Asking "why should we bail Wall Street out?" is like asking....

[scheming daemons]

"why should we put out a fire that was started by someone else?"


This fire is headed for us... all of us. it doesn't matter who lit the match.. Will it burn the arsonist? yep.

But it will burn all of us too.

The banks are us.

It’s our savings....
our stocks....
our IRAs...
our pension plans...
our insurance policies...
our jobs


People here keep saying stupid shit like "Let 'em burn! They started this!"


Yeah... they did.

Stupid fucking Wall Street idiots started a fire. It's burning out of control.

It's headed for our houses.


Are we going to let it burn just so we can get the satisfaction that "the man" was destroyed too?


Are we fucking nuts?



The bailout needs to happen. As distasteful as it is.... it needs to happen.

We have to put out this fire. We can worry about preventing another fire after that.

[samuraiguppy]

1. thank goodness

some people understand. Some of the things people are saying just plain scare me.

[Barack_America]

2. Dow Jones futures down 153.

And the Hong Kong markets are currently tanking.

Yeah, I get it.

I'm not happy about it.

But I get it.

[TheDonkey]

3. we need to address the crisis but throwing $700 billion dollars into the blaze isn't going to help

especially when people realize that this amount was made up just because it was really BIG.

[Barack_America]

7. 1. That's the amount that would be "made available"

2. Congressional Democrats spent all week tacking on regulation and taxpayer protection clauses so it wasn't just "throwing money" onto the fire

3. Read Krugman

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/opinion/26krugman.html

[gristy]

9. Right. And Congress wasn't declaring war against Iraq. They were just authorizing it...

should it become necessary.

[TheDonkey]

14. Seriously. We cannot let Bush and his thugs rattle the cages one more time

Yes they've gotten us into a mess but we can't turn to them to get us out of it. I would take whatever input is coming out of the WH and throw it in the trash.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. It's unfortunately not about Bush.

This is a situation where we can't just oppose it because it comes from his office (I mean, you don't think HE came up with this idea himself, do you?) We're in charge, and we can do this in a responsible way, which very much seems like the case. But doing nothing just because it has the Bush trademark on it is totally irresponsible.

[Barack_America]

16. Interesting comparison, but not quite right on.

Basically what the Democrats have done this week is to build a "Levin Amendment" into Paulson's plan. Congress will be keeping Paulson on a pretty short leash.

We would never have gone to war in Iraq if we'd gotten the original Levin Amendment.

[FreakinDJ]

4. But I want Dems to set the ground work to dismantle Reagenomics

We need to Frame the Debate now, set the ground work now to put Reagenomics and the Trickle Down Theory out with mondays garbage

If the S&L Bail Out of the 1980s, Enron Fleecing investors and Utility Rate Payers of 100s of $Billions of dollars, and finally the “Wall St Melt-Down of 2008”, does not serve as a Gospel like Eulogy of the Failed policies of Reagenomics and the Trickle Down Theory – I don’t know what does

[Art_from_Ark]

5. Here's another analogy

Giving nearly a trillion dollars, unrestricted and unaccountable, to bail out a bunch of fat cats for their willful screw-ups is like handing your house, your car, and your bank account over to your chronically alcoholic uncle who promises that this time, it WILL be different

[greyghost]

35. Good analogy.

[1corona4u]

6. Yep, I agree.

I am seriously thinking about going to the bank in the morning, and taking out all but the money that I have outstanding right now. I just don't trust this whole thing. Especially when FDIC is already getting a bailout.

[gristy]

8. Should not the shareholders of those essentially bankrupt institutions pony up first?

Or do you think that the value of those bad mortgages should remain at their inflated values when our ownership stake is calculated?

[Teaser]

61. Depending on how insolvent these idiot banks are

that may not help much.

[Skink]

10. What if it's a small fire like World Trade center 7.

Should we implode it?

[leftofcool]

11. How about a loan instead of a bailout?

[Barack_America]

17. That's one of the items Democrats negotiated for.

Before McCain came in and fucked everything up.

[BzaDem]

12. THANK YOU.

That is a great analogy. I'm glad that there are people on DU that understand.

[BzaDem]

13. THANK YOU.

That is a great analogy. I'm glad that there are people on DU that understand.

[elleng]

15. The whole thing has to be explained,

by a leader, and REPORTED by honest media.

Most people are not stupid, many are uninformed.

Try these:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4091307&mesg_id=4091307

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR2008092403033.html

[Heather MC]

18. sometimes all you can do is let it burn and plan to rebuild

Just saying

[JeffR]

19. All the money, however much it ends up being

needs to be doled out, with interest, on an installment basis, on a very tight leash, with rigid accountability standards. As to executive compensation, fuck that, period, from first principles. They created this pigpen with the eager complicity of Republicans, and more than a few Democrats; taxpayers owe them the sqare root of fuck all. In fact, a functioning democracy would have these little pricks up on charges by the end of the month.

Other than that, I guess I agree with you.

[soothsayer]

20. Too bad they'll run out of water after protecting the mansions. Your house is in cinders and

your community can't afford a new fire truck. Have a nice day, sucker!

[Beregond2]

21. THANK YOU.

I have been completely stunned by the people on this board who think nothing of risking another Great Depression, just so they can say "I told you so." The only thing that finally ended the last one was WW2. We can't have WW3 and survive it. This crisis MUST be brought under control by any means necessary. THEN we can argue over how to pay for it and how to prevent it from happening again.

[Lifelong Protester]

26. I agreed with you a couple of days ago

when you basically were flamed for saying the same thing. There is no really good outcome of a 'no intervention' strategy. We. all. lose.

Folks, it isn't the 'fat cats' who are going to be clogging the soup kitchens, losing jobs, homes, and future (forget retirement) plans, it is US.

[Beregond2]

65. Thanks for the support.

[knowledgeispwr]

22. Thank you

People going around saying more or less "let the whole thing come crashing down" are short sighted at best. That doesn't mean you have to support the Paulson plan.

[dailykoff]

23. Oh bullshit. Dumbya shakes his booty on teevee, nation coughs up 700 B.

F#ck that sh#t. Nobody needs this stupid "bailout." If you can't smell a scam by now you're hopeless.

[Lifelong Protester]

24. finally someone has a good analogy

most folks don't seem to get, that as distasteful as this seems, WE, and I truly mean WE, are all going to suffer if this fire is let to burn itself out.

People must understand, that if the credit markets totally freeze up, this isn't just about you not getting another offer from VISA, this is every financial transaction that you count on (such as getting a car when your old one bails on you)college loans, mortgages, etc.

Believe me, if there is no intervention, this is not going to hurt "the man" as much as it is going to hurt who it always does, the regular folks.

I agree with the OP. Letting it 'play out' just to see Wall Street suffer is not our best option. Unlike 1929-1937, now nearly all aspects of our lives are now on the railroad tracks, and the train is bearing down on us. I would wager that most people do not have a clue as to how much of their financial well-being is wrapped up in what happens with this intervention.

[dailykoff]

25. Yes, unpleasant as it may seem, Saddam is a gathering threat who must be taken out.

Oh wait.

[greyghost]

27. Wrong ! The economy is going tank irregardless, there is no point

creating a bigger hole. Paulson's Plan is going to succeed in; 1. devaluing the dollar even more, 2. bringing on double digit/hyper inflation. It is not going to stop the banks from failing. They are going to continue to fail. See: Washington Mutual

[GarbagemanLB]

30. I trust you have a degree in economics?

[greyghost]

33. Actually my degree is in Political Science, I had to take several classes

in economics to earn it.

BTW, I called this scenario over two years ago before the initial problems began in 2007.

[Zynx]

32. Then I suppose FDR was wrong to help bailout the economy in the 1930s?

I suppose you're not a fan of the New Deal?

[greyghost]

37. Remember, the New Deal was pushed to the back burner by WWII.

Not that it was a bad idea though, since the economy wasn't going to sink any further.

[Zynx]

39. What? The New Deal affected an economic recovery in a major way.

The economy was still contracting and relatively rapidly before the New Deal was put into place. FDR halved unemployment and doubled GDP before WWII ever started. Look up the numbers.

[greyghost]

42. We began the ramp up to war by manufacturing weapons to sell

over seas. I'm fairly certain that had a major effect as well.

[Zynx]

58. Starting in 1940. The recovery began in 1933. Unemployment had dropped from 25% to 16% by 1936

alone. The data don't match the man-on-the-street narrative.

[greyghost]

64. It was called the WPA and it did put people to work on homes and

infrastructure, not a bad idea. And no, we were manufacturing weapons for GB before 1930.

[WinkyDink]

28. Yes; Wall Street and the wealthy finally, after decades, got us to put our Middle-Class money at

risk.

[endthewar]

29. How about a controlled burn that saves the middle-class?

[tinrobot]

36. Sorry, but fire burns from bottom to top.

The people at the top of the economy would be the last ones affected, the poor and middle class would go first.

[endthewar]

44. Alright. Let's hasten the process by transferring $700 billion from the middle class to the rich.

:crazy:

[Zynx]

31. Exactly. Too many people look at the stock market and don't realize its movements

represent more than a few ticks on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. The plunge last week represented the plunge in the credit markets that allow our markets to function. Without them industrial firms can't get credit, retailers that finance with debt can't finance their inventory, and banks can't make loans. The whole economy will collapse. It's true to anyone who actually knows what's happening.

[greyghost]

34. The crisis is coming, one way or the other.

Deflating the bubble will be painful but necessary. This measure, like the ones before it, will not stop the inevitable.

[Lifelong Protester]

62. I agree with you, fellow Wisconsinite

I get the picture from reading these boards that folks think Wall Street in no way affects them because they do no have their own stock portfolio. Unfortunately, there is no difference nowadays from Wall Street and Main Street.

People, the horse is out of the barn. Complaining that the locks are faulty, looking for someone to blame for not closing the door, etc. are of NO VALUE. We need to fix the immediate problem FIRST, or the barn is going to be repossessed.

[Jim Sagle]

38. Chickenshit bullshit.

[comrade snarky]

40. Good analogy

The bailout sucks and it may not be as effective as I hope but it's way worse to do nothing and watch the economy crumble.

To the people who want to hurt the super rich I say there are better ways. Ways that wont involve as much pain for the least able in our society. You know, the ones who hurt first and worst when a depression hits.

[eridani]

41. Only if we get the fucking EQUITY!

We pony up 700 billion, we OWN those suckers! Capeesh?

[vaberella]

45. We will. On CNN that was one of the MAIN provisions Obama got us!! Thanks Obama..

Dodd, Reid, Pelosi. We get all the shares of 86%. So yes, we own them!!

[greyghost]

43. This is a must read...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7192490&mesg_id=7192490

[Two Americas]

46. no it isn't

It is an illusion that we - most of us anyway, some may be positioned nicely - can avoid a depression.

The bail out is about the fat cats saving their own skins. Does anyone think they care about any of us?

Hard times are here either way. The bail out will mean no hope for the future for working people. No bail out, and we at least are still free and have a fighting chance.

If the people who are arguing for a bail out here are doing so because they are confident that they personally are positioned financially well enough to withstand the coming hard times - then shame on them.

We are being bombarded with the false argument that of we do not cave in to what the fat cats want, that there will be a depression. It is extortion. There will not be a depression for them of we hand them the keys to the treasury, but there will will be a depression for all of the rest of us, plus we will give up our freedom and our chance to fight for ourselves and build a future for our children.

There are worse things than a depression. There is a depression PLUS all of us becoming a permanently impoverished underclass with no hope and no future.

[greyghost]

51. You summed it up beautifully.

[backscatter712]

47. Explain to me how this bailout helps Main Street, not just Wall Street.

I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing $700B of money we don't have being given to the criminals at Wall Street, so they can give their executives their golden parachutes, and keep the banks from freaking out.

I'm not seeing how this helps us. We'll still be losing our homes, our jobs, our health care, etc. As far as I can tell, we're headed for collapse no matter what we do, and this "rescue" plan paid for with money we don't have will simply cause inflation to spiral out of control until the economy craters.

If we bail out, the economy tanks. If we don't bail out, the economy still tanks. I fail to see why we should bail out Wall Street's criminals, when I see no upside for the rest of us.

[HamdenRice]

52. Try to understand the difference between who CREATED these securities and who BOUGHT them

Wall Street CREATED the mortgage backed securities that are at the center of this storm, but then then SOLD them to financial institutions all over the country

These mortgage backed securities are among the most common investments of all investors -- your local bank, your pension fund, your 401K.

Most retirees living on 401Ks switch from stocks to bonds to achieve a fixed certain income. Again, that's mostly these same mortgage backes securities.

Also since these securities are the bedrock of the system, banks can't settle inter bank transactions without them.

The financial system is terrified of a general crisis in which no banks pay other banks for settlements. This caused the money markets to freeze last week, and the public almost lost trillions of bank account type money market funds.

[mhatrw]

48. Why does this need to happen?

Why does Wall Street need the US taxpayers to pay off its bookies for its losing bets?

[scheming daemons]

56. Because it is all of OUR money that is at risk.....

[Two Americas]

67. right

That is true, bail out or not. The bail out means all of our money will always be at risk.

[mhatrw]

69. Some more than others...

[goletian]

49. BUT!! but the repubs are about to frame this to make it look like dems want to pick peoples pockets

we need to put principle aside and challenge them to a game of chicken. they will cave eventually, knowing the problem must be addressed, but we cannot do it without bipartisan support, otherwise it will be used against us. we cant let this happen. because mccain and his stupid ass buds are putting country second in order to make gains on this, we need to follow suit and call their bluff, wait for them to cave. and they will. we need to call mccain out on his bullshit more than ever on this issue, and we need to make sure everyone knows the repubs are making a game out of this crisis.

[Imagevision]

50. We should do a temp patch fix until Obama is installed with new administration in play...

[HamdenRice]

53. Thank you. The let it burn crowd is stupefying to me. nt

[cboy4]

54. Wow, I agree with scheming daemons

[watercolors]

55. Thank you. concise and to the point!

Any idiot can understand your wording of the problem, best and simplist I have heard yet!

[scheming daemons]

63. You're welcome

[baldguy]

57. WaMu failed. JP Morgan-Chase bought the remains.

WaMu failed because they made poor business decisions. Chase isn't going to fail because they have not. The fact if that in a capitalist economy, businesses sometimes fail - even big ones.

The solution is simple: Let the WaMus of the world fail. The Chases of the world will succeed in their place.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

59. That's absolutely true.

Everything literally tumbles if no one can get credit. Businesses fail, people lose jobs, more poverty, more homelessness...

Do I like the idea that we're bailing out these assholes? Absolutely not. Unfortunately, we can't couch it in those terms - we must couch it as we're bailing ourselves out, because that's the ultimate truth to the situation.

[mitchum]

66. But we shouldn't be paying the fucking arsonists for starting the fire

[Two Americas]

68. obviously

And give them more gasoline! WTF?

I thought I had seen it all, but people here spinning this as anything other than that - it surprised me.