Thanks and no thanks on the bailout, DU

[jpgray]

:)

To all those who debate this bailout exhaustively using rational arguments, facts and figures: thanks.

You provide readers of this site with a far broader view of the implications and origins of the bailout plan than we would have otherwise. Both for and against (and everything in between), there have been solid informed opinions that encourage the questioning of assumptions and testing of conclusions necessary to any honest discussion of an issue.

What are my thoughts as of now? I still don't feel sure of my opinion, and I have a lot more to read. In isolation, on its merits, the Democratic plan is timid and focuses resources in the wrong places and in the wrong ways. However, given this political atmosphere and given our divided, weak-willed caucus, I can understand why the Dems have proposed it. It is superior to the Paulson plan (and the GOP House plan!), and it may be the best we can expect, even while it is far from the best we could hope for.

---

To all those who post on either side with knee-jerk belligerence and insupportable condescension, pretending to exclusive rightness while freely deriding any dissenting viewpoint as wicked, brainless or otherwise laughable: no thanks.

It's depressing how all the ideals of liberalism can go right out the window once the at-risk party is perceived to be the upper class. Never mind that the upper class will lose comparatively little in quality of life, whatever happens; never mind that any suffering will fall squarely on the shoulders of the lower classes, whatever happens--superficial perceptions and "us vs. them" distillations of complex issues must have their primacy for some.

This caricature of the crisis as -only- having potential to harm or benefit the uber-rich finds some DUers exulting in the present ignorant outrage of a popular majority, forgetting that during the run-up to war and countless battles for minority rights a similar ignorant majority posed the primary obstacle to just action. The target of popular opinion is the rich, this time. When the target was peace, GLBT folks or our civil rights, was majority opinion still trumpeted as the ultimate arbiter of justice? I submit that popular opinion -alone- is a poor measure of truth, and recent history ought to confirm that at least.

Big talk about cheering on and riding out the most hideous crises to a beautiful tomorrow seems an all-too-common DU phenomenon. I wish such people would drop the self-aggrandizing narratives and question the assumptions which create them. We'd all benefit from that.

[aquart]

1. I think we all love being talked down to.

[jpgray]

23. You're the expert

:hi:

[tama]

2. Questioning the assumptions

"Big talk about cheering on and riding out the most hideous crises to a beautiful tomorrow seems an all-too-common DU phenomenon. I wish such people would drop the self-aggrandizing narratives and question the assumptions which create them. We'd all benefit from that."

Your "we all" seems rather narrow and non-inclusive, if I interprete your meaning correctly, consisting of only "middle-class" US consumers.

So please, let's question the assumption that consumerism is good for the overall well being of this planet and us humans who, are also (even against our protest and blindness) organic parts of nature.

Let's question the assumption that the material greed of the American Consumer and his fear of loosing his possessions overrides all other rights, of all other humans, of all other species, of nature as whole.

[lligrd]

4. Thank You - All Of This Middle Class Speak

has been really bothering me (even Obama's mention of it). What about the poor? Why are we completely ignoring them? It seems to me that especially at a time like this (where many middle class fear becoming the poor) we should remember the poor (which are already a great many of our population).

[REP]

5. Wake up. There is no middle-class

"Middle class" is a euphemism for "working class."

The poor probably don't have a mortgage to worry about, and the working class are damned lucky if they do.

[lligrd]

8. But They Do Have Social Programs That They Count On To

survive and those are the programs that "they" are determined to rid the country of.

[SoCalDem]

6. That sad fact is this.. Both sides "use" the poor.

and there will always be plenty of poor people.. Our side tends to try and "fix' things for the poor, and the other side just wants to blame them for their own misery:(

Most people arrive at "poor" because they are ill-educated, and have terrible "luck".. A bad decision in a mate, a bad career choice, having children too young, being stuck in a dead-end town with no real jobs, etc.... There are as many reasons for the poverty, as there ARE poor people..

The thing that poor people lack is M O N E Y ..and their measly jobs never seem to give them enough of a leg up, to ever escape the poverty.."services" they get , just get them a little closer to "making it"..but never all the way there..

Getting money does not ensure that people would escape poverty permanently, but it sure would please a bunch of them to have enough money to eat, pay rent, have transportation and a job.. that's really all most people want..just enough to pay their bills & get by...but it's harder and harder to do these days.. and not just the poor have problmes managing that feat..

[lligrd]

10. How Is Trying "To Fix Things" for The Poor, Using Them?

Perhaps the fixes aren't always well thought out (or even well intentioned but that doesn't even compare to the recent phenomenon of ignoring them all together.

[SoCalDem]

11. Fixing, as in creating agencies that spend more administering the aid,

than the actual aid given..and what is given is never quite enough to get them OUT of poverty...just enough to stay alive (barely) IN poverty..

[lligrd]

14. I'll Give You That

But what about the recent phenomenon of just ignoring them completely? Why is that occurring? Especially, when so many are in danger of joining them?

[tama]

17. Healing process

The sickness does not begin to heal before it gets worse and reaches it's peak.

That said, it's important to reach right diagnosis, and that starts from realizing that we are all part of this collective sickness and that blame gaming is part of the sickness. Here's a couple tools for self-diagnosis:
http://www.earthday.net/footprint/index.html
http://www.myfootprint.org/en/

Redefining progress may lead to realization that the so called "poor" of this world are "poor" only by fundamentally mistaken criteria and that in many cases the poor are actually livin more full and wealthy lives, where and when the sociol conditions are not too depressive against those who are really wealthy - those that have humble material needs but lots of love to share.

[amber_86]

25. For real

I love this verse, this is one of my favorite verse.
"If any of your people become poor and unable to support themselves, you must help them."
-Leviticus 25:35
And that is why I am voting for Obama because he cares about everyone.
And McCain just cares about Money, war, power.

[jpgray]

34. What does this have to do with consumerism? Aside from us typing on Chinese-made computers

Wearing slave-labor clothes, and using debit/credit cards to eat? I'm as lower-class as they come, and I just don't see this hurting any of the fantastically rich in any significant way.

[lligrd]

3. Cheering On? I Must Have Missed That.

If you mean those of us that have been warning of this for years and who have been able to accept that this attempt to solve it would fail then I think maybe it is those that can still pretend that everything is a-okay and that they can ride this out without personal sacrifice that are the ones that should question their assumptions.

[Two Americas]

7. I can't find that either

Of course I never could find anyone who "wanted the terrorists to win" either.

Maybe I need new glasses. The rose colored kind.

This has to be the most bizarre political episode in recent memory.

Just a couple of weeks ago, those warning of this were being dismissed and called doomsayers. Now, Bush declares a crisis, and the roles are reversed. The dismissers are now doomsayers and are accusing the doomsayers of being dismissers. All because of the decider. But we never changed what we were saying.

I love all of these self-contradictory messages and illogical arguments, too.

"The world is going to end, so could you people please stop spreading panic???"

"We all need to be really afraid, because fear is what could cause a depression!!"

"The whole financial system is about to collapse, and everything will be just fine!"

"The general public is wrong on GLBT rights, so they must be wrong on this."

"Count every vote, but pay no attention to your constituents!"

"The Democrats must be right. After all, we voted for them didn't we?"

"If democracy is going to work, we need to trust our leaders and stop criticizing them!"

[lligrd]

9. Bizarre Is Correct

I just can't stand them saying we were cheering it on when all we have been doing is warning of what was going to happen. And we still are. I don't really expect or even want a "you were right, pat on the back". I want people to wake up, see what is occurring and stop it. Until people are willing to face reality, there is little hope of that occurring.

[tama]

13. Wimps

who want to bail out the slave-masters from self-destructing, because they cannot imagine any other way of life than slavery.

[Two Americas]

15. orchestrated propaganda campaign

There are a few who manage to dominate and control, or wreck, the discussion within the rank and file of the party. They consistently push Reaganomics ideas, recast in liberal-sounding arguments, and try to smother any hint of left wing politics that might break out. Suddenly, dozens of people all over the 'net are using the same phrases and the same arguments. This notion that critics of the bailout were cheering on a depression was one of those stock slogans that has been repeated and repeated hundreds of times - but never defended or supported. When slogans like that appear out of nowhere and with no context, and appear everywhere simultaneously, and when those who use them won't defend them or discuss them, I get suspicious.

[jpgray]

22. Calling out DUers is against the rules, but take a cursory look around

[Hannah Bell]

12. Here's some facts for you, from the big boys themselves: you might want to discount some of the dire

prophecies you hear on DU: Some patriot leaked the treasury conference call:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2008/09/mussolini-style-corporatism-in-action.html


Treasury Conference Call on Bailout Bill to Analysts (Updated)


1) If even the Treasury is saying tranching is a formality, then it really is nothing. Not sure why Dems fought so hard for a fig leaf.

2) Waiting a couple of weeks because no one has any idea when or where the next bomb will blow up. In other words, all their doomsday scenarios about Black Monday were B.S. They screamed the check had to be written by Monday, but now they're saying they actually have a few weeks before they need to cash it. Plus, this will allow them to "seek guidance" from GS, JPM, and other selfless public servants about where the money should be funneled.

3. The tap dancing is because they don't want it to get out that they'll be giving a sweetheart deal. The public won't be following each individual transaction to see exactly what price is being paid. So ridiculously overpriced asset sales can be hidden in the details, and by the time some reporter (or blogger :-) combs through and analyzes the transactions, the deed will have been done. But if Paulson makes a statement that assets will be bought at par before the bailout's even begun, that will be reported and might kill the deal.

4. In other words, we need to sweeten the pot to encourage banks to come "voluntarily". Pardon my ignorance, but why the hell should we be begging banks to borrow from us? I thought a bailout should be the absolute last option for a bank. I.e., it should be so unpalatable, so unprofitable for a bank and its executives that they exhaust every private means of survival before coming for their public "reaming". I wonder if foreclosed homeowners would rate their foreclosure process as "user friendly".

5. Of course the exec comp provisions are a joke. Who do you think is going to be hiring all those banking cmte staffers and newly retired congresspeople next year during the inevitable post-election turnover? Do you really think they're going to vote to limit their salaries? Remember that for lots of people on the Hill (including elected reps), govt work is merely time you spend accumulating credentials in preparation for your real life's work in the vastly richer private world.

Taxpayer losses: "golly, let's just pray to Jesus and hope he'll make sure that in a few years our country won't be bankrupt."

Oversight: "let's appoint a committee which will file toothless reports that no one will ever read".

I'm glad to see that while much time was spent in Exec comp. and tranching kabuki theater, the real points of protection of taxpayer losses and implementation of new regulation seem to be afterthoughts.

[lligrd]

16. Self - Delete

Posted in wrong place.

[jpgray]

18. I'm not blindly accepting dire prophecies

I just wish people were less likely to accept an interpretation solely based on how pleasing the narrative of that interpretation is.

[Hannah Bell]

30. The narrative above is what Treasury is telling financial insiders.

Rather different from what its telling the public, or from what our *representatives* are telling us.

But go on with your innuendo, it's fascinating.

[MadrasT]

19. We were about to be soundly fucked. The House did us a favor.

[Kickin_Donkey]

20. just another useful idiot for wall st. bankers and brokers

[jpgray]

21. Much of this thread seems to be making my point for me.

[Hannah Bell]

28. you think so? i don't. no one's cheering on collapse, & there's no evidence your "bailout "

would do a damn thing to forestall it.

If you read the damn thing, it doesn't even do what it was advertised to - like prevent the crooks from walking away with big paydays.

If they lie about that minor point, what else?

[Sheets of Easter]

24. Dude, why do you even bother?

Why bother with this "rational" business, anyway? I haven't seen it on here in years. What's the use?

It's sad when a clear and well thought-out post gets savaged the way it does, yet hyperbole wins the day. I miss the old DU something fierce.

[jpgray]

27. Thanks for the kind words, but to those who are so "sure", I sound like a pedantic scold

Which probably makes people all the more sure of their assumptions. So what good does it do, really? :P

(actually, I probably sound like a pedantic scold to everyone)

[Hannah Bell]

29. What good does what do? Your main purpose in this thread IS to call people out, not discuss the

bill, which doesn't even do the things pelosi & dodd said it would.

They got NOTHING.

[jpgray]

32. Are there no differences between Paulson's plan and Dodd/Frank's? Or do they seem too cosmetic?

[bean fidhleir]

31. No, you don't sound a pedantic scold

I disagreed with what then looked like your pro-giveaway stance, and I think I disagree somewhat with your overall political position (I might be confused about that), but I can't imagine how anyone who spends any time thinking could ever regard you as a pedantic scold.

[jpgray]

33. My position has changed due precisely to those who challenge my opinions with reasoned argument

Those who challenge the opinions of others with insults, trying to turn debate of the issue into a petty personality war, are the source of my disappointment today. Nearly every side of this issue has supporters providing cogent argument, and that's where I think many are really benefiting from the DU discussion.

[jannyk]

26. Bravo JP, very well said! k&r