, "Mr. Paulson, my understanding of free market economics is that suffering the consequences of poor decisions is an essential ingredient, to a strong economy. I think it is best that the government remain on the sidelines. My vote is no! A bailout would hurt my constituents."
Or, "Mr. Paulson, in my recollection there has never been a Treasurary Secretary who has assumed the kind of duties you are now perfoming. Sorry, but I don't trust your motives. I would rather put my faith in market generate outcomes. Thank you, but I am voting no."
I would guess that at least one or two comments along those lines would bubble to the surface.
James
We don't know they or other ideas weren't brought up. The three "arguments" you make have no back up as to why they are realistic solutions (even though they may be valid on principle), as opposed to the one proposed by Paulson.
I would not characterize your three as alternatives that one would be killed for making. I doubt seriously you'd get anywhere near a majority behind any of those three.
It was Paulson's job to convince those congressmen in the meeting as to why this had to be the way. Call me naive but, I assume questions were asked. Numbers including debits versus assets were itemized. There are details that are not agreed on by all and will take days to work out.
Edited by milbank, 21 September 2008 - 09:46 PM.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
--George Bernard Shaw
"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."
--Johann Wolfgang von Goethe