1 A couple of things. One, Democrats control both sides of Congress for at least the next few months. So the best possible solution isn't going to happen. Second, if nothing happesn and such financial meltdown occurs, it will be spun to a goodly portion of the electorate that it's Bush's fault, and therefore Republicans' fault, and tilt the election away from us, despite any easily-discoverable facts to the contrary.

Yes, we'd like a perfect solution. But for the time being, anything that works and duct-tapes the place together for seven more weeks is fine by me.

2 Holy cow!

The Jawas have abandoned Ace on this issue, hung him out to dry, and posted a roundup of conservative voices opposed to dolling out $700 billion dollars on bailing out Wall Street.

Or maybe the Jawas were never Ace's ally on this issue in the first place? No matter.

Still, the alarmism continues as the above article and "must see" sentence shows. The question is... are the alarmists right or not?

Maybe a better question is by what right does the federal government spend $700 billion dollars ($2324 for each American man, woman or child) to bail out private enterprise?

3 JPMorgan Chase buying Washington Mutual's assets after FDIC seizes ailing thrift.
http://tinyurl.com/4ltxd6
I hope that's not the trigger he's talking about.

4 Woah, you bolded the site. 

5 "Yes, we'd like a perfect solution. But for the time being, anything that works and duct-tapes the place together for seven more weeks is fine by me."

Even funding ACORN?

Because that's what Michelle Malkin reports is meant to be in this bill if Democrats have their way. And that, my friend, is just the tip of the $700 billion ice berg.

6 Yo, Ace.  Good work!  You might try /strong you fucking retard.  And how fucking stupid is it that your whole site is affected by your ham handed html use? Take some of that click-per-view ad money and hire someone who knows what the fuck they are doing and fix your site.  Cocksucker.

7 Exactly what assurances do we have that the $700 billion would even be spent how it's supposed to be?  We have money going to ACORN, at a minimum.  Who knows where else.  How much of that $700 billion is going to pet causes and projects?  Are we certain this isn't one of those Iraq military supplemental bills where $30 billion is spent on equipment and $60 billion get spent on un-related junk?

8 "Maybe a better question is by what right does the federal government spend $700 billion dollars ($2324 for each American man, woman or child) to bail out private enterprise?"

Hey, Christoph, you're scary smart.  How about you figure out exactly how much contraction it takes for a $14 trillion economy to hit your $700 billion mark.  By my calcs, that's a single -5% year.

Take that, compare it to history, and then stop talking out your ass.

I'm serious.  The last few days here have convinced me that half the people commenting are fucking retarded.  If you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, take the next three hours at the WSJ.  Credit lines are drying up, dividends are being canceled, chambers of commerce are sounding the alarm.

Do you really think it's a mirage that this many conservatives you normally know and trust are freaked out right now?

9 I have no family or heirs to provide for. I have guns and a temper. Fuck it.

10

Turn off the bold, yo.

 

As for the phrase, I've been saying it for days now, as has JackStraw and a couple others, though generally here it's "you can prevent a meltdown or you can maintain libertarian capitalistic purity*, but you can't do both."

This reminds me so much of the idiots who want to don't want to drill because it will benefit the oil companies.  Well, who fucking cares?  I'm sick of $4 gas, and if getting it to $2 means ExxonMobil makes a couple extra bil, I'm all for it.  I need the help more than I need to stick it to Big Oil.

I never thought I'd be fighting my own side so vehemently on this.  But once the word "bailout" entered the lexicon, it's tough to get out.  Even though nobody on Wall Street's getting bailed out that I know of; the only ones getting bailed out are us: we have a seat saved for us on the Titanic's liferaft, and some idiots would rather go down with the ship than let Washington help us.  I ain't going out like that.  Suck my dick, and swallow your pride.

 

 

*and what defines libertarian purity, anyway?  Lack of government intervention?  That's anarchy.  And while there is a way to square laissez-faire capitalism with societal anarchy, that's not what, I think, most anti-"bailout" people here are arguing for.  It's in our rational self-interest not to destroy the goddamn system here, so take your copy of Atlas Shrugged and shove it.

11 Part of the "Etc." that Ace didn't quote is this closing gem:

"The reality is that these guys will be operating in uncharted territory, making things up as they go along. That means there are no assurances that any particular approach will work and no assurances that this will be the final solution. It also means that, just as we entrust generals to fight a war, we are going to have to trust the Treasury to find a way out of this crisis."

Peachy keen.

Trust the Treasury — Bush's for a few months, then either McCain or Obama's — to use taxpayer's money to solve this government-caused Wall Street mess.

12

If anybody needs me, I will outside running around in circles.  I will do that amount of wailing and theatrical arm waving which seems good to me.

13 You can try to prevent a financial meltdown or you can teach Wall Street a lesson, but you can't do both at the same time.

Yeah? Can't do both at the same time?  Bullshit!
Sure....go ahead, loan the 700 Billion.  But its no longer business as usual.

Have Attorneys General hold public hearings...FBI is already investigating....  Get all the politicians and Fannie/Freddie decision makers in front of cameras ala Watergate daily...  Whoever came up with the subprime securities scheme (yes SCHEME) in front of the cameras too.  Lie detector tests....  Electrodes on genitalia (illustritive hyperbole....maybe), the works!

And Mr Dodd, Barney Frank and all the other usual suspects...you're not conducting the inquiries.... We the people will be judge and jury you lazy corrupt, incompetant fucks.

14 Christoph, I say it again, you're fucking retarded.

"Conservative Blogger of the Year", aka Balrog of Morgoth, Ace should have banned you back when you were "making a point" with tar baby, spade is a spade, etc references.  Then you wouldn't be here, right now, talking out your ass, about something you simply don't understand.

15 once it's Obama's Presidency, he's not gonna want to crater the economy. It wouldn't be in his interest.

But if the economy craters Monday, it will guarantee an Obama Presidency. And he WILL make the federal government take action. And it will not be what we fiscal conservatives/small government libertarians want.

16 "6 Yo, Ace. Good work! You might try /strong you fucking retard. And how fucking stupid is it that your whole site is affected by your ham handed html use? Take some of that click-per-view ad money and hire someone who knows what the fuck they are doing and fix your site. Cocksucker. Posted by: Quilly Mammoth at September 26, 2008 02:46 AM (NEgWa)" Well sure, dude. He could just use all that money you've been throwing in the tip jar, right?

17 This whole mess started because in 2001 when Jaime Gorelick changed how Fannie Mae packaged it's security offerings.  They were no longer transparent.  Every fucking loan was  "aaa subprime" .  They were sold and resold based on yields that were fictitious.  That's how $500B of bad loans became $1T.  This crap paper was sold on expectations that they would be worth more later than they were now (future value of money).  All lies.  I sell you this $500M package for $550M because it will be worth that much in assets and proceeds next year...and so on.

18 quilly, it was all good as long as house prices were rising.

19 "Ace should have banned you back when you were "making a point" with tar baby, spade is a spade, etc references."

What are you talking about? I don't even know what the term "tar baby" means, not even colloquially, much less as a racial term. It's not one I've ever heard used here in Canada.

Second, I have often used the term "call a spade a spade" as I have said, and never once to do with race. I'll use the term regardless of the race of the people involved. It is only in your country with its messed up racial history of slavery that is has racial connotations.

In fact, it's of ancient derivation; it descends from Plutarch.

So, to repeat: The first expression I don't use because I don't know what it means, and the second one I do use because I know what it means. And the only reason the second one has any negative connotation is because of your own country's fucked up history of slavery, not my country's history of helping your country's escaping slaves and integrating them into our society as free citizens.

20 Hmmm. Ace agrees with that asshole O'Rielly. Levin is in agreement with Limbaugh to think this through and let the market go wild for a few days and get the pork out of the bill, then maybe, maybe pass a lean more conservative bill...hmmmm I'm with Levin and Limbaugh and Gingrich. A bailout may be necessary but not this bailout. And Hugh Hewitt is hysterical which leads me to believe we have same time. Who is it that already came through to buy Washington Mutual?

21 We're all just being nerotic fools.  Nothing we can do, nothing's gonna matter.  No one will let the entire economy halt because of the credit crunch.  The government will take back the $70 and $80 billion loans to the finance houses that they got last month, and pump it directly into the economy itself before it lets the whole thing fall to pieces.  Ace, double up on the klonoptin.  The rest of you, don't get all mad.  You're arguing on the internets, and we all know how well that solves problems and promotes understanding. 

The best we can hope for is that the Dems blink first and the package gets the ACORN shit stripped out.  The banko rules are fine, most fed judges aren't going to be giving out 2% interest rates.  But then again, the Dems LOVE economic collapse, as they erroneously think that's how they came to power in the FDR heyday (as opposed to it being a function of the political cycle change of the guard and economic cycle crash coinciding in the 1930s).

We'll be fine, one way or another.  THe panic is being used as a weapon against you.  Fuck these assholes sideways.

22 There has been a massive loss of liquidity in the main financial institutions in the US because of this disaster.  I loathe the idea of the government getting ever more involved in the market but these disasters seem to force this. 

Which probably explains why I'm not a libertarian.  The government already has major control over the money supply and is the source of the very currency we use but we seem to be in a never-ending cycle of "catastrophe" followed by "bailout" and more government control. 

But without some sort of bailout, even your paychecks may start bouncing next week.  That's just how serious this current crisis has become.  Banks with billions tied up in "illiquid" assets cannot make loans based on that asset pool -- of any kind, short term or long term, mortgage or simple transaction grease.

Some in the government may be playing a game of chicken, thinking some of these banks will finally be forced to merge or be bought up by healthier institutions, but a price is going to be paid for this latest episode of "creative financing" -- it IS just a question of how that bill will be paid.  We use the term "recession" but this will be more like a "depression".  Credit of all kinds will dry completely up.  The damage could be permanent because we get a lot of capital from overseas.  Foreigners may decide the US has gotten too risky to underpin.

23

Electrodes on genetalia? Nah.

Announce a that a new program has been created as part of the bailout and will apply to all Congressional, Wall St., and Banking positions above the level of intern.  It will be known as the "Anti-Summarily Executing You Fund".  Donations are going to be most strenuously encouraged.

24 Today, was a good day.  Or, so I thought.They were working on a deal. The market was coming back up. Now, we're back to losing everything. Fuck.

25 As long as Ace keeps being a stick in the mud about this, I am going to post this.

There's an alternative. With a few consession from the Dems for tomorrow, the alternative plan will get approved. Then they can go into session and do the stuff they need to do in time for the Monday Morning opener.

The only people who are going to lose anything are Henry Paulson and the Democrats.

26 Just because Ragnar did a round up of Conservative pundits' reaction to the bailout doesn't mean we've thrown Ace under the bus, Christoph.

Maybe you should concern yourself more with what is going in your country rather than what is going on in ours.

Sincerely,

The Jawa Team

27 Just in case you didn't see this below.

ghost, no. I'm in the finance industry, but not in that way. I deal with estate planning. So, no, I have no direct business interest in the bailout.

You guys just don't get it. The credit markets are just about to freeze up. What if Tuesday you swiped your Visa and were denied. Visa suddenly decided that your credit limit was whatever your current balance was. That's what's coming.

28 "Levin is in agreement with Limbaugh to think this through and let the market go wild for a few days and get the pork out of the bill, then maybe, maybe pass a lean more conservative bill...hmmmm"

I think that's a much more sensible suggestion.

No bill that funds ACORN can be properly deemed an emergency bill. If it didn't have such crap added to it, and car loan debt, and credit card debt, I'd be more inclined to think it was a serious attempt at solving the mortgage credit crunch.

29 I was joking, "The Jawa Team". It was hyperbole to introduce the thoughts of critics of the $700 billion bailout as it stands now, as detailed at the Jawa Report.

30 Christoph, you prove you're retarded.

If you look below your comment, you will see who I'm referring to in the second part of my comment.  I helpfully named him by his handle in this thread as well as his older handle.  "Conservative of the year" or Balrog of Morgoth.

I repeat, Christoph, you're fucking retarded.  Learn to read.  Then start reading the business section.  Then realize you're probably still too stupid to talk to other adults and shut the fuck up already.

31 18 quilly, it was all good as long as house prices were rising.
Posted by: XBradTC at September 26, 2008 03:06 AM (yZbi/)

Brad...
Home prices had been rising at an irrational and unsustainable rate for several years prior to the downturn.  There is NO.WAY. incomes could keep up with the increases in price.

Property churning had become a game in many places across the US. Florida and Las Vegas (probably a lot more places) had pre-construction sales of 'contracts' (yes the contracts....not even the property) at an alarming rate.  Everyone wanting to 'get rich in real estate'.  I was always wondering when they would eventually run out of the next sucker to buy their contract at 20,000 higher than they bought it for the month prior.  The game of musical chairs couldn't go on forever...
And yet (hahaha) incredible as it may seem...I still hear advertisments on the radio for the real estate 'guru' who's looking for his shills to pay him $2000 for his 'special secrets' to getting rich in real estate....

that's the economy's ephitaph: "It was all good as long as house prices were rising"

32 "Fuck these assholes sideways."

Hey, quit talking about Anne Hathaway. This is a serious thread here.

33 >>>This whole mess started because in 2001 when Jaime Gorelick changed how Fannie Mae packaged it's security offerings.  They were no longer transparent.  Every fucking loan was  "aaa subprime" .  They were sold and resold based on yields that were fictitious.  That's how $500B of bad loans became $1T.

I would love to see frog marches into prison.

I would love, love, love to see Jamie Gorelick, Al Qaeda's Inside Man for 9/11, spend 3 years cooling her heels in the clink.

The trouble is this seems to have been widespread with lots of people in on it.  It's going to be hard to convince juries they knew they were breaking the law.  It's quite possible they didn't know they were breaking the law.  Or that they didn't break the law at all -- just so massively violated their fiduciary duties as to be *almost* criminal.

I would love a mighty reckoning. 

At the moment, though, retribution is secondary.

34 If you guys seriously think private parties with cash are going to step in for this insurance folderal, you are wrong. They have cash because they stayed clear. And, there ain't enough cash out there for them to step in.

To paraphrase a post at Pattericos, if the economy craters, no one is going to thank the Republicans for saving the taxpayers $700billion.

35

The problem isn't "teaching Wall Street" a lesson. The problem is that the commiecrats have larded up the bill with more of the same that got us here in the first place. It does no good at all to bail out the credit industry and keep killing it at the same time.

And that doesn't even count the other stealth poison pills that they added to bill. Stuff like Reid's blocking of the shale oil development and the ACORN funding mentioned above.

No, if this is all we can get we are better off with NOTHING.

36 "If you look below your comment, you will see who I'm referring to in the second part of my comment.  I helpfully named him by his handle in this thread as well as his older handle.  "Conservative of the year" or Balrog of Morgoth."

Thanks for clarifying that you were not calling me that.

37 Oh, I agree with you on that, mrclark. My point was, to some extent, it was a ponzi scheme run by Fannie/Freddie.

38 Christoph, student loan debt was also added. Who is always bitching about that? Yeah, Barack and Michelle. And any public funds to ACORN is just plain wrong. As I've said before read Michelle Malkin on this. The clowns in Washington CAN put together a lean, reasonable bill that pumps money into the broken financial system. Did you know the first "bailout bill" was only THREE F'ING PAGES. Then the DEMS got a hold of it and it became a 76 page piece of crap. I can only imagine what it is now.

39 "I would love, love, love to see Jamie Gorelick, Al Qaeda's Inside Man for 9/11, spend 3 years cooling her heels in the clink."

I would love to see it too, but justice seems to be in short supply in Washington.

Ace, comment on one thing at least. Do you really think conservatives should just open their mouths and swallow this rescue plan if it includes funding for ACORN and a host of other anti-conservative causes added for God knows what reason?

40 Anyone who says these toxic assets will be profitable should put their money where their mouth is and buy some. Especially Paulson. He's got a few bucks to spare.

41 XBradTC, someone already did. They bought Washington Mutual's assets. It does happen.

42 "The clowns in Washington CAN put together a lean, reasonable bill that pumps money into the broken financial system."

Indeed, mare.

And as another commenter said:

"Levin is in agreement with Limbaugh to think this through and let the market go wild for a few days and get the pork out of the bill, then maybe, maybe pass a lean more conservative bill...hmmmm"

If this is done, then it's easier to accept. Maybe not everyone will go with it, but you won't get the same number of viscerally negative reactions.

And pork is one thing. But ACORN? Conservatives are supposed to support a supposedly desperately and immediately needed rescue bill that funds ACORN?

43 In its entirety, Vic's comment is bang on. It doesn't summarize the whole economic situation nor try to. But it shows one major objection to the bill, and it shows it well. I couldn't put it better:

The problem isn't "teaching Wall Street" a lesson. The problem is that the commiecrats have larded up the bill with more of the same that got us here in the first place. It does no good at all to bail out the credit industry and keep killing it at the same time.

And that doesn't even count the other stealth poison pills that they added to bill. Stuff like Reid's blocking of the shale oil development and the ACORN funding mentioned above.

No, if this is all we can get we are better off with NOTHING.

44 christoph,

no, I think they should refuse to sign anything that includes any earmarks of any kind, especially acorn, and go to the most dangerous level of brinksmanship there is and make these fuckers famous, as McCain said, letting the public know in no uncertain terms they are putting the country in jeopardy of depression in order to throw further payouts to corrupt leftist cocksuckers.

I think we'll win on that.

If we don't, and if the Democrats refuse to pass this without bribes for their lefty friends, we're in big big trouble, but I guess that's life.

45 How is the impact of the credit markets freezing and the government stepping in with FDIC money any more expensive that the bailout?  Either way the gov't is going to get a piece of the banks' assets, and either way, the paychecks will keep going through and the bread will still get baked. 

I don't see the Second Great Depression out of this, though I recognize it COULD be a possibility.  I'm all for securing the economy, even at the cost of massive intervention, but I'm also beginning to see that while the financial section is in deep shit, and the credit market allows for a great deal of commerce, it is not the only system that can work. 

Abandoning the unsustainable credit markets might be necessary, and yes, might entail the loss of America as the world's financial hub.  But I fail to see on a micro level how that will be a hardship akin to the apocalypse.

If the US Government is going to be the bank, why not have it REALLY be the bank.  Let the private side collapse and let the government guarantee accounts.  Govnerment receivership of entire corporations will result in less risk to the Treasury, and more pain for the cocklicks that got us in this mess.

46 "Anyone who says these toxic assets will be profitable should put their money where their mouth is and buy some. Especially Paulson. He's got a few bucks to spare."

I know you're part way joking, but the 2 problems with this are the enormity of the problem and the cost of borrowing.

No private investor has $700 billion sitting around to invest. Two, it costs them more to borrow, particularly in a tight credit market, than it costs government who can "borrow" unlimited money by printing currency and raising it by fiat.

At least that's the argument in favour of this bill, one of them. That it's so big no one but the government can do anything about it without an economic downturn.

I say, let there be downturn! ... or at least a bill that doesn't fund ACORN and a bunch of crap if the government is really serious about the necessity for an urgent bailout.

47 Ace, I think that's what I'm trying to say. Get the bill back to three pages and go toe to toe with anyone from either party not willing to sign a serious, no pork bill. And for God's sake we need conservatives to start naming names and name them loudly.

48 Okay, ace@44, that's a fair comment.

It's such an important one that I think you should have included it in your post because obviously a lot of your commenters, even conservative bloggers like Michelle Malkin, radio people like Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, object to the ridiculous outright (and some on purpose poision pill) pork in this.

While I oppose the bailout on principle, I could see begrudgingly supporting it if these provisions were removed. Because while I may not totally agree with the necessity of the emergency funding, I could see where people were very serious about the need for it and I could go along with them. My theory would then be, "I could be wrong, and they could be right. The consequences for being wrong could be as bad as they say and they're serious about this, they haven't even tried to lard it up with a bunch of politically advantageous earmarks, so that tells me they are sincere in their concern."

But with the earmarks, and funding for ACORN and nonsense like that, it's a lot harder to support. Even for you.

49 No private investor has $700 billion sitting around to invest.

You can buy some without buying them all. If they're really a good investment and you have some cash lying around you should jump at the opportunity.

50 Buffet bought $5 billion of these things.  They are not a bad investment.  But they are not worth Barney Fag (appropriate humor! no ban!) getting to suck off his campaign financiers, nor does it justify commie-ACORN getting one thin fucking dime.

51 And aren't they actually speculating on what the assets will be worth? For example, possibly 30 cents on the dollar or maybe even as high as 70 cents ? Stocks/companies have been purchased for a lot less. For craps sake, you need to be a friggin genius on several levels to even take an educated guess at this stuff. Really smart people are on completely different sides of the issue. It forces me to go with my own common sense and people I trust.

52

When a ship is sinking, you:

(a) bail (or pump) the water,

(b) plug the hole,

and then,

(c) repair the ship.

I'd like a "deal" that guarantees (c) after (b) after (a).  Because (a) by itself usually results in sinking. And stopping at (b) is usually quite temporary.  And the ship's been busted since the Internal Revenue Service Act of 1913.

53 I've tried to be quiet about this thus far, because I'm sort of libertarian, and I admit that I can be a bit doctrinaire about it. And I think this really isn't the time for that. If Congress would adopt a clean package of legislation that addresses the actual, immediate dangers to the economy, I could support that.

54 You'll find a lot of people are like Bugler, Ace, and if the sale's to be made, his concerns will have to be addressed.

55

Let's hypothesize. Let's assume the situation will result, as Ace proposes, in 24% unemployment rates within two quarters unless we do this "thing".

Just for the sake of argument, let us all assume that. Okay, now, what guarantees do we have that this will not extinguish free market (or semi-free) capitalism in America and replace it with a Maoist socialist framework? What guarantee do we have that socialism will remain dead here? Let's not point at that hallowed document, the Constitution, for as far as I've been able to fucking tell, there's no goddamned MORTGAGE clause in it as such right the fuck now, so saying that it will keep the goddamned socialists in their fucking graves and in their goddamned patchouli-smelling closets does not reassure me at this point in time. They've gotten this far, so let's assume they have anti-Constitution +5 cloaks on.

So - what guarantee do I have that in 9 months I'm not a fucking slave?

That's the nut. What guarantee can we get that socialism doesn't get instituted? Because socialism is slavery, and I have to tell you, man, that I'd rather be poor as a churchmouse than be a fucking slave to a bunch of Stalinist thugs.

This is the other side of the coin we're examining here. This "deal", this "thing" reeks of socialism, the stench of the death of the free market is overwhelming. To get us to agree, even in principle, every single speck of leftist shit has to be out of the deal or no deal - and that's with eyes wide open and us knowing that a sack of potatoes would indeed be a wonderful thing to have in 9 months.

If you give me the option of being well off and under socialism or being dirt fucking poor with no credit and scrabbling for food but still a free man - give me a fucking gunnysack mister, and get out of my way because I know which way I'm going.

I would rather be free and poor than being a well-fed slave.

56 mare, cristoph,

I haven't addressed that because I sort of thought it was assumed.  It never even occurred to me that a single one of us was on a different page as far as that goes.

57 Why the fuck would Paulson ask for $700 B, no strings, knowing what a shitstorm that would kick up? 

If he really wanted to fix the problem, he would have had reasonable conditions in it himself (judicial review, executive pay caps, purchase MBSs at current value).  This panic and scurrying is doing nothing but casting a bad light on his motives and letting the fucking Dems get away with their shenanigans

I was all for this yesterday, but I'm moving to the "fuck it" side fairly quickly.

58 "I haven't addressed that because I sort of thought it was assumed."

Decidedly not assumed.

59 Buffet bought $5 billion of these things.

No he didn't, he bought a piece of Goldman Sachs.

60 incidentally, house republicans refusing en masse to vote for anything along these lines = bailout relies entire on Democratic votes = leftist corrupt Democrats get to name their price for their support = 20 billion for ACORN, and that's just for starters.

61 "purchase MBSs at current value"

What value? Not being able to value properly is a huge part of the problem. Indeed, Paulson's plan is to take them off the lenders' books and slowly reintroduce them to the market, so they don't have to be sold at firesale prices.

62 yes but as I understand it Goldman Sachs is willing to buy a lot of these assets -- assuming a market can be normalized.

63

Of course, it goes without saying I prefer to be filthy rich AND free above all things, but that should be understood, ya know.

I just need to know how this deal can be structured and still put the kibosh to the fucking commies. Tell me how and you'll have my support.

64 Not a chance, ace.  Granny Rictus ain't taking one step without republican cover, even if it means the ship goes down. 

65 I've tried linking it, but it keeps getting eaten. Patterico has a great post about how the bailout would work.
 And yeah, someone bought WaMu today. Which reduced the buyers liquidity. Which is not good when the whole market problem is liquidity.

66 I want to stay up and read all the comments about this, except for the fact I'm tired and it's only 9:42 here. I'm tired because I'm working out a couple of times a day, trying to lose weight because some idiot talked me (another idiot) into doing my small fitness club's version of "the biggest loser" when I really didn't want to. See what happens when you're not tough on pork?

67 Oh, and let's add for posterity:

Thank the Ever-Loving Lord for the House Republicans and that kooky "Maverick" McCain

(never in my life thought I'd ever write that second part)

68 I believe private interests will by some of these assets, and already have. But not enough and not quickly enough, or so the theory supporting this bailout goes.

I mean, Buffet's as big as it gets. And he's only taking a couple to a few billion. He'd take more if he could borrow at better rates, or so he explained. The government can borrow the cheapest, Buffet said.

69 slide-show LOL

70 Ace, I would like to hear your thoughts on O'Rielly's rant on "right wing talk shows" not supporting the bailout.

71 yes but as I understand it Goldman Sachs is willing to buy a lot of these assets -- assuming a market can be normalized.

IOW, assuming they can dump them on the taxpayers if need be.

72 " You can try to prevent a financial meltdown or you can teach Wall Street a lesson, but you can't do both at the same time."

I don't believe it. People are concerned that commercial paper loan markets are going to dry up and wreak havoc on the economy beyond just the financial sector? Let the Fed issue commercial paper loans at what they determine to be prevailing market rates. Include a sunset provision of, say, three months. Widespread chaos averted. Wall street left out to dry. Massive long term expansion of governmental authority avoided. Three birds, one stone.

73 14 Christoph, I say it again, you're fucking retarded.

"Conservative Blogger of the Year", aka Balrog of Morgoth, Ace should have banned you back when you were "making a point" with tar baby, spade is a spade, etc references.  Then you wouldn't be here, right now, talking out your ass, about something you simply don't understand.

Posted by: hit the easy at September 26, 2008 03:00 AM (8/0ME)

Whatever.  I'm just joshing Ace a bit.  I didn't realise I was busting up a meeting of the Very-Important-People-Who-Actually-Have-A-Say-In-This-Thing.

Don't mind me, go back to your bizarro version of the Algonquin Round Table. Wouldn't want any hecklers disrupting the Virtual Senate*. 

That said, there is a rather informative back-and-forth going on here, and while I am not totally onboard with Ace on this one (at least as he expressed it in the header), I understand his position, and he may very well be correct.  Just in case my intent was, once again (sigh), misconstrued.

I think conservatives can play hard ball for a few days yet without doing permanent damage to the economy.  I cautiously supported the initial idea of a clean bill, but all these added goodies (fucking Acorn? WTF?) need to be un-added.

Exit Question: When this thing is wrapped up, Satan's Forrest Gump-Jamie Gorelick, will be appointed to the inevitable bipartisan CYA and blame it on the GOP commission. True or False.

Footnote: This post is 100% racism free. No racist codewords, inferences, slurs, slanders, myths, libels, slang, or shibboleths were used, planned, or considered.  Just to reassure a few of you who really are THAT obtuse.

74 mare, don't work out a couple times a day. It's counterproductive over the long haul.

Work out once, intensely, eschew aerobic exercise, take up strength training, make sure you have adequate rest, and eat a healthy diet.

Aerobic exercise in quantity is basically unhealthy anyway. It leads to increased cortisol production (the stress hormone), decreased lean muscle mass, increased oxidative stress and production of free radicals, making heart disease and cancer more likely.

A healthy diet and strength training, plus more activity for fun, is where it's at.

75

I could support a bailout if they remove everything from this bill other than oversight of Fannie and Freddie by someone other than congress AND they repeal the CRA AND they remove all the pork and poison pills.

76 Inspector Asshole, I've wondered if the plan could include legislation that specifies an exit strategy. That might go a long way toward calming some fears. I think those fears are legitimate, BTW.

77 Ace is a conservative.  He has the street cred.

No one here on the pro-Paulson plan side is rooting for Dem corruption or more bullshit.

That goes for JackStraw, Robert, some dude, Verc, etc.

That's why we voted for Republicans and hope they negotiate the very best possible deal.

Please just consider that the following is probably true: 1) we're in the midst of a historic liquidity trap, 2) past occurrences have destroyed vast amounts of wealth unnecessarily, 3) priming the pump can work because it has worked before (no one is referring to the new deal as a success), 4) priming the pump might not cost money in the long run.

If we need some cathartic "fuck the democrats" moment beforehand, well, yeah, people don't come to this site if they felt otherwise.

78 I believe private interests will by some of these assets, and already have. But not enough and not quickly enough, or so the theory supporting this bailout goes.

But investors bought over $100 billion in T-bills yielding next to nothing this week alone. Clearly there's plenty of cash out there. Why aren't they buying these wonderful investments instead?

79 On the other hand... I'm not an expert in fitness, and if it's working for you, mare, go for it!

As long as you're not tired all the time, because exercise should add more energy than it takes, unless you're like a serious athlete or something, in which case it's your job.

80 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2090874/posts

McCain will come out of this looking great. And will debate tomorrow night.

I predict it.

81 I'm freaking the fuck out. I've got newbies on the other thread asking if I'm a mortgage/hedge guy. NO.

I can see the future, in a couple of days, anyway. And it ain't pretty. If I'm on the side of the bailout, you know the downside of inaction is horrific.

I'm not that worried about ACORN. That shit won't fly. Too blatantly partisan. An obvious poison pill. It will go away. So will "Paulson can do no wrong" section 8. Fine. That's just opening negotiating.

Hell, I can live with a fair amount of pork in this shitstorm. Most of it can be corrected by further legislation. But the markets are gonna have a coniption fit pretty damn soon. They've already assumed a bailout is coming. If it ain't there by Monday, game over.

82 Zettai Zettai, from the article you linked:

"McCain appears to be siding with conservatives and House Republicans who question the bailout and its costs to taxpayers as well as government rescuing private lenders and perhaps taking ownership stakes in rescued banks.

"The alternative plan allocates less public money and relies more on tax breaks, lifting regulatory barriers and using less bailout-oriented mechanisms to free up capital and credit. It also seeks to create a privately funded mechanism to ensure mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.

That sounds awesome! I hope McCain can pull that off. It would be such a huge coup for him that even though I like his plan, I don't see how the Democrats could allow him to lead that effort. That would be tantamount to saying he's the get things done guy in Washington.

83

#55 Inspector Arsehole,

Well said Sir.

84 Christoph,

The Dems have problems. This is a no-win situation for them. McCain will come out of this looking good.

And that is why I'm sitting here, calm and composed, and easing the minds of my frazzled friends in the investment game.

85 Balrog,

Setting aside the personal flames not directed my way, and chuckling even at the Algonquin crack, and even given that dismissal of the entire matter is my general attitude, we ARE citizens of a Republic, and this issue is important enough to merit discussion with other men (and Jeff B)

We're not going to decide anything, but should understand enough to be able to have an opinion on the ultimate plan.  Discussion's a good way to do that, even via electrons.

Hit the easy, I wonder if indeed the market would truly tank without the ability to short sell and given that these idiots are trying to protect their own shit, too.

.

86

I have to admit, all this has gotten me thinking.

If there is one truth in the world, it is that I do not like thinking without a bowl of chili handy, and I'm on a goddamned diet.

So, my apologies if I sounded half-assed and wired sideways, but my chili count is down and I'm sufferin' here. Thinking takes a lot of stamina, calories, garlic, onions, some grated cheese.. crackers... a few jalapenos..

But seriously, a credit stoppage is a serious matter. So is government intervention. Let's at least make sure that we tell our congress fuckwad dipstick freak people (if they're Democrats) that making banks make stupid loans to the functional equivalent of carnival workers is what made this thing pop - and they have to stop it.

As for the rest, I'm not smart enough to propose jack shit - all I can do is tell you what first fear I run into. It is that we lose too much by preventing a possible disaster. I'm just your normal everyday schmuck - make sure that I don't become a normal everyday comrade, okay?

87 Maybe I shouldn't even read these threads because I have no fucking idea how serious this all is, but it really fucking pisses me off that the Democrats seem to be seeking political cover above all else -- i.e. we're not gonna pass a bill unless x number of Republicans support it.  If they're not buying into it that this is some serious shit, then WTF are they doing playing this game.  If they do buy into it then you'd think they'd be prepared to do what they are being told by their staff and/or the Sec. of Treasury and Chairman of the Fed.  Yet they want to throw fucking money in there for shit that has nothing to do with any of this.  Talk about a total lack of leadership, it's just fucking bullshit.  After being in D.C. for so long these people are so far away from the reality of this country that they think how this effects their power is more important than how much this will fuck up peoples lives.  Maybe I just can't deal with politics.

When I was a kid my old man told me that the #1 priority of a politician was their own reelection.  I used to think this was just my old man being cynical.  I'm thankful he hasn't had to see all this go down.  Damn, I miss that guy.

Sorry for teh rant.  Good night now.

88 Admittedly I'm a moron, but when is someone going to come up with a plan to create wealth, - to mitigate the burden?

I would think that we need to be exploiting our state and national energy reserves, instead of exploiting taxpayers in a zero-sum game they're calling a "bailout."

89 Friday will suck. But we'll live. The real question is, what happens Monday. Markets are skittish. The whole weekend gives them time to fret. If there's no deal by Monday, buy lots of Val-U-Rite. And quit strangling hobos, because someone is gonna have to teach you how to live on the street.

90 Cap'n, I think if Mac can actually win with some numbers, his little "all of the above" gambit might do some good.  If we could build 20-30 more nuclear plants, we'd be riding pretty on electricity needs generally, and that would be a segue into the electric car phase.  Cuz  the only way you're getting me to ride a battery-powered little shitbox is if power is dirt fucking cheap.

91 Well, you're freaking me out, Brad. You had me with the line about swiping the credit card and nothing happening.

92 Capt. Obtuse,

The economy is pretty good at creating wealth. As long as there is credit. If we fix this crisis, we have a good chance of coming out of this pretty well. Or we can bitch about a bailout (which is more of a loan) and watch the economy die.

93

we ARE citizens of a Republic, and this issue is important enough to merit discussion with other men (and Jeff B)

We're not going to decide anything, but should understand enough to be able to have an opinion on the ultimate plan.  Discussion's a good way to do that, even via electrons.

Posted by: moronizer at September 26, 2008 04:10 AM (OeLz9)

I do not dispute any of that.  Never have.

94 Bugler, it may not happen Tuesday. It may not happen to your credit cards. But:
1. It could
2. It will definitely work like that at the business level. Which means a shitload of businesses will go down the tubes.

I didn't really start freaking until the run on WaMu. It was a classic run on a bank.

95 Brad,

You need to quit being so pessimistic. We're going to be at a deal by the end of the day on Friday, it'll be passed over the weekend and will be signed in time for the opening bell on Monday morning.

Take Douglas Adams's advice: "Don't Panic".

96 ZZ, I expect a deal by Monday. Or at least I pray for one.

But I want my fellow morons to know why the reflexive "no bailout" position is a bad one. I don't want them calling their Congressmen and putting the stinkeye on a deal.

97

For the past few years, family members, friends, and even co-workers have been encouraging me to buy a house thinking it was ridiculous to pay rent on an apartment. I responded to their advice that the reason I don't want to buy a house is a) I'm single and it seems to be too extravagant for a single man to have a house, b) I don't have enough money in the bank to buy a house, and c) I'll be danmed if I enslave myself to a home mortgage no matter how easy and convenient it may seem.

I always lived believing that if I didn't have enough money in the bank to buy something, then I shouldn't buy it. I use a credit card (notice singular, not plural) for large purchases but I make sure I have enough money in the bank to pay it all at once if I have to. The credit card is simply used to spread out the payments so my bank account wouldn't be a roller coaster.

Guess what? I now have enough money in the bank to either buy an O.K. house outright or pay a large down payment on a really bitchin' house and have a mortgage that lasts just a few years. But I'm going to wait a few more months because something tells me the really bitchin' house is going to be more affordable.

If more people live the way I do, then there wouldn't be this economic Iriwn Allen movie.

98

Just remember we are talking about Reid and Pelosi.

Sure, they talk a good game (Iraq), but they usually end up getting rolled (Iraq).

They will roll, (markets willing) if this thing gets strung out an extra day or two.

99 brad....who are you calling a newbie anyway?
 " I'm freaking the fuck out. I've got newbies on the other thread asking if I'm a mortgage/hedge guy. NO.'
 i've been lurking like, forever.......doesn't that count?
 and i asked you that because you are overly freaking out.
 after all....did the government just announce that as of tomorrow your kids will be executed? no? then get a grip.....
 this is where "panics" come from....no offense.
 this will be bad but it is not the end of the world....unless all you care about is money. and everyone will be in the same boat.
 have you considered the fact that there will be a lot of opportunities in this?

100 moronizer, to be perfectly honest, I disagree with the decision to ban short selling (for a temp time on limited stocks, it wasn't a permanent across the board ban).

It plays a necessary role in valuation.

If I was Paulson, I'd get Cox to revoke this order.  Then, when I started buying, I'd spend over half my time trying to figure out what has the shorts so confident about distress at one firm compared to another.  At the end of the day, I'm probably ratify some of the shorts judgement by not buying any of their mbs, cdos.

This plan won't be entirely based on which mbs/cdos to buy, it will be based on which firms should be bought from and hence saved.

101 Balrog! You need to update your Bl(alr)og.

102

Just in case, though. Make sure y'all buy a couple of cheap fishing poles and some packs of hooks this weekend.

Find out where the nearest feed store is that sells bushels of wheat and oats.

Get ammo. Figure out how much you spend per month on movies & entertainment and spend that much on ammo. Pick up some oil and gun cleaning supplies while you're out.

Just in case.

103 IA: I got a few people to work with on stuff like that. I'm bringing the gardening tools, so I can help out with growing the food we need.

Always be prepared. And, yes, I am.

104 Aaron @97.....you are absolutely right. and if everyone lived that way, the normal way, then no one would be having a cow now would they?

 and inspector....got a gun, a shovel and a truck...oops, wait that's for poachers.
 okay ...i have all the other stuff too...shouldn't everyone?

105 ghost, I call you a newbie because in the 5 years I've been commenting here, I've never seen you comment before. I didn't mean to imply you haven't been here before.

I'm freaking out because I've always thought conservatives/libertarians were the folks in the real world. But far too many are taking a position that is pressuring Republicans to avoid doing what is needed to stave off disaster. So pardon me if I think I'm not overly freaking out. I just hope I can make you understand that addressing this by Monday is critical. How critical? More important than the election.

I've been poor. I've been so poor I damn near starved. And I never asked for a handout. Government money is by no means my default position. But if we force our congressmen to avoid addressing this, we will face a Depression.

106 WTF??....I just turned on the TV and there is BHO talking to brit hume [am i tripping??] and he had the raw f-ing nerve to talk about how "this never should have happened' and he wants to get the people that are responsible basically and he's now blaming the republicans.
 WTF?
 this is much scarier.....FOX being on team bullshit............

107 ghost, I'm with you on personal finance. But business doesn't operate that way. Never has. Not for 500 years. Do you own a small business? Chances are, you got some credit somewhere.

108 brad....lighten up francis. seriously.
 i know...i am a newbie i was just teasing you.
i just talked to my husband who was just getting on a flight in switzerland and i asked him how the swiss are taking this....he said they aren't worried at all.so i guess we aren't the center of the universe after all and come monday we will not turn into a black hole.
 but, i don't think you get what a lot of us are trying to say which is simply why should we throw good money down a rat hole when the [democ]rats are still there?
 if this has to be done by monday or else we are already screwed anyway...
 take a deep breath.
 i think we can all agree that barney frank is a repulsive moron who should "retire"......

109 guys, some perspective....remember when they said that if oil went above 100 bucks a barrel our economy would dissolve?
 because i do.
 did it? no. and the same einsteins were all over the news acting all surprised by that fact.
 brad...you of all people understand risk/reward ratio....and right now the conservatives are doing the right thing by holding the line.is it a risk? yes. but the other option is unfathomable if you aren't into being a socialist.

 OMFG....."the one" just stated that cameras "change things" like in a magical way.....yeah, they notice what a stuttering moron you are.

110 " You can try to prevent a financial meltdown or you can teach Wall Street a lesson, but you can't do both at the same time."

False. People are concerned that commercial paper loan markets are going to dry up and wreak havoc on the economy? Let the Fed issue commercial paper loans at what they determine to be prevailing market rates. Include a sunset provision of, say, three months. Widespread financial chaos averted. Wall street left out to dry. Massive long term expansion of governmental authority avoided. Three birds, one stone.

111 "You can try to prevent a financial meltdown or you can teach Wall Street a lesson, but you can't do both at the same time."

Wait. Now we are believing the Washington Post?

112

"104 Aaron @97.....you are absolutely right. and if everyone lived that way, the normal way, then no one would be having a cow now would they?"

I own my 2200sq/ft  house and am debt free.  That is the normal way to be.

Where will renters like Aaron be when they don't have a job to pay the rent?

It won't matter how much money people like Aaron have saved when hyperinflation strikes and bank runs are run-of-the-mill.

Better buy that house NOW, Aaron, while your money is still in the bank.

Banks these days don't keep reserves on deposits, they just lend ALL of the money out.

113 DAMN MY FEATHERS ARE RUFFLED THOSE DARN DEMACREEPS ARE JUST USING TAX MONEY TO BAIL OUT TWO OF THEIR BIGGIST SUPPORTERS THEY ALL DESERVE TO BE VOTED OUT OF THIS NATION SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK

114

Inspector Asshole, @#55: Let's hypothesize. Let's assume the situation will result, as Ace proposes, in 24% unemployment rates within two quarters unless we do this "thing".

Just for the sake of argument, let us all assume that. Okay, now, what guarantees do we have that this will not extinguish free market (or semi-free) capitalism in America and replace it with a Maoist socialist framework? What guarantee do we have that socialism will remain dead here? Let's not point at that hallowed document, the Constitution, for as far as I've been able to fucking tell, there's no goddamned MORTGAGE clause in it as such right the fuck now, so saying that it will keep the goddamned socialists in their fucking graves and in their goddamned patchouli-smelling closets does not reassure me at this point in time. They've gotten this far, so let's assume they have anti-Constitution +5 cloaks on.

So - what guarantee do I have that in 9 months I'm not a fucking slave?

 

Well, none.  But what chances do you place on libertarianism in the midst of a prolonged, contracted recession (if not worse)?  The New Deal came from the Depression.  Communism took root in Western Europe following postwar devastation.  We got Clinton because of the tiny little recession in '92.

Bailout-or-Freedom is a false choice.  As long as the dire forecasts of inaction are in any way true, the libertarian choice is between getting fingered and getting fucked.

115 Personally, as much as I hate resesions and being unemployed sucks, I would go with refusing a bail out. This is going to happen again and again until people realize that there are real consequences to their actions and that the nanny state is not going to be there to kiss their boo-boos with vast chunks of money everytime they get sloppy. Companies need to fold and careers need to be ruined or nothing will ever change.

116 This is a bullshit premise! We can have reform and a limited bailout. We can have legislation that doesn't funnel money to criminal enterprises likeACORN. We can have legislation that doesn't give Treasury a blank check. We can have legislation that provides for meaningful oversight and doesn't allow Barney Frank and Chris Dodd to screw the pooch. . .again!

117 Hah! I don't have any savings! Suckers!

118 "you can't do both at the same time..." I disagree. It is possible to support the value of the mortgage derivatives at a level that avoids market collapse, without allowing the purchasers of these securities to avoid all consequences for their mistakes and greed. The danger in the Paulson plan is that it authorizes, even encourages the government to pay face value for distressed securities. That's a mistake. There has to be a deductible. Otherwise, the effect is to create a path for future bad actors to use this as a gigantic scam. Invest the entire assets of some enormous set of institutions in penny stocks or Slobbovian bonds - because now you know that when the whole thing goes south, you can stick the government with all your losses. Indeed, it encourages such behavior - because the government will not step in unless the losses are catastrophic.