Let's face it - Obama and Geithner are evil !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TomClash]

:sarcasm:

I have a simple question for those who are citicizing the bailout plan.

When the world finaical system collapses, how do you plan to survive?

[No.23]

1. On a lifeboat, of course, and ready to join hands with other lifeboaters...

to build a much more seaworthy vessel...

instead of getting back on board one that is destined to sink again.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

4. Risky.

[azul]

7. Destined to sink, and likely to take down all Mother Nature's

children too.

Could all this borrowing to save some too-big banks have been better spent on alternative energy and health care? For like a sustainable and diverse and prosperous civilization instead of endless oil wars in which these same banks get to thrive?

We are being towed down the dark road, willy-nilly.

[TomClash]

17. And what does that mean - concretely? nt

[Pirate Smile]

2. There is a group that wants it to collapse because they seem to think something

much better would come from it. They don't seem to recognize the possibility of something much worse. They don't want Obama's policies to work.

[KittyWampus]

11. Obama's policies allow the untenable and corrupt system and its beneficiaries to remain intact

Geithner's plan simply allows the bubble to continue using taxpayer money to reward those who created this mess.

Inflated prices for crap, risk-taking that endangers society, institutions too large to ever effectively regulate... all continues.

[kestrel91316]

16. So I suppose you'd prefer a Soviet-style collapse? Or perhaps an

Argentine-style collapse? Or maybe even a Germany-in-the-Twenties-style collapse?

Sometimes it's "better the devil you know than the devil you don't".

But you just go ahead and keep repeating the RW talking points.

[paulk]

40. those aren't right wing talking points

they are liberal talking points, being voiced by several well respected economists from the LEFT side of the political spectrum. If anyone is pushing a right wing plan, it's Geithner/Obama, with their kowtowing to the same Wall Street idiots that got us in this mess.

and is this the new meme - that unless Geithner's plan is acted on the entire financial system will collapse?

pathetic.

[girl gone mad]

56. This thread is full of straw men.

I don't know of any Geithner critics who want to see further damage to our economy.

[Dawgs]

3. But the people that think for me are saying that Obama is wrong.

:shrug:

[SlingBlade]

5. Yes, Evil is the word

Have you seen the petition ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5351541

[CoffeeCat]

6. I'd rather this ship sink...

...so we can rebuild a more solid, sound system that serves the people--instead
of enriching Wall Street and the banks--while the people are destroyed.

Wall Street and large financial institutions aggressively lobbied for deregulation
and for laws that would allow them to make boatloads of money. They didn't
care what happened to "We the People." They just wanted to enrich themselves.

They donated money to political campaigns and the politicians--who are supposed
to serve "We The People"--set up a legal and regulatory apparatus that would
garner them TRILLIONS--while punishing "We The People."

Look at the credit-card industry. Regulations were relaxed, so now these
companies can charge 50 percent interest if they want...or charge you
horrendous, unfair late fees, or slash your credit without notice. The
credit-card industry PAID FOR the bankruptcy laws that force you to pay
off that credit card debt, even if you declare bankruptcy.

The laws governing mortgage lending was relaxed. Glass Stegall created
these "too big too fail" corporations--that are now holding us hostage.

Anyone actually think this wasn't by design?

Anyone actually think this is a good system?

It's an outright, revolting sham.

Hell yes, this system needs to be changed. This isn't even America by "We the People"
anymore. Our nation is run by the corporations.

Anyone who criticizes those who do not enjoy this American Corporatocracy--needs to
get their head in the game and realize that if this system continues--we don't
have a democracy. It's gone.

Is being silent while our country morphs into some perverse, undemocratic version
of itself---some kind of virtue? That's a dangerous attitude.

[Deja Q]

12. It feels like that, at times.

At others, I see opportunities too.

Que sera sera. Do what you think is right. I'm furthering my education and will be earning degrees. What are you doing?

[geek tragedy]

14. So, you want him to fail. n/t

[TomClash]

39. Not me

I definitely want him to succeed.

[TomClash]

21. Everything you say is true

In fact, I would say the criticism is too mild.

But if another plan is implemented that lets the financial system collapse, what happens then? That's my point.

It's great to yell "Give the money to the People" or "Nationalize Everything" but what do you do about the cargo (grain, rice, cement, etc) that can't get shipped because no one will issue credit? Or the designers who can't design because the factor who has lost millions won't lend? What happens to the pensioner who relies on her 401(K) that may be halved today but is no longer there at all tomorrow?

[baldguy]

8. Obama isn't evil.

But he does have an evil twin:

[KittyWampus]

9. How many false assumptions do you make?

1. that those who disagree with the plan think those involved in designing it are evil
2. that those who criticize the bailout don't propose any alternative
3. that Geithner plan is the ONLY alternative
4. that not implementing Geithner's plan means disaster
5. that Geithner's Plan will even work
6. that Geithner's Plan is NOT ultimately keeping same unstable, undemocratic and corrupt intact

[TomClash]

20. I make no assumptions except . . .

. . . the financial system will collapse if its inherent problmes are not addressed. If we try another approach that does not address those problems, what happens and why?

[girl gone mad]

57. What you fail to acknowledge..

is that critics believe Geithner's plan doesn't address the inherent problems. It simply shifts debts from private balance sheets on to the public balance sheet. It rewards extreme risk, greed and political manipulation. It offers no incentive for the too big to fail banks to start lending again. Considering that Americans will be burdened with higher taxes or fewer entitlements as a result of the increased debt burden, the plan may in fact be a disincentive for lending.

[TomClash]

64. It also shifts returns to the public

And if the market stabilizes, then the toxic assets won't be toxic. Remember the public gets 80% of the returns, which could be enormous.

What will the banks do with the extra money? It makes no sense to sit on it. They want to make money and they do that by lending. In construction, for example, there are many projects languishing for lack of credit.

Most of the increased debt burden is really the US printing more money. Yes, that may lead to inflation but the correlation between the money supply and inflation has proven to be weak for several decades.

If we do nothing then we pay much higher taxes for much less anyway. And if we "give the money to the people" we incur the same debt. And we still have a financial collapse of immense magnitude to deal with during the lag time.

I disagree but I liked your thoughtful post anyway. I don't have the answers, but I am sick of critics who pose no viable alternatives and refuse to address the consequences of a financial collapse.

[spoony]

43. I know, the words these cheerleaders try to cram in people's mouths

as they try to shut everyone up. It's getting so old it's mouldy.

[TomClash]

48. I'd rather be a cheerleader than a Republican

Critical thinking requires that you posit an alternative.

[spoony]

49. So your idea of "critical thinking" involves calling people Republicans

Just par for what I've come to expect from some people here. Unthinking, unquestioning attack dogs.

[TomClash]

60. Read your initial post

Who attacked whom childishly?

[spoony]

68. You did with your insipid OP

You attacked everyone with a different point of view. I wouldn't call it childish though, as children are usually more rational than that.

[TomClash]

69. Why respond then?

I'm sick of reading criticism without viable alternatives presented. Tell me how and why nationalization, or populism, or other alternative prevents the financial system from collapsing.

[Zhade]

53. That's such a fucking bullshit meme. Get a new one.

One doesn't have to be a surgeon to know that operating with rusty tools is deadly.

[TomClash]

62. So let the person die because a new one may be born somewhere else?

Nice metaphor.

[Oregone]

10. Not evil, but Geithner is just fucking stupid

(or an asshole)

Oh, what a wonderful false choice you setup. Either accept and follow the plan, or have the financial system collapse. Yes, that all assumes the plan will work.

[TomClash]

22. You're right - it might not work

I never said it would. I think it will because it addresses the central problem - the counterparties' default. But wouldn't you say the collapse of the financial system is likely if the other so-called plans are implemented? If not, why not?

[Oregone]

41. Its maybe less likely with an alternative

With this system relying on the free market to clear out the assets, its assuming the assets have a net positive value and demand will be high. If they are all worthless as a whole, as many people predict, the plan will probably be yanked as soon as the market response is dismal. And then, political fallout will follow. This plan doesn't guarantee the assets move off the banks sheets. Not to mention, its a tad bit more expensive (success or failure) than other alternatives (Namely, nationalization or the Paulson plan).

[TomClash]

44. To analyze this more thoroughly

You have to know the effect of M-to-M on bank assets. If those are full value at maturity they are anything but worthless.

[Zhade]

54. EXTORTION. That's all it is. Reward the crooks, or dey'll haff ta bust up da place.

NT!

[Oregone]

58. Extortion isn't always the worst thing in the world

In balance, it keeps societies operating well. The rich do their gambit like this, and then the poor pull out pitchforks and demand they fund their education. The problem is that here, the rich forgot the poor have pitchforks, and the balance is way out of whack (perpetually). Thats when bad things happen.

But a little extortion from both sides tends to grease the capitalistic wheels at times. This is a slave and owners system after all, but it is quite unwise to neglect the slaves or forget of their needs and numbers.

[acmavm]

13. Well, at the rate we're going and with Goldman Sachs running the show,

we will find out sooner or later, won't we?

[TomClash]

24. No doubt

I just don't think the alternative is nirvana.

[acmavm]

29. I don't think anything anyone comes up with will be painless. But I know

that feeding the beast at the expense of the public is ignorant and corrupt.

Let 'em die. Put that stake through their vicious 'hearts'.

[terisan]

15. You are assuming that the Obama Plan is not going to cause the bankruptcy of the US

The money (credit) extended to the investment banks is a supply side plan. Credit extended to the consumers through a demand-side plan may have been the choice necessary to succeed.

European leaders have been critical of Obama's "go it alone stimulus plan" which also has the potential for sucking up all the available credit in the world thus driving up interest rates and leaving other countries and ironically ourselves in a precarious, possibly untenable position The Europeans wanted to concentrate mainly on setting up an international system of regulating the banks and Obama dissed them/


Critics of Obama's plans include 3 of the leading liberal economists, plus Noam Chomsky and now Greider of The Nation.

I don't think they would be voicing their deep concern if they thought Obama Plan was definitely going to prevent the bankruptcy of the country.

There is somthing very much the matter when when trillons are being borrowed to transfer to big investment banks ostensibly to free them to lend, with no guarantee that they will actually do so.

The administration did not even want to let us know where the AIG money had gone--it had to be pried out of them.


Obama will get some good press over the regulations being proposed within the next few weeks--but he may have put the US in an untenable position.

As for the possible world financial collapse--we will be free to nationalize whole industries-including agribusiness-and may have to adopt universal single payer health care. If the IMF or World Bank gives us a hard time, we just line our Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf Coasts with our Navy and Coast Guard and tell them to go screw themselves until we get out house in order.

[TomClash]

19. Not true

I don't assume it will succeed. It won't lead to bankruptcy because $1.15 trillion of it is the US lending to itself - i.e., printing money. We can do it again if necessary. It may lead to inflation - but who cares?

Some of the plan is in the form of tax cuts, credits, construction spending and so on. That's demand side stimulus.

Chomsky, Stiglitz, Krugman, Greider and Galbraith want what exactly? "Giving the money to the people?" Nationalization? They neglect to mention what happens in the interim - Keynesians who ignore the short run. I don't find that analysis very persuasive.

We will be free to nationalize whole industries? The USG does many things well. Running industries is not one of them.

And you will have to do more than line the shores with the Army and Navy - I think you will need military control of an angry and disillusioned populace. Qui bono? It won't be the People.

Thank you for your post. We may disagree but your answer is honest and actually addresses the issue.

[azul]

25. In banks we trust? Or is it people, or God or what?

I think that what this crisis boils down to is do we trust people with government money or corporations? It is the people's government and money, right?

We are in uncharted crisis territory with the fuzzy science of economics, and no one can predict with accuracy what will be the ultimate effects of any actions. There are just too many factors to predict clear outcomes - just look at the expert opinions on how to fix the banks.

So, do you think that people are too dumb to do the right things with fiat money to fix the lending crisis? Or do you have more confidence that corporations will do the right things with the people's money to ensure the survival of a democratic republic?

The banks may be better able to stabilize the economy in the shorter term but at what cost? The fear is that institutionalizing further the secretly owned Fed with more power will turn the government over entirely to corporate interests: a corporate-sham democracy even worse than the one operating presently.

My wife's plan to fund the banks is the best idea that I have heard yet: Give every taxpayer in America $10k with the restriction that it has to be deposited into a bank -any bank- for 3 years. Then after 3 years, it is theirs to spend or to return it to the treasury, as many good citizens would be apt to do. The banks would be funded and people would get to keep track of their own money (debt).

I don't really trust big banks.

[G_j]

26. I like your wife's idea

:applause:

[scarletwoman]

31. I'm with G_J -- your wife's idea is the best yet.

:thumbsup:

[TomClash]

33. Well, I certainly don't trust corporations

I have written several posts stating we should consider eliminating them - it's basically welfare for rich people.

Your point about the banks is fair. I think the fear is justified. But if the banks fail, all bets are off - literally. There will be no financial system in the short run. I don't want to contemplate the consequences because they are disasterous.

I like your wife's plan because it seems to fund the counterparties, at least in the short run, while not letting the banks "own" the cash. I'd have to think about the consequences of another liability on the banks' books, though.

[scarletwoman]

27. You certainly got a more honest answer than your hyperbolic & insulting OP subject line deserved.

When people resort to broad brush insults and sarcasm to characterize those whose points of view differ from theirs, it's not exactly an inviting opening for an honest debate.

sw

[TomClash]

28. Excuse me?

The subject line was sarcasm. Did you realize that? I put it in red letters in the body of the text.

[scarletwoman]

30. I addressed the sarcasm in the first sentence of my post. Did you realize that? (nt)

[TomClash]

35. You uttered the word

I'm not really sure "addressed" would be anywhere near the ballpark.

[Zhade]

55. It's not near the ballpark -- because SW knocked it out of the park.

NT!

[Zhade]

52. Yeah, fuck inflation! It sure didn't hurt Zimbabwe!

Oh, wait...

[TomClash]

61. Zimbabwe?

Oh, boy . . . :eyes:

[MercutioATC]

18. Well, I've been buying dry goods and ammunition...

I'm not worried about economic collapse just yet.

The chronic inflation is going to get us first...

[cottonseed]

23. Haven't heard? Everyone on DU can plant home gardens.

They don't mind bringing down the whole system. Most closets are packed with some extra toilet paper and they've got a pretty good idea of how gardening works.

[TomClash]

37. I didn't get the memo

Bringing down the system - one post at a time.

TP and a hoe.

[rucky]

47. nobody on DU is bringing down shit.

and if a few tomatoes and cleaner asses result, what's the harm?

[kerrywins]

32. Mass counterfieting only leads to inflation

having the government counterfeit the currency will only lead to inflation.

how about stopping this unconstitutional monopoly on our currency?

[TomClash]

38. Let's see

The USG put out a couple of trillion and the EU is standing pat and tight and a Euro now buys $1.33. It was buying $1.60 in July. I'm not sure the currency is in trouble.


We might get some inflation, but the Freidmanite assumption that printing more money always leads to inflation is an assumption that has been debunked.

[kerrywins]

42. re:

once the money is spent, the prices will increase.....
that is the effect of counterfeiting.

[kerrywins]

65. lets really see

Let’s go back. Japan. They’re twenty years into it now. What started their problems? Inflation following the Plaza Accord. Let’s keep going back. The 1970’s and the emergence of stagflation. The Keynesians said it couldn’t happen. The cause? Inflation, trying to spend your way out of recession. 1977 – The UK took their begging bowl to the IMF. Two years later Paul Volcker was appointed Fed. Chairman in the USA. Inflation was not creating jobs just higher prices. He called a halt to it and let interest rates rise. Jimmy Carter didn’t get a second term. Career politicians made a note of this.

Again and again history tells us that the cause of such problems is inflation made possible by fiat money. It’s all lies, deceit, smoke and mirrors. They can’t even say the words "printing money" – instead it’s "quantitative easing"! More double-speak – the "Mushroom Principle" – keep them in the dark and feed them BS!

[lame54]

34. I'm sleeping on your couch

[TomClash]

36. Cool

If I have one left before this is over . . . :)

[Rex]

45. Your question assumes the bailout plan is what will work

which it won't and we will all die from feral dog attacks.

[rucky]

46. How will criticizing Obama affect one's chances of survival?

:shrug:

[specimenfred1984]

50. You think it hasn't collapsed yet? LOL

What has any country done with its financial system collapses? There are lots of examples, many of them posted right here on DU.

[Zhade]

51. So it's reward the crooks who destroyed our economy, or watch it fall?

Um, isn't that EXTORTION?

[JackRiddler]

59. No, it's reward them and accelerate the fall, and pretend this is some kind of remedy.

Bullshit three times over.

EDIT:

Oh, and blame those who objected to the policy. Bullshit four times over.

[TomClash]

63. So what's your alternative?

That's the question. It's not whether Wall Street is full of crooks who destroyed the economy. It seems to me that the alternatives allow the financial system to collapse. I just don't think the critics understand the consequences of a financial collapse.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

66. Surely, McCain and Palin have the answer to this ...

Or maybe the answer is with GWB: buy large tracts of land in Paraguay. Steal billions. Hire Blackwater (or whatever their new gentler name is now).

[salguine]

67. That's a false choice. The problem is, they're "fixing" the financial system with

a patchwork of half-measures that are designed to leave the whole flawed system basically unchanged—that is, to leave the same fat cats running everything—when it really needs to be completely destroyed and rebuilt, from the ground up, with a new focus on building an economy that benefits EVERYONE instead of a handful of rich assholes.