Three Cheers for Another Bailout!
  • JeddHamptonJeddHampton October 2008
    Ron Paul Speaks

    QUOTE
    Spending the Economy into Oblivion

    With news this week that Congress is poised to consider a new stimulus package, I am forced to again ask a question that seems silly in Washington: How will we pay for this?

    While a few Members of Congress have raised the issue, it certainly was not the primary concern of the House Budget Committee when they interviewed Ben Bernanke on Monday. And, when they did direct this question to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, his answer was the standard rhetoric about how Congress needed to make tough choices. Needless to say, not many specifics were discussed.

    One of the most liberal members of the House, Barney Frank, has at least volunteered something of a suggestion: “We can let Iraq take care of itself.” This, of course, goes in the right direction, but hardly far enough.

    We need to declare the facts and their obvious consequences. The deficit of the United States is now spiraling out of control, and the recent bailout package has only made it worse. Our crushing federal debt is one key reason behind our current economic turbulence.

    As Congress begins to consider the third “stimulus package” of the year, we need to realize it is time to start setting priorities. Priority number one should be cutting spending in foreign countries. This does not simply mean Iraq, but everywhere.

    The next stimulus package is likely to include money for infrastructure. While these investments are, constitutionally speaking, supposed to be made by state and local governments, it is not likely that Congress will suddenly begin to pay heed to the document we are all sworn to uphold. Still, we need to acknowledge the fact that the current Congress and Administration are rushing the nation toward bankruptcy.

    This being the case, we could hope they would at least come to their senses regarding our debt and foreign spending sprees. Our nation’s foreign-held debt is at record highs and moving ever higher. Continuing to borrow money from Red China and others in order to pay “dues” to the United Nations and run “Plan Colombia” makes no sense at all.

    Our whole carrot-and-stick approach to foreign policy makes no sense. The US government simultaneously gives money to Israel, and to Egypt. We send AIDS money to Africa while AIDS clinics in America shut down. “Millennium challenge” funding goes to countries which enact “market based reforms” as we push our own country further and further into a centrally planned economy.

    Economic recovery will only come through financial prudence, savings and getting back to producing things of value again. But it seems to be a foregone conclusion that we are about to enact another government initiative to “stimulate the economy.” Instead, there should be some serious talk about cutting all of these foreign giveaway programs. But, alas and again, we should not hold our breath. Congress is still not close to being serious about ending its addiction to debt and spending, and is again faced with the deadly temptation to attempt to spend us out of a recession. We should not forget that in the 1930’s those types of efforts gave us the Great Depression.
  • NunesNunes October 2008
    link

    AIG just blew away over 120 billion dollars on... well they spent it on something. Or nothing. But probably hookers and blow.
  • NunesNunes November 2008
    Yay for our gubmint commiting major violations of public trust under the radar! image/biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" />
    QUOTE
    The opposition to Section 382 is part of a broader ideological battle over how the tax code deals with a company's losses. Some conservative economists argue that not only should a firm be able to use losses to offset gains, but that in a year when a company only loses money, it should be entitled to a cash refund from the government.


    In other words, don't tax us when we do well, but if we do shitty, please pay us anyway.
  • JeddHamptonJeddHampton November 2008
    Frito: Because I like money. Sorry, Joe.
  • mungomungo November 2008
    QUOTE (ANunes @ Nov 10 2008, 01:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Some conservative economists argue that not only should a firm be able to use losses to offset gains, but that in a year when a company only loses money, it should be entitled to a cash refund from the government.


    This is a faily common practice among individuals who participate in swaps. Actually, as well as mainy other things. You can offset gains with losses, but that doesn't truly affect the economy. In turn, it keeps money in the markets, and when you finally pull out of whatever security you're in, you (being the individual or company) are taxed.

    With that being said, I didn't read the article you commented on, but am just replying to the quote you posted.
  • ebolaebola November 2008
    I'm not sure if 98% of the population would agree with that, however common that practice might be.
  • mungomungo November 2008
    QUOTE (Tom @ Nov 10 2008, 04:18 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    I'm not sure if 98% of the population would agree with that, however common that practice might be.


    Sorry, let me rephrase.

    This is fairly common for any educated investor.
  • GovernorGovernor November 2008
    QUOTE (mungo @ Nov 10 2008, 05:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Sorry, let me rephrase.

    This is fairly common for any educated investor.


    Any reasonably educated investor is going to invest 100% for their own benefit. Capitalism would expect no less. Something being common practice on wall street does not at all mean that the practice is beneficial to anyone but those involved directly in that practice.

    I'm not supporting nor opposing that, I'm just point out what seems to be lost in translation here. You're arguing the truths of the current market, and they're arguing the ethics behind it.
  • NunesNunes November 2008
    It's seriously a common practice on wall street to ask the government to cover their asses if they lose money all year? How the hell are these people bitching about socialism? Maybe I misunderstand though.
  • NunesNunes November 2008
    ooooooooo. tssssss. Ahhhhhhhhh. Not good.
  • EvestayEvestay November 2008
    whoa cool link trick
  • NunesNunes November 2008
    No kidding. Let's try that again.... image/sleep.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="-_-" border="0" alt="sleep.gif" />

    It's a much cooler link trick, and this time it's intentional.
  • KPKP November 2008
    How can they pass another bailout. What will be their pitch?

    "Ok guys, we need another 700 billion dollars?"
    "Why?"
    "Well remember that first 700 billion dollars you gave us to spend"
    "Sure do, I could have bought a lot of smack with that"
    "Well we have apparenlty spent it all. You would be amazed at how fast 700 billion dollars can be spent"
    "Well, that should have been enough..you bought up the toxic mortages so it should help"
    "oh...yeah...about that. We didn't actually spend it on anything that we said we would"
    "Well...why would we give you another 700 billion to spend if you lied to us in the first place?"
    "Because we really mean it this time"
    "o rly?"
    "ya rly"
    "NO WAI!
    *Dance Party*


    I would actually like to see that.
  • AlfyAlfy November 2008
    What is fun is trying to explain why bailouts are bad to people that don't understand inflation.
  • NunesNunes November 2008
    So the oversight was a joke... Looks like a trillion dollar robbery has taken place.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Apply for Membership