-thumb-110x110-455795.jpg)
Build Your Own BBQ for Under 10 Bucks!
Zenyatta Makes "Her"Story
Pixies 'Doolittle' @ The Palladium 11/4/09
Stadium to the Sea: LA Marathon Releases 2010 Course Map
A Buttermilk Truck Sneak Peek: Red Velvet Pancakes, Hawaiian Bread French Toast & More...
On your commute home tonight, don't be surprised if you see corners full of people protesting President Bush's proposed bailout of Wall Street (did anyone catch Bush's broadcast last night?). Instead, members of True Majority want to save Main Street. Protests are planned for 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica, at Highland and Melrose across from Mozza and a few other locations from around town.
Protests Against Bush Bailout Planned Across City
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebookComments (19) [rss]
Post a comment (Comment Policy)
Tips
Contribute
Latest Tip:
Any ideas why the 110 off/on ramps will be shut down for 1 year starting tomorrow from the hours of
[more]
I plan to be at the Highland and Melrose gathering. I'll be wearing my tuxedo and carrying a sign that says; "Can You Spare Me $700 Billion?"
Come say hi.
One thing to note, our gov. is not just giving away $700bn, it's a liquidity injection. The money is debt, and is repaid over time back to those same taxpayers who keep protesting.
I am as angry as the next guy, but lets get our facts straight here. This money isn't going to banks, its going to your employer and mine, the major corporations of America. And if those banks don't have liquidity, neither do those companies, which means General Motors won't have the money to open a new plant of hybrid cars, and wrigley won't be able to provide more jobs in Chicago.
Just saying, Without this, a lot of people lose their jobs.
"The money is debt, and is repaid over time back to those same taxpayers who keep protesting."
Geeze I sure don't remember ever getting refunded plus interest for my share of the $200B S&L bailout that came out of tax payer money back in the 80's.
So somehow you think this is going to be any different Link?
NO one is duisputing the need for action, but the terms of this bill are odious.
1) It exempts the people in charge of the money from judicial congressional or regulatory review. Just a blank check and "trust us!'
2) They won't forbid government money to be used to pay golden parachutes. At the very least, the price for accepting this money ought to be that the people who fucked their companies up can't leave with a huge payoff courtesy of the taxpayers.
3) It's literally pulled out of their asses - they just settled on a huge number and they haven't adequately explained what the money is for.
4) Speaking of, they have also implied that companies who aren't even fialing might get some of this money.
In short, the bill is nothing more than a gvieaway to the people who caused this mess combined with a huge expenditure designed, I think, to make it impossible for (presumably) President Obama to enact any kind of Health Care reform.
It's basically Bush's final fuck you to the nation he's wrecked.
Personally, I don't see why they can't just do a much, much smaller case by case payment as deemed neccesary and wait for any real package until after Mr. 24% is out of office.
JRB, I agree..you probably didn't get a refund payment, but a lot less people lost their entire fortunes and their houses in the 80s because of that "bailout" of S+L. (Though still many did lose it all). The connection is that you get "paid back" in economic growth - a function of a properly liquid market. There are cycles in every economic period, and the job (some believe) of the government is to shorten the downturn and make it more bearable for people to survive until the economy comes back. This is an attempt to do that.
Sure, we can keep our $700bn to ourselves (by the way, they aren't raising your taxes, they're borrowing from China) - but if we do that, in turn, the down market will last... who knows... maybe a month, maybe a year longer than it would otherwise with this liquidity injection. How many billions of dollars do you think we'll lose during that time period? How many jobs will be lost. How many more people will we have to send unemployment checks to and welfare checks to? When people lose their jobs, they pay less taxes, so now the government is underfunded even more, and it has to borrow even more from abroad. Leading to a weaker dollar and even less economic growth.
It's a calculation. Hank Paulson is doing the math and determining a stitch in time saves nine. I hate that expression, but that's what it is.
"The connection is that you get "paid back" in economic growth."
LOL yea, I'm soooo prosperous these days because of all the economic growth of the 80's that never managed to trickle down as far as moi.
Look Link, I have about as much choice in the matter then as I do now, don't I?
But I don't have to like it and I don't have to shut up about it, do I?
I find it amusing how some are trying to hang this entire fiasco around Bush's neck.
Even former President Clinton has admitted that Congressional Democrats have continually blocked legislative reform to regulate and supervise F & F.
One of the biggest enablers was Chairman Barney Frank who basically told Treasury Secretary Snow in 2003 to quite worrying about F & F …all is well.
This whole "let's blame Bush" game is old and weak and does not speak to the real facts of this issue.
Yes, Bush must share in the blame but he certainly did not orchestrate this crisis.
If anything, you should be grateful that it's come to a head instead of 18 months into an Obama administration.
So please, for once, let's just dispense with the petty Blame Bush™ theatrics shall we?
And for the just record, I also do not agree with the bailout plan nor all of the It’s the Great Depression™ Charlie Brown, scare tactics that many are employing.
Yes, but no one would have lost anything (as a result of that crisis) if Reagan and co. hadn't deregulated the S&L industry.
How the money is raised isn't the issue though I'd much rather it come from taxpayers than be funded by putting ourselves even deeper into debt to China.
All we're asking (or at least, all I'm asking) is that any such legislation A) not override constutional checks and balances, B) eform the system significantly to prevent this from happening again, and C) not designed by the very people who have wrecked the country.
Iraq banked nearly $100 billion on oil profits last year... why not "borrow" 700 Billion from them. Perhaps in exchange for getting the hell outta their country?
Linkracer: By your reasoning if you make some risky investments that cost you every last cent I'm required to help you out financially even though I don't know you, had no hand in your investments, and was never asked my opinion on your choices.
This is the problem. The entire idea is pure wet and steaming bovine excrement.
Bailing out someone who does not know how to manage a business is simply giving those people yet another opportunity to screw up, but with a big difference. Money that doesn't belong to citizens not just investors.
Executives make a nice living because they are placed in positions that require risk taking and bold action. By the same token executives who fail should bear the brunt of the failure. This should include asset forfeiture, no cap law suits, and jail time.
Bailing them out is not even a slap on the wrist. Rather its a reward for a job badly done.
Now what is the more likely scenario?
I'll have a secure future for paying into a failing set of businesses or my future will be even bleaker because folks with horrible business plans are given MY tax dollars to play with?
These are the same people who insisted that they needed no government oversight because it hampered their business process. Now they are begging for $700 Billion after having what amounts to a frathouse kegger with other people's money.
First the sentence "Money that doesn't belong to citizens not just investors." should read "Money that belongs to citizens not just investors.
The Ugly: Bush was at the helm, but by all means lets blame the cook in the galley.
Just more of the same right-wing BS. Blame everyone but the person at fault.
TUA, I'll agree with you that Democrats are just as complicit in this mess as your beloved Republicans, but your GOPers have been screaming the loudest and longest for deregulation, and I'd be willing to bet your precious peeps have been pocketing much bigger campaign contributions from the bankers, brokers and mortgage houses than any Dems have.
The GOPers have made corruption an art form.
You must be so proud.
I've made some bad "investment choices too" can the government bail me out as well?
Johnny: Ya, show me my handout.
Iam still down to just blame bush :)
...and I'd be willing to bet your precious peeps have been pocketing much bigger campaign contributions from the bankers, brokers and mortgage houses than any Dems have.
Are you fucking kidding me???
And that's not even counting the millions that Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick and Jim Johnson hauled in while working for Fannie Mae.
The GOPers have made corruption an art form.
Oh, please.
Rep. Charles Rangle
Sen. Mary Landrieu
Rep. John Murtha
Rep. Laura Richardson
Rep. William Jefferson
And that's just off the top of my head.
Most ethical Congress evah? Yeah, right
And your deregulation argument is fucking weak too. Blah, blah, blah it's ALL the Republicans fault.
Try putting the tired partisan snark aside for a moment and take a long hard look at some of the facts. Like for instance, how the government forced these banking institution into handing out bad loans to customers with poor (or no) credit and who had absolutely no business buying homes they couldn't afford.
Like I said, there's PLENTY of blame to go around for everyone.
It's one big shit sandwich and we're all gonna have to take a bite.
I'm glad to see there is a lot of bipartisan agreement that this bail out is a terrible idea. I wrote my congressional representatives. Boxer and Feinstein did not reply, but Henry Waxman replied and assured me he would be questioning the bailout. Here is a quote from his official statement.
"I have serious reservations about the Administration’s bailout proposal. The structure of the plan appears designed to maximize returns for Wall Street and minimize protections for the taxpayer.
The Administration’s plan completely eviscerates the concept of moral hazard. It would enrich the Wall Street executives whose reckless investments caused the financial crisis. The taxpayer is being asked to risk billions to protect the bonuses of investment bankers."
So write your representatives and let them know what you think of this mess.
I can play that game too TUA, and from the same source...
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/summary.php?cycle=2008&ind=F03
> Like I said, there's PLENTY of blame to go around for everyone.
Again, who was at the helm, who insisted that congress to deregulate, who appointed the secretary of the treasury?
It was the damned Democrats. Riiiight!
I have a mental picture of Boosh pointing in multiple directions saying "It's his fault."