Bailout IS privatization of Social Security, just thru a back door.

[Festivito]

Instead of having had SS privatized and all the money would now be reduced to ridiculous levels, OUR SS money will be used to bail out the speculators who have hoarded their money, probably hoarded into gold or offshore accounts. Very little will be done for decent people who took loans on houses valued too high.

We will not be able to pay what we owe SS when the baby boomers retire because of paying the speculators today.

It may not be official, but SS is privatized as soon as we do this bailout.

[OmahaBlueDog]

1. If there is no funding source pegged to this bill, then I agree

Essentially, you're taking the SS trust fund, handing it to the money managers, and hoping for the best.

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that this bailout was 100% essential for the nation's well being. OK, fine. Tax securities transactions up front. Commodities contracts, stock purchases, options purchases -- if it's traded on a mercantile or stock exchange, put a per share/contract/warrant tax of between 0.25% and 1.25% (I didn't dream this up -- it's been posted here on DU elsewhere). If what I'm told is correct, this should generate between $140 bln at the low end to $700 bln at the high end. Will it put some drag on the stock market? Yep. Do I really care if it generates the money to fund this turkey and leaves John Q. Citizen mostly out of the picture? Nope.

[Festivito]

3. It is just that. Treasury, hand over the loot, er, ah, I mean money.

Even with a stake in the transaction or a payment/tax/fee schedule, where we own the stock/payments, we could even make a profit. That would be great. It would take time, but it would be workable FOR THIS CASE along with the last case(Fannie/Freddie).

Problem is, there will be more of these bailouts coming. We're in for a dime with Freddie and Fannie, next we're in for a dollar on this one, then will come the hedge funds. We'll be in up to our eyeballs. (Sorry for mixing metaphors.) But, SS will be in over its head.

If this bailout is essential, the question is: How essential is SS, because SS is being traded away for whatever it is that makes this bailout a necessity. I think SS is a necessity, SS is essential, SS is more necessary and more essential than this bailout.

[Kip Humphrey]

2. BINGO! ...It is, after all, the goal of all good neocon fascists to kill Social Security.

[Festivito]

4. Yup. One cannot really squeeze people hard until they have NO income.

Then the boom and bust will really mean that they have to give up their ownership, just in order to eat and sleep.

[Thothmes]

5. You are saying that a Democratic President

and a Democratically controlled House and Senate are going to privitize Social Secuity?

[Festivito]

8. They would, and why not. It's compromise to what our people know.

Besides, he's not president yet. One runs for president showing an ability to compromise, work on both sides of the aisle, and whatever else one might call it.

But, what we have is certainly better than the original bill.

To run with what looks like an unintended Malaprop, this constant compromising between the ridiculous and the sublime has lead to worthless legislation. Like a compromise of where the baseball goes being somewhere between home plate and the local airport. It makes no sense and the one who wants the ball kept out of the game keeps winning. I'm tired of the Republicans putting ridiculous things forward and then winning due to a compromise that the complicit media okays.

The promise of Social Security will become as worthful as the paper found at the bottom of a privy, should we let it become privatized. Whether that privatization comes from the front door of passed legislation or some hidden back entry of just plainly taking the money away, makes no difference. If the money is gone, the money is gone.

[stillcool]

6. If that were the case all Republicans..

would have been falling all over themselves to vote for it. I think they should scratch the whole thing, and have the Democrats write a completely new bill addressing the 'issues' that are most important to the American people, and then vote along party lines. Wouldn't that work?

[Festivito]

7. They might well have, had it given them EVERYTHING.

Originally, a Republican appointee was to get the full amount, and, Congress could not stop him, the courts could not stop him from doing ANYTHING he wants. He was to give the money to the rich overlords, and screw the little people.

Now, two things play on the minds of Republicans. Their ideology is falling apart and as it falls they realize that honor among thieves might just find its limits. Plus, secondly, they have to face their voters, and their voters are not happy with their records of following Bush and voting in unison as Republicans.

Yes, it should be re-written with people FIRST. But, also with respect to the SS the people will need, especially since the people's additional retirement holdings just transferred to the ultra-wealthy and next the people's means of earning wealth, in this case property, will transfer there a little later.

Almost finally, the Republicans will filibuster any good bill. But, I say, let'em. Stock market numbers DO NOT EQUAL the common good nor the general welfare of the people. Those numbers only represent the common good and general welfare of the corporations, which in this case, directly opposes the general welfare and common good of the people for which our representatives would be remiss in their duties to US and America to allow.