This is the pragmatists versus the ideologues

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

Ideologues of all persuasions, both left and right.

I just heard Glenn Beck saying he was against the bailout even though he thought the failure would trigger a great depression and the end of our world as we know it. But, he still maintained he was against the bailout. So, he is saying he is CHOOSING another great depression for the sake of his ideology.

Personally, I am a pragmatist. I prefer not to see the markets and the banking system and businesses large and small and the dollar go swirling down the drain if we had a chance to prevent it.

Anyone who has ever read my posts knows just about no one hates Wall Street more than I do, but I realize that like climbers on a slope, we are all tied together and no one falls into the crevasse alone. The so-called "bail-out" is about keeping liquidity and credit functions alive so that we can all fight for a more perfect world another day - hopefully a day with a Democratic President and a huge Democratic congress.

[XemaSab]

1. I'm against it because if it fails to stop the slide of the economy

it will be making a deep hole much, much deeper.

[MrCoffee]

2. Why do so many think this bill was the magic bean that would grow a new economy?

That's what I don't understand.

[wilt the stilt]

7. It doesn't grow a new economy

It keeps the banking system from collapsing. Liquidity and trust holds together the banking system Trust is credit. If the government can't guarantee it then the system will go down. It is the basis of capitalism.

[MrCoffee]

9. Keeps it from collapsing for how long?

How long ago did the fed pump billions into the credit markets to keep them from collapsing? How well did that work out?

[percussivemadness]

3. would you care to elaborate your reasoning?

[XemaSab]

11. Here's my reasoning:

(and I'm totally not an economist, so it's just an opinion)

It seems like banks and institutions have been falling like dominoes for months, if not years. The slowdown in the housing market started in California close to two years ago, and even before that ordinary people were having trouble paying their bills. And remember the economic stimulus checks? Yeah.

This is obviously dire, and it's been dire for a long time.

Now is just the time when the failed policies of the BFEE are bearing fruit. They wanted to put it off until January, but it's hitting now. They've managed to cover it up like cat poo, but sooner or later the litter box has to be cleaned, and the mess dealt with.

This current bailout package is that attempt to deal with the problem. If it passed, it could either stem the bleeding, or not. If it worked, we'd still have an economy, but we'd be horribly in debt. If it didn't work, we might still see an economic collapse, but instead of the government having the resources to put people to work a la the WPA, we'd still be horribly in debt so there would be nothing the government could do.

Frankly, if the problem started with consumer debt and homeowner defaults, why not spend the money at the root of the problem, and start a loan program for homeowners who are struggling? And top that off with national healthcare? :shrug:

[Democrats_win]

4. Today we begin the recession we should have had in 2001.

Yeah, the "2001 recession of lost jobs" was bad, but the housing bubble kept it from being a real recession for business. Now we're in worse shape than we would have been had we had made wiser decisions in 2001,2002. America needs to make the right decisions now, because if it gets worse it will make the depression look like a picnic.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. I think everyone knows we HAVE been in a recession

but they've been cooking the books - particularly on the labor and unemployment statistics.

[ColbertWatcher]

6. No, you cannot lump "the left" with the GOP in this one.

The Dems did what they promised; Pelosi was able to get the votes she said she would.

The GOP refused to cooperate.

Otherwise I agree that this is about pragmatists vs. ideologues.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

8. Well, there were Democrats who did not vote for it

and I have to believe that it was for ideological reasons. They don't want to "reward" Wall Street for bad behavior. Well, neither do I. But I'm willing to wait for the shareholders lawsuits and fraud investigations. I think there is culpability of both civil and criminal natures. But I can wait.

[ColbertWatcher]

12. But enough Dems did vote for it. The amount that was promised to reach a compromise. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Actually I will lump all ideologues together on this

regardless of political stripe

That said, the meme should be... the GOP collapsed the DOW and is about to kill the economy

But they were not alone in voting nay

Or for that matter in pushing against this vote

[ColbertWatcher]

13. Fine, but the Dems were not being ideological: they put the votes they promised ...

... to get a compromise; the GOP did not.

Despite promising to do so.

I guess McCain was leading them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. Sorry, I like to deal with facts and reality

which is in poor supply these days

Definitely there is lack of liquidity on this one

[ColbertWatcher]

23. Why apologize? I like to deal in reality and facts, too! Just as I did in my previous posts! n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Trying for a funny

my sense of humor is shot, I guess other's are as well

[ColbertWatcher]

28. Oh, LOL! Hard to know today w/everything going to shit and we're can't to do a thing about it. n/t

[Virginia Dare]

15. I think this does in fact prove that..

there are more ideologues in the GOP than there are in the Democratic Party, for better or for worse. I tend to think that when you're involved in a crisis like this it's better to have more pragmatists.

[ColbertWatcher]

24. Yes, I'm not saying that there are no ideologue Dems, but ...

... we delivered what we promised.

The compromise was written, we promised to support it, the GOP went back on their word.

[Virginia Dare]

29. Yep, they simply don't know how to be bipartisan..

no matter what they do, they have to make it about them. Their leadership sucks, it really really really sucks.

[ColbertWatcher]

31. For narcissists there really is only one person ...

[Eric J in MN]

14. It isn't practical to hand gamblers more money.

Wall Street will keep engaging in exessive risk without reform.

Then they will ask for another handout.

Do you give it to them, again?

[avaistheone1]

17. Glen Beck is an idoit that has just about eveything wrong.

So we should care what he thinks?

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

21. I agree that Glenn Beck is an idiot who gets nothing right.

I was merely making the point that HE foresees a Great Depression and the end of the world as we know it, but yet he still maintains that he is for the failure of the bill, the triggering cause. I find it interesting that he prefers his ideology over the human suffering that he himself foresees.

I have no idea if he is right or wrong about a coming Depression. I hope that he is wrong as usual.

[avaistheone1]

18. Glen Beck is an idoit that has just about eveything wrong.

So we should care what he thinks?

[mzmolly]

19. Perhaps Glen has job security?

He's an ass. I am glad I don't agree with him.

[Cleita]

20. It doesn't have to go down if the pragmatists get their heads together

and look at the obvious solutions, which are being done as I type this by the Europeans across the pond, for their failing banks. Why can't we do the best thing too?

[Greyhound]

22. More like "those that know history" vs. "wishful thinkers" and thieves.

The Republiks did the right thing for the wrong reasons, and that's where the Democrats that care about the country differ from the corporate shills that run both parties. There is not one scintilla of evidence that this "No billionaire left behind" debacle would have done anything to prevent the inevitable revaluation of the false boom, except to delay it until after the election and ensure that Obama would have nothing to work with once in office.

But then, we also know the real reason behind this blind adherence to the corporate line is that, this time it is their ox that was gored.

[bvar22]

32. "those that know history" vs. "wishful thinkers" and thieves." !

:thumbsup:

The litmus test for "Pragmatism" is the ability to face a problem.

The problems with our economy are systemic.
Throwing $700Billion of our children's dollars at Wall St will not fix the problem, but simply delay the inevitable.

A true pragmatist will tell you:
"Fix the boat FIRST,
then bail it out."

[fla nocount]

33. Obama is being "Carter-ized?" makes sense, many things are

being left the same. Gold, commodities, unemployment, economy, a true triple "D" (dumb,damn,deal) in the Middle East guaranteed to make a doofus of anybody while Mitt is practicing his Reagan persona.

But Jimmy was a very bright, honorable, humanistic country boy who gave up his career to save the family home while Obama, well Obama is a Daley Democrat. Maybe it will turn out differently this time.

[Greyhound]

34. You don't know how badly I want to be able to argue with that assessment.

Here's hoping we are so wrong.:toast:
:kick:

[fla nocount]

36. I have hope. Daley Democrats are thugs themselves.

They have no relatives in Cape Cod, lots of them in Cicero though and Virginia is a place with sissy-boy football teams where the fans drink from a flask instead of a bottle.

I don't look for Obama to take the high road, it's his agenda and priorities I question. I hope that his less than agreeable positions and rhetoric are an act and that he's doing an end run around a dying and increasing irrelevant and laughably transparent DLC.

Obama comes from a political climate that sells itself as Populist, but FDR tried to sell himself as a Populist as well. Sam Rayburn WAS a populist and LBJ was yet another pretender. I wouldn't mind a return to a political climate where WE were being at least placated if not catered to. I would like to actually be represented but you can't miss what you've never known. I would be satisfied to feel comfortable with what the bastards were likely to do next and that they knew that OUR complacence was necessary for their next move to succeed. I much prefer "may I" to "fuck you."

Rambling already and it's only 9 o'clock.

[fla nocount]

26. And no bold vultures who would rather kill than wait. n/t

[gravity]

27. Exactly

[girl gone mad]

30. I think I'm a pragmatist.

The bill would have been a bad deal for us. There's no guarantee it would do anything to mitigate the situation. There are far better options at our disposal.

Dozens of people die each day from lack of health care. No one will die if we take a few days to get a good plan on the table.

[readmoreoften]

35. Oh yeah. Real pragmatic to risk critical hyperinflation to save Wall Street.

[roamer65]

37. What's your preference, folks?

30-40% unemployment or 30-40% inflation. Pick your poison.

I choose 30-40% inflation and preserving a lot more jobs.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

38. I don't think the inflation will be that bad

and I too, pick inflation over unemployment.

Also, might FINALLY be the impetus for wages and salaries to catch up, whereas unemployment would do the opposite.

[baldguy]

39. A pragmatist would fix the real problem before they mortgage their great-grandchild's' lives.

The implosion of Wall Street isn't the real problem here - its the institutional victimization of the American homeowner by the corporatocracy.