digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

The Bailout Would Have Been the Patriot Act of Finances

gotdebt.net — At face value, “bailout plan” sounds well and good to those who have no objections to socialist economic policies.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • YsoSerious57, on 10/01/2008, -30/+19Although I agree that Henry Paulson would have received way too much power with this bill, I am inclined to think these big business are going to need some type of compensation just to keep our economy alive.
    • merher, on 10/01/2008, -6/+17I totally agree, but take a look at what this bill gives Paulson.

      FTA: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

      Accountability.... this bill has non.

      Also The media is lambasting congress's decision as being misguided and fallacious, but the decisions of congress were representative of the people who wrote in and their vote was "for the people". If anything the media should be covering both sides for why this bill should be passed. This is my opinion but let those banks fail, and liquidate. Own up to the bad loans, instead of bail out the big wigs with our taxes.
      • Drecoll, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1OH MY GOD, why so many stupid people? Let the banks fail and liquidate, "own up to the bad loans?" Who is going to be owning up? If the banks gone and the money is FEDERALLY INSURED we pay for it EITHER WAY, this bailout was simply to make us pay less than we would have, and in the process not DESTROY THE STOCK MARKET like as is already happening. Sure all the diggers on these articles have fun blaming the ***** bailout because it was Bush's idea but if you ignore the fact that it came from him perhaps you could see that it will ***** save us. Bail out the big wigs huh? Sounds pretty smart, did you ever think that an economy that was destroyed would be bad for everyone not just the big wigs? Do you really think Bush would be purposely ruining the economy? Whether you are rich or poor a bad economy is bad for everyone, so the BIG WIGS as you say would want to protect the economy just as much. Sure Bush does bad things but god damn it when he is doing the most obviously correct answer don't blast it just because you can't understand it. The faster the bill got passed the better it woulda been for us too bad so many people threw a hissy fit so that the house turned down the bill then went on a jewish f ing holiday the next day. The money will keep the banks alive for long enough to get back on their feet, or as everyone here thinks is the BEST IDEA, we could let all those banks die, take on trillions in debt more for our government and destroy the stock market all at once, LETS DO THAT CAUSE THATS WHAT THOSE BANKS DESERVE, who cares if it ***** with all the other americans in the process. I was a Ron Paul supporter until I saw that he was against this bill, it just goes to show how foolish he really is.
    • MachineMessiah, on 10/02/2008, -7/+10Ron Paul would've single-handedly stopped this! And still can! Vote third party!
      • regeya, on 10/02/2008, -15/+5"Ron Paul would've single-handedly stopped this!"

        You want Ron Paul to be a dictator?

        I KNEW you guys didn't care about the Constitution or freedom; thanks for confirming.

        Property rights first; screw the rest.
      • kemp34, on 10/02/2008, -6/+7"You guys"?

        Wakey wakey, one person is one person. You cannot extrapolate the words of one individual to any more than that individual's belief system.
      • MindStalker, on 10/02/2008, -3/+10God what he is saying is that Ron Paul as president would not have supported this bailout. This bailout would go NOWHERE if the sitting president wasn't supporting it. This can barely pass as it is, its not going to get a veto proof vote.
      • growler1, on 10/02/2008, -3/+8Ron Paul would've stopped them with laser beams from his eyes, and lightning bolts from his arse.
      • MachineMessiah, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Ron Paul drives an ice cream truck made out of human skulls! He is a man for all seasons!
    • BECoole, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3I am very tempted to agree with you. Gov't caused this through the Community Reinvestment Act, so, on one level, I think Gov't should fix it. But on another level, this is just propping up and even expanding the socialist policy that got us here in the first place.

      There should be no bailout without a repeal of the CRA and a liquidation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
      Now is the time for real reform - enact the Fair Tax (eliminate the IRS by going to a sales tax) and dismantle the Federal Reserve.
      • awasson, on 10/02/2008, -3/+2Socialist policy didn't get you here int he first place... This started more than 20 years ago and began with relaxed regulation in the investment and banking systems. Regan started it and every president henceforth continued relaxing the regulations until it started to unravel. The current administration unfortunately pulled all the stops out with the sub-prime mortgage fiasco.

        The market will never sort itself out... It will eat itself up instead.
      • BECoole, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Tell exactly how "relaxed regulations" caused this.

        They didn't. Rules intended to allow loans to subprime borrowers caused this.
    • beesaretasty, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4They've already received plenty of compensation for screwing things up in the first place.
  • ozel01, on 10/01/2008, -7/+9We need some changes but not just any change, the right change. I agree with loans at treasury plus 2%, kill the mark-to-market accounting standard, insure some of these mortgage backed securities, then get some regulatory practices in place to regulate areas that have never been regulated. People try to say deregulation caused this problem. In truth, the instruments that caused the failure never have been regulated. Throwing money at the problem is going to stave off the inevitable and nothing more. Don't put a bandaid on this arterial rupture, fix it for good!
    • unmarked, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5Eventually the Sun will expand and consume the earth. So if you can stave if off long enough, then we won't care because we'll all be gone.

      But back to seriousness. The problem with politicians is that they have to talk in absolutely simple terms, which distorts the true facts. It actually is the deregulated environment that helped in the creation of these derivatives that created this mess. The creators of these derivatives were not the standard banks, but rather "investment banks" that fell under much less regulation. These derivatives get so complex that most people (even those in the industry) have difficulty fully understanding them. But, as I understand it, they allowed for masking of bad debt by mixing it with good debt. But because of that, now all the debt stinks and the credit market is locking up.

      But to use your analogy of arterial rupture, sometimes applying pressure to the wound so you can make it to the hospital is needed, else you'll bleed out before you can get to the fix.

      This is more about banks no longer having the capacity to loan money even to its customers in good standing. So anything that relies on lines of credit to operate is in jeopardy. Things like retail stores, car dealers, as well as small businesses that use lines of credit for payroll. If a company was forced to go back to a cash-basis, it becomes extremely restricted. That would likely mean immediate job cuts across the country.

      Some may fee that all this credit is bad. I say it is like anything else. It can be used for great things as well as bad things, it's an instrument, nothing more.

      Disclaimer: I am neither an accountant, nor a banker.
      • rthakidn, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3It seems the problem is that credit (debt) has been leveraged too much. Yes business need credit in order to operate, but at some point the bill does come due. At this time, America's debt, both personal and business is over 100% of the GDP. Business has gone beyond a reality based model. It is all (in simplest terms) smoke and mirror at this point. America DOES need to spend less and save more (no, not save completely) and the withdrawal pains will be substantial, but it's the only way out. And some very popular notions about homeownership, etc. are fatally flawed. To put it in similar medical analogies, the band-aid on the arterial bleed, to get to the hospital: this one's DOA.
    • warox, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3ozel01, I agree with you about a serious need to regulate unregulated markets, including derivatives, credit default swaps, and the like. These things need an exchange in which pricing can be established and major players become transparent to investors and regulators alike.

      I vehemently disagree regarding the need to remove mark-to-market accounting standards, and I must dig you down. Illiquid assets imply no purchasers, thus no ability to sell them.

      Now, puzzle me this: why do banks have to sell these assets to raise cash if they are worth their hold to maturity values? Simple, they're only getting a fraction of the coupon payments they originally anticipated, meaning they're not worth their original value. Nobody knows how much value they've lost and how low they will go because of the still-declining house prices and still-increasing foreclosure rates. However, if the government comes in to price-fix these securities/assets, how is that supposed to unfreeze the market for these assets? It's not, it's going to exacerbate the problem such that the only possible buyer becomes the government.

      All we're doing by eliminating mark-to-market is allowing insolvent institutions to mask their insolvency a bit longer and setting up taxpayers for major pain. We as taxpayers will be forced to buy these securities at incredibly overpriced valuations and set a terrible precedent encouraging and rewarding risk and unsound business.

      Mark-to-market has been improperly enforced and doing so will be a major solution to our problem of frozen credit markets.
    • dougs55, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2"In truth, the instruments that caused the failure never have been regulated."

      According to wikipedia, Phil Gramm passed legislation that these instruments could NOT be regulated right after President Bush took office.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Mod ...
      • warox, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3dougs55, you are correct regarding Phil Gramm and commodity futures loopholes but that's not the instruments we're talking about, nor what's leading to the financial upheaval we have now. I'm talking about OTC derivatives, specifically credit default swaps.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance)# ...
  • republicker, on 10/01/2008, -1/+46It isn't over yet. They will vote until it passes, delaying the harsh inevitable reality. I mean, the only reason the market was up a day after the biggest drop ever was because they threw 600 billion in new money at it anyway which in turn has the same detrimental future implications as the original bill. Some would say they are doing this with the purpose of intentionally bringing the economy to its knees.
    • ladysherwood, on 10/02/2008, -1/+18yes, I think we are being hoodwinked yet again. as recent history has shown, Americans will believe anything if it is repeated enough times.
      • wlfldy, on 10/02/2008, -6/+2Americans will believe anything if it is repeated enough times. Americans will believe anything if it is repeated enough times. Americans will believe anything if it is repeated enough times. Americans will believe anything if it is repeated enough times. Americans will believe anything if it is repeated enough times. Americans will believe anything if it is repeated enough times.
        sorry, couldn't resist...
      • digitalhair, on 10/02/2008, -0/+16notice how politicians and the media have changed the language from "bailout" to "rescue plan" in a suspisciously synchronized fashion.

        I heard "rescue plan" in place of "bailout" 4-6 times on NPR this morning as i was getting ready for work...

        Compare the first bill, which was 3 pages long (!!!) to this 2nd "emergency" bill, which is 450 pages long (drawn up over a week - gimme a break!) and includes items totally unrelated to the crisis at hand, and you'll see that they submitted the first bill expecting all the hooplah and public opposition to it - now they're proceeding with the plan when the public is still recovering from crisis fatigue over last week's media circus...

        American citizens are right to react with righteous indignation at this point...
      • anachronaut, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5"they submitted the first bill expecting all the hooplah and public opposition to it - now they're proceeding with the plan when the public is still recovering from crisis fatigue"

        That's actually an extremely frequent stratagem of this Bush administration in particular and the neocons in general. What they do is set up "win-win" situations for themselves whenever possible no matter the cost, and they're frighteningly good at it. They use a lightning rod event to provoke a strong reaction (the absurd nomination of Harriet Miers for SCOTUS, for instance) -- and if they get away with it, fine, but if not -- then they just turn around and do what they *really* wanted to do all in the first place (in that particular case, appoint a much younger sycophant to Chief Justice to contain that position of power for hopefully many decades). The opposition breathes a foolish, short-sighted sigh of relief and the slimy manipulators get what they wanted all along.

        It's something like a reverse bait & switch, but what's a more precise term for that specific type of psychological manipulation or conditioning? I can't think of it off the top of my head, but I'm sure Skinner, Pavlov, et al would immediately recognize it for exactly what it is.
      • Angostura, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1That's what everyone keeps telling me.
      • digitalhair, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1@anachronaut

        how about "a coupe d'etat" - i think it sums up the whole situation nicely
    • kelmaster1, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5This just shows whose really in power. The bailout will pass, even though they'll "revise" (throw in some *****) and get to the people who don't support the bill. The last house bill won by a small margin, 20 votes. "They" have the senate in their pocket, in the house democracy can sometimes work. I hate how the media portrays this as a crisis and both candidates have been unrelenting on "we need to do this now" BS. I can't believe the nerve of some of the politicians and the media, saying that they need to somehow sway the people who oppose the bill, when obviously the majority (~70%, no retarded Obama supporters) of the people do not want this.

      The banking system is heavily engraved in the US, it's pretty sickening actually because it's worldwide. The censoring is incredible, they do an excellent job at covering up history's past. This bailout is one of the many scams over time.

      A good example in the past was Andrew Jackson's fight against the Bank back in the early 19th century. Andrew Jackson was fiscally our best president, his fight against the 2nd bank of the United States and Nicolas Biddle caused a recession in the short term but saved the US in the long term by ensuring the gold standard and no fractional reserve banking. It's funny because the problem then was exactly the same. There was a recession and the Bank was doing it's thing as usual, issuing certificates for which they could not back with Gold. Jackson fought congress and vetoed every bill to recharter the bank, which he thought should not exist in the first place.

      Check it out, it's parallel to what Ron Paul thinks:
      Jackson: http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/nc/bio/public/ ...

      That prick Nicolas Biddle (history makes him a nice guy)
      http://www.vcdh.virginia.edu/lewisandclark/biddle/ ...


      • republicker, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5In 1832, President Jackson vetoed the move to renew the charter of the 'Bank of the United States' (a central bank controlled by the international bankers). In 1836 the bank went out of business.

        The Bank of the United States (1816-36), an early attempt at an American central bank, was abolished by President Andrew Jackson, who believed that it threatened the nation.

        He wrote:

        "The bold effort the present bank had made to control the government, the distress it had produced...are but premonitions of the fate that awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it."

        Andrew Jackson had at least two attempts made on his life. So proud and intent on
        warning the future generations was he that his tombstone is inscribed with the phrase
        "I killed the bank!"

        It came back.

        http://silverbulletin.utopiasilver.com/index.php?o ...
      • kelmaster1, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4It came back alright, it's too bad :(. The fact I find most disappointing is he is a widely discredited president, it's the same way with everyone who tried to oppose the Banks.

        Remember Kennedy? He apparently also favored the gold/silver standard and in 1963 he signed executive order No. 11110, which basically eliminated the Fed's power and made the Treasury the issuer of silver certificates. Five months later he was killed, I'm not going to make the connection but there is an odd amount of assassinations for people who opposed the banks throughout history.

        Ex order 11110, it's and amendment to 10289:
        http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=59 ...

        Kennedy said this on November 12, 1963 10 days before his death at Columbia University
        "The high office of the President has been used to foment a plot to destroy America's freedom and before I leave this office, I must inform the citizens of their plight."



  • onlysc, on 10/01/2008, -3/+8yeah, curious to see what the revised bailout is and how it goes. our economy is screwed either way.
    http://digg.com/business_finance/Bailout_is_Bad_Bu ...
    • sullivanst, on 10/01/2008, -2/+17The revised bailout is the original bailout, plus tax breaks, plus FDIC insurance limit raised from $100k to $250k.

      These are cosmetic changes, and increase the cost to the taxpayer. All the flaws remain.
  • ozel01, on 10/01/2008, -4/+27I say this problem is a most glaring example of why everyone needs to abandon their party and vote third party. That would send a signal. We are tired of politics! We want to change more than the leader! George Washington feared that spirit of party would hinder getting real and meaningful business done in congress. We have seen exactly that happening over the last several decades. Ross Perot gave the Dems and the GOP a wake up call when he garnered 19% of the popular vote. Only when people SHOW the GOP and the Democratic party THEIR party at our expense is over are we going to see any real change in Washington!
    • barnett25, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3My problem with that is that it seems the McCain supporters are entrenched. It would primarily be would-be Obama voters who would vote third party. As much as I would like someone else, McCain scares me too much to allow him in office. That is the brilliance of the two party system, it maintains itself.
      • vtnerd, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5So? Obama and McCain are more the same than they are different. They certainly don't differ on the Bailout that they both support along with Bush.
      • Calinthalus, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4And I disagree with it being just Obama supporters.

        I live in Kentucky, the heart of Red States. I know a whole lot of people that don't like McCain's stances on plenty of issues. Plenty of conservatives don't like McCain/Feingold.

        There are quite a few of us that don't support the "War on Drugs", or governmental involvement in marriage (in either direction).

        I know plenty of lifelong conservatives who are talking about Barr and Baldwin.
      • Gloony, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Hmmm. If you read digg it looks an awful lot like the Obama supporters that are entrenched.

        The truth, as always, lies somewhere in between.
  • kigcoopa84, on 10/01/2008, -22/+6The moderator of this weeks VP debate has a PRO-OBAMA book due to release near the inauguration. Conflict of interest? 370 diggs 335 comments and still not on front page.

    http://digg.com/politics/VP_debate_moderator_Ifill ...
    • SRSco, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3With comment Spam like that now you have 369 Diggs. Plus, this is old news. Digg isn't good at breaking stories. Not only was this everywhere two days ago, people could have known about this for months.

      Also, you don't know how Digg works. If a bunch of the same people Digg the same kind of *****, you're less likely to get FP'd. If the McCain Bury Brigade is the only group of people promoting this story (the same people who promote every other article with an anti-Obama slant) there isn't enough diversity of Diggers to get it FP'd.
    • OMGWTFROFLMAOx2, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4You don't know how debate moderators work do you? They don't give commentary on how good or bad they think the candidates' answers were, they don't write questions that only one candidate can respond to, they are reviewed by the debate committee. Her book is a non issue if all she does is keep time and asks each candidate the same objective question (that does not reference anything the candidates have previously said).

      She's not a journalist or interviewer in this role (like Katie Couric who has a conversation with her subject), she simply asks a qestion and says either "governor palin/senator biden, you have 5 minutes to srespond" or "senator biden/governor palin, lead question". You are over reacting and attempting to lay blame on something that hasn't even happened yet.

      Oh, and buried..again.

      P.S. If Palin can't handle a debate, or even a biased interview (as she's shown by the media blackout and only allowing interviews from Couric) how the ***** is she going to negotiate deals/treaties/policies/support with foreign leaders and ambassadors who are EASILY more skilled than anyone on any of these major news networks?
  • stradf, on 10/01/2008, -3/+10The Bailout Will Be the Patriot Act of Finances****

    Fix'd. Check my profile; senate is discussing a BIGGER plan. How bigger?? How many more billions or even TRILLIONS? No idea.
  • kigcoopa84, on 10/01/2008, -15/+10Not a single economist will say sub-prime lending isn't a factor of today's problems. But in 1994 Barack Obama sued Citi-bank to force them into these bad lending practices. Digg this up and get it on the front page.

    http://digg.com/politics/Obama_sued_Citibank_In_19 ...
    • rearlgrant, on 10/01/2008, -3/+12That lawsuit was about banks failing to offer loans to people of color, not to people without incomes (including whites, btw...)

      Republicans, the party of bearing false witness.
    • BXRWXR, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5Buried as inaccurate - thanks for making me not have to look for it though. :-)
  • sullivanst, on 10/01/2008, -3/+17This article is totally inaccurate.

    First, the bailout plan would have done very, very little to prevent foreclosures. The measures the Democrats tried to insert got completely watered down and had no teeth at all.

    Second, the oversight provision quoted is from Paulson's original draft. It was not in the bill presented for a vote. Anyone following the story even casually would've know that that was the first thing that got changed when the Paulson draft reached Congress.
    • jayhawk88, on 10/02/2008, -8/+9Not only that, but the famous clause everyone is freaking out about is not nearly as scary as everyone would have you believe. Yes it would have made the decisions of the Secretary of Treasury non-reviewable by committees or courts (though it's doubtful that would have ever stood up as constitutional, as weird as this sounds, if tested in court), but only for powers the Secretary of Treasury already has. You read that article, you would have thought that should that clause be passed into law, Paulson could have started building his Mountain Fortress in Denver, and sent the Army to invade China or something. The Secretary of Treasury still is under the "command" of at least the President and probably Congress as well when it comes right down to it.

      What this was was a poorly worded attempt to say "We don't want banks/individuals/businesses/etc taking each other to court for the next 100 years because of actions the Secretary of Treasury has to take to solve this financial crisis". It wasn't a narrowly avoided attempt by the Shadow Government to turn America into 1950's Soviet Russia. Get a grip people.
      • wlfldy, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3I thought the very same thing. The Secretary of the Treasury is there for that very reason, make decisions based on 'command' that obviously, sadly, were ignored previously. In effect, he's just been made the babysitter.
    • awasson, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Yup, you're totally on point!

      It's unfortunate that the rest of this lot just reacts to dramatic statements and doesn't do any research.
    • Ebacherville, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1yeah this would be a real power grab:
      http://digg.com/politics/Brad_Sherman_MARTIAL_LAW_ ...
      this country is so screwed, either way
  • algaeturd, on 10/02/2008, -2/+16Would have been? This thing is passing on Friday...with flying colors. Much to my dismay.
    But the problem is everyone is celebrating this situation but there's nothing to celebrate. It's going to pass and it's going to be basically the exact same bill that was first propsed with a few small twists of words.
    • Barackalypse, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4Its not a done deal, the tax credits may cause enough Democrats to jump ship as it causes Republicans to jump on board. Plus, the entire House is up for re-election and all the polling indicates massive public outrage over this with the elections only about a month away.
  • Spawn2105, on 10/02/2008, -11/+6The Bailout Plan isnt just about the US... It's also going to re-stimulate the global economy, from Europe to Asia. The World is looking towards the US for Leadership in this instance and if the Bailout Plan fails to get passed again the world markets will most likely take another big hit.
  • sindex, on 10/02/2008, -0/+21Would have been? More like "is."

    "Hey, we have this problem we're completely unprepared to deal with. Let's pass a bunch of hastily created and ill-conceived legislation under the guise of increased security in the economic sector, even though more than half the country opposes it, most people voting for it haven't really read it because there's not enough time, and the ones who have read it are uneasy about their vote but afraid to not look like they're doing something. I mean, what's the worst that could happen?"

    Sound familiar? Le sigh....
    • delere, on 10/02/2008, -0/+8I watched a bit of cspan (as much as I could stomach) yesterday. A Senator from Oklahoma (can't recall his name) railed on everyone (from what he said I'd say he was libertarian) and basically said it's obvious "this body" (congress) can't do anything right for anyone so the American people need to do what Congress can't and remove everyone there and start with a fresh bunch.

      It was pretty funny and sad at the same time. These bozos have no clue what they are doing other than trying to get re-elected. This whole 'crisis' reaks of BS.
  • inurb, on 10/02/2008, -6/+55And Obama Voted FOR IT!
    as well as FISA and the Patriot Act
    'Change you can Believe in'
    McCain is also guilty as sin
    • kemp34, on 10/02/2008, -0/+18Two sides of the same turd.
    • dafragsta, on 10/02/2008, -0/+10Sssh... don't tell the neocons. They can't reciprocate with fair criticism for their party's policies. I agree. It's not a good sign that Obama voted for the bailout.
    • delere, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2My fiance and I have been writing our reps and senators throughout this fiasco urging that doing it right (if anything at all) is more important than expediency. My fiance even offered up a slightly more complex plan to impliment but still doable. Now I'm not saying he's an econ expert but there are many really good ideas out there that are not even being considered or are being crushed by those that have already committed themselves to a version of the current plan.

      Most of the population is against this and are willing to deal with the 'horendous fallout' if we do nothing. Regulation is needed for industries that are big enough to have this kind of effect onthe economy. That is were we need to be focusing our attention so this crap doesn't happen again.
    • spyd3rweb, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Sssh... don't tell the obama loonies on digg, their head will explode.
    • Ebacherville, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1this is worse:
      http://digg.com/politics/Brad_Sherman_MARTIAL_LAW_ ...
  • chompapotamus, on 10/02/2008, -5/+13Buried because it's outdated and not very insightful
  • oxymorgan, on 10/02/2008, -13/+10When the free market fails, as it tends to do, socialism is there to bail us out. Don't forget, highways, public schools, libraries, and medicare are all socialist ideas.

    There is a tendency in this country to be afraid of things we don't fully understand, socialism really isn't as bad as it's cracked up to be. No one is saying that socialism works 100%, but it is totally plausible when applied to a system like ours.
    • regeya, on 10/02/2008, -3/+2Yeah. The thing of it is, the guys who follow Austrian economics seem to think that there can be a stable economic cycle. They need to look outside their own insular community; nature abhorrs stability. The natural state of things is to go in cycles. While I still put a great deal of the blame on the businesses giving out loans (I don't buy the argument that it's all the government's fault; I realize people like to hate the government, but c'mon) no small part of the problem is attempting to keep the economy stable.

      Our current interventionist system doesn't work all that well; I'm sorry to say that I cannot see any way for a precious-commodity-backed money system without central intervention to remain stable either, especially since no historical system has done so.
      • Meekus, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Credit based booms are unsustainable. The problem with Keynesian economics is that they do not address root causes, but only attempt to "fix" the result of the root cause. And this manifests in having a one year recession (to liquidate the mal-investment caused by an artificial influx of credit) being turned into a 10 year Great Depression. Austrian economists seem to "foresee" as opposed to Keynesian economists who "react" to current conditions.

        By artificially manipulating Interest rates, we see this boom bust cycle. Interest rates need to be dictated by the Free Market, not by any artificial means. In a true Free Market, those rates would be determined by the supply of tangible money.

        I've studied both schools of thought, and by far the Austrian notions make MUCH more sense to me.
      • delere, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2I've never thought an economy based essentially entirely on the idea that consumers (the population) must buy more and more each year to create 'growth.' The hysteical consumerist mentality that dictates you must keep up with your neighbors or they rich guy on TV (even though they may be in debt up to their ears too) is nuts. Many people seem to be waking up to the idea that less can be more freeing. It's ok if you make a lot of money if you do it fairly, but for crying out loud do we really need to go in debt more than we can afford for especially nonessentials like a luxury car or big screen tv?

        I realize many small businesses need access to credit however I know of several small business owners who don't use credit and save some of their profits to reinvest in inventory. Initially they lived very modestly until their businesses took off but now they don't have to use credit, they have a viable business and nice homes they can afford. They planned and stuck to it.
    • mbraynard, on 10/02/2008, -7/+11Socialism never bailed out anyone and consistently makes the country worse through subverting nature. Point for point on the examples you give:

      - Government highway projects have created a petro-dependant economy by subsidizing the cost of living 30 miles or more from where you work. Without massive road construction, people would live in smaller, more cohesive multipurpose communities where you can walk or at least ride a bike where you need to go.

      - Public schools are an international embarassment. In DC, 70% of public school teachers with children send their kids to private schools.

      - Libraries function as an extension of the administrative duties of government (government record-keeping) but have expanded to cover activities that could be handled by private and university libraries.

      - Medicare is bankrupt and is rife with fraud. The only solution for it IS capitalism and market forces.

      Socialism = always evil, always counter-productive.
      • oxymorgan, on 10/02/2008, -6/+7You = Ill informed.
      • dafragsta, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3I agree and disagree. The more I look deep into what I believe the issue is, I believe that at some point, we WILL have a socialist/capitalist hybrid like China. It's our responsibility to PREVENT the state from becoming so corrupt that it doesn't matter if we are socialist or capitalist because they aren't ***** listening to us or looking out for their best interests. It doesn't matter what kind of government you have, they are like a casino. The house always wins. If you work for the government and are involved with the decision making process, the temptation is too high for people who are good talkers and bad people to write self-serving legislation.

        I supported and donated money to Ron Paul because I think he is what is needed right now. The government has gotten too big without having proper oversight, so it's time to take away some of that power, but it'll come back sooner or later. We just need to make sure it's in better hands and that voters are more involved in the direction of their government outside of elections.

        A capitalist society is no more prone to success than a socialist society. What is important is the level of involvement that the people have and that democracy isn't cheated by bad voting machines and corrupt lawmakers. Those things are poison, no matter what your philosophy is.
      • WasabiBomb, on 10/02/2008, -4/+6@mbraynard- "Socialism = always evil, always counter-productive. "

        ... except in those socialist countries where it works, right?


        Saying anything is "always evil" = always evil, always counter-productive.
      • ender7074, on 10/02/2008, -7/+3Oxymorgan, you're an idiot. One only has to look at China before they started embracing capitolism and free markets or that lovely example, the old U.S.S.R to see the good socialism brings. Socialism never works. Its based on robbing Peter to pay Paul. Disgusting system.
      • smartassCanuck, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6@mbraynard
        While I _somewhat_ agree with your highway argument (except that you can't really argue that highways between cities are a bad idea, unless you think trade/travel in general is a bad idea and that's a whole different argument) Your other arguments are completely based on failed systems in the good ol' USA...

        I'm a canadian, and we have:

        - A functioning public health care system.
        - PUBLIC schools that are just as good as their private counterparts.
        - Libraries that are well... uh... Libraries, not sure how a private library would be profitable unless they charged for book rentals... and well, isn't the whole point of libraries to provide information to people for little to no cost??

        While I agree that capitalism is a good thing for business, I think that when it comes Education, Health care, and infrastructure it makes more sense to provide those things to the people. Your child's education and your health should come BEFORE profit. Do you disagree?

        And strangely while Canada is more socialist than the United States a good chunk of the world thinks "America" is evil.
      • dafragsta, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4I'm with the Canuck. Everyone likes to use Russia and China as exmpales, but they are not socialist states any more than the United States is democracy. The idea is that baseline safety net services are provided so that you can get on with your life never worrying about that one crippling expense that could come at any time you need to go to the hospital. I think our health insurance system is broken, I think our medical system is broken. Healthcare is prohibitively expensive and that prohibition is not based on one's willingness to work, but one's ability to be a millionaire and never worry about medical bills.
    • yoda17, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Do schools, libraries and highways need to be national? I thought for the most part these things are run (and paid for) by the state (or even city)
    • unfairunbalance, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1We are all ready under Corporate Socialism not a Democratic Republic. We have no representation in Washington. They answer to the Banks, the Military Industrial Complex and David Rockefeller and the CFR.
  • rocke86, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8Call your reps now

    link includes how they voted the first time
    http://campaignforliberty.com/contactcongress.php
  • davidkeithjones, on 10/02/2008, -2/+6Bailout has occurred. Some extra spending was tacked on. The usual earmarking crap.
    • delere, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3There is one thing I think needs to be a Constitutional Ammendment and that is any bill can not have ammendments or anything in it that is not related to the main purpose of the bill.

      This would eliminate pork spending, people not voting for a good bill because they disagree with unrelated ammendments, and politicians using whether or not their opponent voted for or against a bill and leverage in attack ads, reduce spending...etc.

      This will have to be a grass roots movement to get these bozos to do this becuase they won't do it themselves (only talk). We have to call and pester these people until they get sick of hearing about it.
  • bailoutbrigade, on 10/02/2008, -4/+6We're keeping a permanent record of Congress's votes at http://www.bailoutbrigade.com

    America is fed up with politicians not standing up for us. If they won't stand up for us, we won't let this stand.
    • unmarked, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2While I haven't read the new 300 page version (packed with pork to get it through), the first bill put up by the house was for "us".

      There is this irrational notion that allowing credit markets to seize up and all the banks to fail would be good for us. While I agree that the current banking system needs some serious rework, the results of credit markets seizing up would throw us back into absolute chaos.

      The opponents of this bill call it socialism (it's not). They should also talk about the chaos that would be created if we let this thing get out of hand. Reverting back to a cash-only system for business would mean slashing payrolls immediately. Most companies would not be able to maintain half their payroll.

      Of course, without credit, you can't buy anything big. So houses are out, cars are out, possible even large appliances. Need to pay $1000 to fix your heater in the winter, sorry -- cash please. No money, no fix. Things would quickly spiral down.

      Is this solution a great one? Most definitely not (esp since they had to add all kinds of pork -- which isn't paid for-- to incentivize Republican House members -- who, ironically are supposed to be "fiscally conservatives").

      Is this solution better than the alternative of doing nothing? Absolutely.
      • bailoutbrigade, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1"Is this solution better than the alternative of doing nothing? Absolutely."

        Absolutely *not*. Nothing, doing nothing, is preferable to the Bailout Bill.
        Let the bubble collapse now, while the country can still (very painfully) absorb the blow, instead of waiting until the bubble has become so artificially propped and inflated that the *unstoppable* burst rips this country apart.
  • pstroll, on 10/02/2008, -9/+2***** America. I can't wait for that nation of pigs to go bankrupt.
    • MikeFallopian, on 10/02/2008, -1/+7The only thing that got us out of the Great Depression was WWII. Things aren't quite that bad now; I think an invasion of Canada might do the trick nicely.
      • awasson, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2I can't say I agree with pstroll's statement above because I have lots of friends who also happen to be in the US but MikeFallopian... I'm afraid we'd have to kick your ass like we did the other two times you tried :)

        Read a history book about why the White House is called the White House or read about "54-40 or Bust"...
  • DeFex, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Dont worry they want a bailout. they will keep on sending it through till they get it.
    • Barackalypse, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3You do realize you can solicit enough signatures from your fellow citizens and recall your elected officials? Nothing says "Stop it" like a recall election.
      • DeFex, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2they will just deny there were such signatures.
        and the person who submitted them will have an "accident"
    • mizzouglen, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2They want to look like they are actively doing something to help bolster this country before they are up for re-election.
  • SOS84, on 10/02/2008, -5/+6Notice how disconnected to reality the author of this rubbish is? Wow. Talk about an uninformed idiot. These free market fools know less about what happened than John McCain, which is saying something.
    • Barackalypse, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6Big allegations and zero supporting evidence. You might want to read up about how government regulation and the Federal Reserve's easy money contributed to this problem. Here's a nice quote:
      "The second contributory factor is the Federal law known as the Sarbanes-Oxley act. This required lending institutions (among other equally foolish rules) to value assets held for what they are currently worth on the current day. When mortgage loans were written at the height of the bubble they were valued at that current price, as the housing market collapsed the portfolios became worthless even though they would probably be worth much more in the future when the market recovered.
      This is what drove Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Indymac, Washington Mutual and so many others in the past, and yet to come, to bankruptcy. "

      http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2095277/posts
      • SOS84, on 10/02/2008, -3/+3Keep drinking the Kool-Aid. Deregulation and the "free" market created the problem and it certainly won't solve it.
      • Barackalypse, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2SOS84, the free market didn't set the interest rates crazy low for years, the Federal Reserve did (hint: the Federal part of Federal Reserve means its the Government, not the free market).
  • acaloiar, on 10/02/2008, -2/+7And all the advocates of a free market economy said Amen.
  • SpenderH, on 10/02/2008, -3/+7I know how to get the bailout bill passed. Let's make it cost more by adding some unpaid-for tax cuts! Brilliant!
  • bffoley, on 10/02/2008, -10/+4"good to those who have no objections to socialist economic policies"

    Yea, ***** socialism! I hate social security and unemployment benefits and workman's comp and the FDIC and the ability to unionize! Good to see all you free market Paulnuts coming back out of the woodwork after your candidate crashed and burned in January. The Republicans/Libertarians let the "Free Market" do what they wanted and that's what got us where we are now. Let's see you rage about socialism on Digg when Mommy and Daddy get laid off and they cut your internet off to save costs.

    And no, I'm not a Democrat. But I doubt most of you read down this far before hitting the little red button.
    • acaloiar, on 10/02/2008, -0/+41. Social security: Let me know when you collect social security.
      2. Unemployment: If you're unemployed and reading dig, screw yourself for wasting my tax dollars.
      3. Workman's comp: Workman's comp is a logical protection against job-related injuries. If you made a workman's comp claim due to a scratch (You're probably the type) while working construction and you were fired as a result, screw yourself again for being on dig, unemployed and wasting my tax dollars.
      4. FDIC: Do you have insurance on your car? Or do you not own one because you're unemployed and wasting my tax dollars? Screw yourself again, you know why.
      5. Unions: Unions are a result of capitalism, not socialism.
      6. Suck yourself.
    • rthakidn, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4Well actually, free market did not get us to where we are. Free market with the help of government, maybe. The markets were encouraged to write loans that would not have otherwise EVER been approved. The government did that. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while technically private entities or gov't sponsored, not free market. Margins on debt were relaxed, but the still existed (except in Fred and Fan's case).
    • thenbm, on 10/02/2008, -2/+1
      • thugok, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Kids, stay in school and don't do drugs.
  • rblancarte, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5Isn't most of this in the way old version of the Bailout? IE absolute control for Paulson, etc? Hasn't most of that been stripped out and replaced w/ oversight, etc?

    Also, again, this is still so short sighted as an article. Sure, fine, don't pass the Bailout, but then what? The economy is a mess, and has to be fixed in some way. Sure, I can entertain that the Bailout/Economic Repair Act is not the best solution? So what do we do? We can't let the economy crash. The result would be catastrophic for both the US and the world (this is understood as a very possible result of not passing the Bailout, right?).

    I keep reading all these articles talking about how crappy the Bailout is, fine, but then give us another solution, because just saying the Bailout sucks isn't going to keep our economy going.
    • grizzryder, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Because of Hot Money (easy credit plus unregulated financial instruments, exportation of debt to other countries plus Ad Infinum) the current most problematic issue is keeping strength in the dollar. (world reserve currency?) The only way printed money (credit included) has been kept honest is when it was pegged to hard assets that couldn’t be proliferated by paper, ink, and computer strokes. A peg to unconvertible gold via Gold Certificate Ratio would stop the inflationary hemorrhaging.
      Respectfully
      Grizzryder
  • mrzack, on 10/02/2008, -2/+6INSIDE JOB. they wrecked the economy on purpose, now they're gonna "fix" it.
  • Mustard911, on 10/02/2008, -5/+3Do we see a pattern? All these Zionists in power places, and running Nations into the ground with filth, immigration polcies, and financial turmoil.

    Why would we want to pump back up the balloon that caused to the problem. Now we have to contend with the controlled Media brainwashing people to accept the Bail-Out version 2.
  • thenumbertoo, on 10/02/2008, -3/+2This has already taken us down the wrong path. What needs to happen is a hault of all campaigning and debates, inform the people about the situation (honestly) and give real talk. This is too bad and i have already taken my money out my bank accont that i have had for 13 years!!!

    we need a resolution NOW!
    • sgerwel1985, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Who is going to give us the situation honestly; media and politicians? I think not, each of those parties act in self interest and will push the blame on someone else. In this case, it is easy to push it on Bush seeing as he has just failed miserably at being president.

      Stop the debates? Please if we haven't heard these morons (mccain and obama) speak enough already, they have to say more than we can possibly handle now. Not to mention, both are so indirect in their talk that you sit there and wonder what the hell is going on.

      And for a resolution now? That is impossible, that thought alone has brought this proposal to the table in hopes to fix the NOW. Realistically the country is gonna have to take the hit and we the citizens will feel the burn the most. Hopefully... HOPEFULLY this will cause the citizens to regain their voice back and get some of these jerkoffs out of Washington.

      There is no NOW fix that won't cause severe problems down the road.
  • why3th, on 10/02/2008, -2/+6I'd be ok with socialistic values in our Economy if it applied to more than just the top 5-10%.
  • rowlodge, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3this all seems like some crack addict, knowing the high will only last a short time, only look for more later?
  • mizzouglen, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2I'm having a hard time finding where laissez-faire ends and possibly halting the economic crippling of millions begins. I have always believed in the free market and the principles that surround it, but where does that clash with having a heart for human well-being?
  • klooper, on 10/02/2008, -4/+5Everyone's talking socialism, socialism, socialism about this bill.

    You want socialism? Wait and see what happens when unemployment rises to 13% and the GOVERNMENT becomes the employer of last resort. That's socialism. And we're on a crash course with it right now if the rescue isn't approved.

    Listen, the stupids are out. They're going to send out telegrams and e-mails again to their congressman saying vote NO. They're going to threaten their representative until the plan gets axed in the House again, and the credit problems will widen and become more severe.

    People with sense need to counteract the stupids. Send your own e-mails and telegrams. Congress wants to do the right thing. Give them some ability to do it.
    • wacked, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3Lack of regulation is what led to this mess in the first place. Less government is good when it's not doing anything beneficial. The reverse is also true. I really don't understand how people keep screaming socialism when it has nothing to do with it.
    • maz2331, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3It's not lack of regulation that is the cause, it's the lack of intelligent regulation.

      The real problem is that many of the financial firms have simply grown too big and are interconnected in ways that ensure that any of them can tank all the others. One of the biggest issues is that insurance on securities exists - it removes the fear of risk and leads to really stupid investment decisions. Another is the creation and sale of securities based on outstanding loans where a change in interest rates suddenly results in the end lender being unable to meet the new obligation.

      Combine that with allowing such paper to be used as a "reserve" and you have the makings of a sudden disaster.

    • GrandmaSheila, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2"You want socialism? Wait and see what happens when unemployment rises to 13% and the GOVERNMENT becomes the employer of last resort."

      *****. You have no clue how a socialist country runs. When the government is the employer, that's communism.

      All modern countries are socialist, but not THIS busted ass country. For an example, all of Europe is socialist, but, of course, you already KNEW that...
  • skinturtle, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2I have to plagiarize something I read today...it's a great quote and here it is...

    "Money and power made people greedy, so you decided to hand over a bunch of money and power to greedy politicians instead. Smart!"

  • opticwind, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4I'm not particularly political but there's something weird happening when a Democrat-supported bill is hated and most diggers are on the Republican side.
  • EndGamePlayer, on 10/02/2008, -2/+1
    Ralph Nader for 2008
    He never screwed anyone -Paper Ballot Only
    https://www.votenader.org
  • facetowncollege, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3using taxpayers money to help greedy fat bastard bank owners who get themselves into this ***** in the first place? great
  • JohnLawson, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2This article is all win and 0% fail.
    They compare Henry Paulson to dictators which is an instant success in my book.
    People who just beleave everything they hear on the news make me sad.
    Everyone needs to read this.
    diggs
  • kingmanic, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2thanks America, for putting your children in debt, rewarding people who took bad risks, not punishing anyone in this fiasco, and encouraging the further deregulation of a an industry which has dedicated itself to skirt it to dangerously insane levels. All so the foreign investors can get their pound of flesh. You have certainly lived up to all the things everyone says you are.
  • Magee1205, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2Yay! Instead of $700B, it's now $800B. Yay! We win! Whoo Woo!!! Oh wait...
  • goleopards1, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2buried for speaking ill of Obama...
  • sickb13, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2You know what, I'm getting a bit tired of people who have absolutely no idea how finance in the United States works acting like this plan is the financial mirror of their first born getting raped and murdered.

    Is it totally right? No. Should it ever have been necessary? No. But guess what? Who is going to be ***** bitching when nobody can get a credit card with a decent credit line, nobody but rich people can get approved for a mortgage - never mind actually afford the house when the interest rates are 2 times what they are today. Who's going to be bitching when they lose their retirement savings because the market took a dump, or they were too heavily invested in mortgage based securities?

    The American taxpayers are NOT GIVING THEM 800 BILLION DOLLARS - WE ARE BUYING THE COMPANY AND ITS ASSETS. Do you have any idea how much money banks like that make? Notice how the other banks are buying the failing ones? That's because it's a good investment, the potential return is absolutely huge.

    Should the government own all the banks? ***** no. Should they own half the banks? ***** no. Should the government buy a gigantic financial institution for the greater good of every single American who relies on the credit system, and stock markets to achieve a greater quality of life? the answer is probably yes, unless of course you have a better solution? (which you don't, I can assure you).
    • unfairunbalance, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1Do not sell yourself into slavery with credit cards. Screw the bailout. let them drown.
  • bontzmachine, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2SHUT. UP. Stop complaining about a sweet bill that will MAKE US MONEY!!!! COME
    ON. For me, this comes down to two beliefs. Either you think people are inherently untrustworthy, and will not eventually pay back debts that they owe. Or, you believe that people are basically good, especially American people. As Peggy Noonan said on the Daily Show, never bet against the American people. We are getting this mortgage debt for CHEAP. Like, hilariously cheap. If you are an optimist, which I am, the results point to PROFITS, not tax losses.
  • unfairunbalance, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Everyone should not fill out their w2 forms or allow no money taken out by the Federal Reserve- IRS owned by the very private banks that want this bailout. Federal Reserve and Income Tax was illegal signed into law bypassing Congress which was not in session. Why should we bailout Wall Street when they allowed put options put on United and American Airlines prior to 9-11. they do not investigate this. Someone had prior knowledge to 9-11. May be the rich bloodthirsty bankers that want this bailout and to screw us to pay for it. Bush's buddies so they all can profit from this.
  • AzBats, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Man o man do you guys love chaos. The deregulated California energy market is a prime example of what chaos I'm talking about.
  • voodoo3, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1America addicted to credit, just the way banks like it.

    A bill wants to make it easier for Americans to get credit by printing money out of thin air all of which is charged interest by banks. This increase in money supply inflates the dollar making it worth less towards imported goods and pushing up amaricas cost of living. The increase to cost of living forces those who recieved easy credit to miss payments putting the credit systems in crisis. Once the credit system is in crisis it threatens the economy and a new bill developed by bankers offered to stimulate the economy.

    Solution:

    Remove the central bank
    Put restrictions on bankers
    Stop government lobbiest.
    Reform election laws
    Return to democracy
    Follow the constitution

    America you have to allow the markets to adjust down. Stop being slaves to your own debt, debt what is brought on by allowing bankers to print your money.
  • DarkBlueAnt, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2I know most of you guys don't live near anyone who's life depends on stocks, but I can tell you that without the bailout, there's no confidence in the market. I know lots of you guys are scared of anything that even looks like socialism (Like a sickle for example), but the market is screwed if we don't let buyers know that we're trying to stabilize it.

    Usually I'm on the the side of the Digg majority, but here the situation really is split both ways. I really don't know enough about it myself, but the people on Digg seem too riled up about rejecting it without considering why we might need it.
  • newmoneyplease, on 10/02/2008, -0/+0The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity. -Abraham Lincoln

    Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to...provisions [which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands. - Theodore Roosevelt
  • Ebacherville, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1look at this this, administration is out of control:
    http://digg.com/politics/Brad_Sherman_MARTIAL_LAW_ ...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.