How can you respect a socialist government that bails out deadbeats?

[BrentCrude]

AIG just got bailed out by our socialist politicians that are playing the part of the sportsbook that pays out on losing bets with tax payer dollars.

Some people are treated more equally than others in a socialist economy like ours.We are about as free market as the USSR was during the cold war.

Some crooks involved in the keynesian funny money economy are considered too big and important to fail while the peons are too small to save.It's too bad that all the people involved in politics and finance that ran the ponzy scheme economy in the ground for going on 90 years aren't treated like barreled in habitually broke, reckless gambling bums.

Bush and Paulson were all over tv the past few days talking up not bailing out banking firms and what do they do,give 80 billion to a failed company because they think it's for the good of the collective society.I wish they just had the balls to say they are socialists.

[pico]

that is how you get rich. get free plays from the US gov.

[ryanXL977]

its funny, republicans hate govt so much, but boy, when their companies fail, they sure look for govt help

funny.

bush has done this his whole life, with every company he ever had

[Sforz]

from what i understand.. they have the money, just not in liquid assets. . . it's essentially a bridge loan... Thats the propaganda I picked up from cnbc today... lmk

[ryanXL977]

our money wont be worth the papers its printed on soon enough
people warned us, and we continuted to vote unqualified people in office bc of fear or personality

its happened before and its happening here

shame on us all

[Weezy F.]

I don't think the idiots should be rewarded for running the company into the ground, but you have to admit the economic damage would be severe if they let them go under.

[pico]

you can buy gold below 800 now. if you're so pessimistic, time to load up on gold

[Sforz]

you can buy gold below 800 now. if you're so pessimistic, time to load up on gold

i love that commercial

[element1286]

Companies have to fail, capitalism is based on creative destruction, bailing them out is an awful idea. Government rarely solves economic problems it almost always creates them or makes them worse.

[ryanXL977]

govts not doing its job is why they failed
govt works fine when it does its job, everyone rails against govt but plenty of govts operate properly

[The HG]

AIG just got bailed out by our socialist politicians that are playing the part of the sportsbook that pays out on losing bets with tax payer dollars.

Some people are treated more equally than others in a socialist economy like ours.We are about as free market as the USSR was during the cold war.

Some crooks involved in the keynesian funny money economy are considered too big and important to fail while the peons are too small to save.It's too bad that all the people involved in politics and finance that ran the ponzy scheme economy in the ground for going on 90 years aren't treated like barreled in habitually broke, reckless gambling bums.

Bush and Paulson were all over tv the past few days talking up not bailing out banking firms and what do they do,give 80 billion to a failed company because they think it's for the good of the collective society.I wish they just had the balls to say they are socialists.

The do have the balls. The one thing guys like that don't lack is balls. They're not afraid of saying what's really going on, they just don't want to, they're lying.

And the "well, we HAVE to step in and bail out X company, because it's in the public's interest that we do" line of reasoning that you hear over and over again (S&L, Long Term Capital, etc etc etc etc) is a complete sham. Not only is it wrong, but it encourages future irresponsible risk-taking, by creating "moral hazard" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard

vote for Obama.

[pico]

going for broke is the american way. when you fail, make sure there is enough fireworks so people will remember you for decades.

[ritehook]

AIG just got bailed out by our socialist politicians that are playing the part of the sportsbook that pays out on losing bets with tax payer dollars.

Some people are treated more equally than others in a socialist economy like ours.We are about as free market as the USSR was during the cold war.

Some crooks involved in the keynesian funny money economy are considered too big and important to fail while the peons are too small to save.It's too bad that all the people involved in politics and finance that ran the ponzy scheme economy in the ground for going on 90 years aren't treated like barreled in habitually broke, reckless gambling bums.

Bush and Paulson were all over tv the past few days talking up not bailing out banking firms and what do they do,give 80 billion to a failed company because they think it's for the good of the collective society.I wish they just had the balls to say they are socialists.

Agree totally with this. Except labelling it "socialist." In a pejorative sense, oratorical actually, yeah I understand it.

But it really does not describe a particular economic system.

What we are seeing is "corporate capitalism" at its worst. That is, a kind of state-sponsored or protected capitalism, witht he ordinary citizens the "lender of last resort."

Fuk that.

The corporations (global ones, like AIG) own this goverrnment, regardless of which party is in charge. (One of the reasons I give a kind of qualified "support" for Obama is that being a black he may, repeat may, be inclined once in high office to make real changes - not holdin' my breath)

A free enterprse system that howver disallows large global coroprations to interfere in political decisions, or if they wish to have genuine reps of the people on the BoD --- I don't care if it's called socialism or capitalism, I'm for it.

Virtually unregulated, laizzez-faire capitalism doesn't work much better than a soviet-style state socialism. Both hit a wall, eventually. Biut there is a viable third way.

[element1286]

Agree totally with this. Except labelling it "socialist." In a pejorative sense, oratorical actually, yeah I understand it.

But it really does not describe a particular economic system.

What we are seeing is "corporate capitalism" at its worst.

The corporations (global ones, like AIG) own this goverrnment, regardless of which party is in charge. (One of the reasons I give a kind of qualified "support" for Obama is that being a black he may, repeat may, be inclined once in high office to make real changes - not holdin' my breath)

Yes, the two party system has driven us down the wrong path. Ron Paul or Bob Barr might actually be able to change something. I don't particularly support either candidate, but I lean towards McCain.

[element1286]

Agree totally with this. Except labelling it "socialist." In a pejorative sense, oratorical actually, yeah I understand it.

But it really does not describe a particular economic system.

What we are seeing is "corporate capitalism" at its worst.

The corporations (global ones, like AIG) own this goverrnment, regardless of which party is in charge. (One of the reasons I give a kind of qualified "support" for Obama is that being a black he may, repeat may, be inclined once in high office to make real changes - not holdin' my breath)

A free enterprse system that howver disallows large global coroprations to interfere in political decisions, or if they wish to have genuine reps of the people on the BoD --- I don't care if it's called socialism or capitalism, I'm for it.

Virtually unregulated, laizzez-faire capitalism doesn't work much better than a soviet-style state socialism. Both hit a wall, eventually. Biut there is a viable third way.

The key is to have the right amount of regulations in a capitalistic market.

[ritehook]

Companies have to fail, capitalism is based on creative destruction, bailing them out is an awful idea. Government rarely solves economic problems it almost always creates them or makes them worse.

Right! Fundamental. Capitalism 101.

AIG "too big to fail." Really. Then appropiate them, pay off shareholders at last posted share price, and make it a semi-private company, like the US Postal Service.

But it they let it fail?

Well, classic capitalism tells us that no real needs go unfilled.

How fast will the smaller companies, who have competed with AIG all these years, get into the game in a much larger way?

It's likely that AIG's competitors did not overextend into the subprime markets.

Why should they be punished - and they are being so, by not being allowed to step up and take AIG's business - by the govt bailout?

Let AIG go under. We bettors all know if we either mismanage our money or make bad betting decisions we go broke. No bailouts for us. My poor picking the first two weeks of foots has me almost bankrupt at one of my books.

But adversity teaches a lesson. Perhaps I shoiuld call Treasury and the Fed for a bailout.

[ritehook]

My opinion of a good stock play right now?

Bank of America.

They probably now wish they hadn't taken on the debt of Counrywide earlier this year, and now Merrill Lynch.

But they know wht they are doing, and come the turnaround their depressed stock will rise.

IMO.

(BTW, one of the reasons offered for the Great Depression was that banks also acted as stockbrokers in the greedy 1920s. Are we now going back to that,with BoA taking on a biz that has a major stockbroker element? Did they change the law re banks and brokerages somewhere along the way?)

[element1286]

Not sure about the Brokers/Banks laws.

[MonkeyF0cker]

A Republican bill during Clinton's term rescinded those Great Depression era restrictions, ritehook.

[Helmut]

printing press getting a work out this week

[MonkeyF0cker]

These bailouts have me absolutely sick to my stomach. The American public takes it right in the craphole once again. This is just another reason why I will be voting for Obama this election. Could Bush and the Republicans be any more of hypocrites? I'm all for free market capitalism as they pretend to be. But you can't have it both ways. How on Earth do companies that take on huge risk get bailed out yet again by the taxpayers and have absolutely no liability. These CEO's and CFO's some of which who are making over $100 million a year, are now being told that they can now take aggressive risk at the chance to either line their already full pockets with truckloads of more money or simply break even. If the Republicans want deregulated markets, THEY SHOULD STAY THE FVCK OUT OF THEM!!! At least the Democrats will regulate them and bail them out if need be. However, regulations could have avoided this disaster to begin with. I sure wish I could play a $1000 10-teamer every day and if I lost my bankroll, just turn to the government to refund my money. Instead, the Republicans tell you that you can't gamble with your own money (through UIGEA and McCain's anti-sports betting stance), only large corporations can. Fvcking asinine. I'm tired of this shit. Something better change fast or this country will be at war with itself soon.

[Helmut]

Hopefully a civilian army will put put together soon to take back our country.

[ritehook]

Not sure about the Brokers/Banks laws.

I really haven't checked it yet, but I'm sure banks after the Great D were disallowed from acting as stockbrokers.

And (memory kicking in) I think about ten years ago it was all deregulated - banks could now sell commercial securities.

The problem ultimately lies in the fact that there really is NO entity in the USA that puts the country FIRST.

Everyone is out for their "private all." A genius could set up a perfectly balanced system, but if all the directors of that system were working for private interests, it would come to nought.

IMO there is nothing wrong with people acting in their own self-interest, financially. Even trying to game the system.

But unless there is in place a kind of super-personal directorate of some sort, that puts the health and well-being of the nation as a whole uppermost (and has the power to enforce it's edicts, or at least put them to a vote of the people) no real or lasting reform can be made.

Greed in a natural part of life, part of the survival mechanism. But in dealing with a "tribe" that is a large nation, a "super-chief" must make sure minimal standards of equity exist.

In old Venice, which lasted about a thousand years as an independent city-state (unitl Napoleon's invasion) there was a Council of Ten, which reviewed the Doge's years of rule, and if there was corruption or incompetence they punished his surviving family, disallowing them any wealth, etc.

At least this is how I remember their system from reading about it long ago, as a teen. Not perfect, nothing is. But better than we have now, where everyone is trying to hustle the system, and no one really stands for the nation at large.

(Tho all the big prominent bullshi11ers say they do.)

[ryanXL977]

so the question is this

was this going to happen in 2008 or did bush speed it up by a good 10-20 years

[ritehook]

BTW, the Big Three automakers have lined up in front of Washington with their hands out, looking for your money to survive.

You fukkers should have made quality cars. Instead, for half a century you have practiced "planeed obsolescence," deliberately making junk that would require the car owner to buy a new one every four years or so.

The Japanese pursued a different philosophy, and skinned you alive.

Not a penny for lying and incompetent auto companies.

[ritehook]

A Republican bill during Clinton's term rescinded those Great Depression era restrictions, ritehook.

Correct. As I noted and recalled in post above, before I read yours.

[ritehook]

so the question is this

was this going to happen in 2008 or did bush speed it up by a good 10-20 years

Bush, IMO, accelerated the process.

It's not just the subprime mess, again IMO. But the confluence of a number of issues, like the subprime, but also the export of our industrial base (which Perot - remember him?) warned about some years ago.

Unregulated greed is another. As I noted, greed, like the poor, ye always have with you. I have it, so does almost everyone. We are here today because all our ancestors were greedy.

But we are also here because the tribes our forbears belonged to had wise leadership. (If it was unwise - or in some cases unlucky - it wouldn't have survived, and neither would our forbears. Nor us.)

It's a balance. And in the US of A the balance has been out of whack for many, many years. I'm enough of a curmudgeon to say just about from 30 years after the founding of this Republic,and the passing of the geniuses who founded it.

Lincoln I have mixed opinions of. TR was OK on some scores. William Jenning Bryan, tho never prez (tried 3 times) and tho a religious nut, was a man of integrity. (He delivered the famous "Cross of Gold" speech at the 1896 Demo Convention.)

Wilson was about as bad as Bush, lying the nation into war and sending a munitions ship - Lusitania - into harm's way in order to have an excuse to enter WWI. British Zionists and Wilson's "Cheney" - one Col Mandel House - seem to have played a large role, all to do with the Balfour Declaration.

Not too much to get excited about in 20th century. And we sure started this one off on the wrong foot with the double election of George the Stupid.

[ritehook]

Kind of unrelated to the current meltdowns on Wall Street, but related to survival mechanisms:

A few years ago scientists in the appropriate fields deternined that our standards of feminine beauty were hardwired into our brains eons ago, when the human race was forming. Or more likely when our pre-human ancestors were roaming the African veldts.

Males today prefer a woman with wide-set eyes. If the eyes are too close together, we call her ugly.

Why is that? Maybe - and it does seem a bit of a stretch - because a female with wide-set eyes could help the male better spot prey or potential enemies.

Ditto maybe for larger mammary glands. Better milk providers for the babies he may father.

We are what we were.

[ritehook]

If there is no kind of Councill of Ten, such as existed in old Venice and ensured endurance of that mini-state, then the nation falls prey to competing greed agendas.

Chaos ensues.

And, in the end, even in Republics (see Rome) the last vestige of national honor, the military, assumes control.

It is to me very significant, of historical importance, that during the hijacking of the presidency and of the Pentagon by the neocon conspiracy, the voice most adamantly against the Iraq madness were high ranking military officers. Both active and retired.

From the (at the time) still active duty Gen Zinni, formerly head of CentCom in the Persian Gulf (neocons laid the antisem smear on him) to the late military stategist Gen Wm Odom (who called Iraq America's "greatest strategic disaster") to Pentagon intelligence specialist Lt Col Karen Kwiatowski (who after retirement blogged that if Bush did not end the war the generals and admirals "would do it for him.")

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a military dictatorship, even a pro-American one. But if current very disturbing trends in the US are not reversed (corporate contol of the nation and its comcomitant transformaton into a clone of Mexico, to name just a few) it is almost inevitble, and probably before mid-century.

It happend in many nations and cultures before us. Ancient Rome, tho, is still the best example of how a great experiment goes wrong.

If this analysis has merit, I'd say the future American Caesar is right now a child, somewhere in the American South. (Napoleon - Corsican - was a kind of French "southerner"; Hitler was from Germany's south - Austria actually: and several other Maximum Leaders of note were also either southerners or from the edges of their nation. (Stalin was a Georgian.)

Enough of this handicap of History. I gotta go to start up this weeks 'cap of the NCAA and NFL

[treece]

Obama and McCain are not qualified to be president. We should all vote none of the above like in the movie Brewster's Millions.

[wtf]

who is qualified to be president?

[treece]

who is qualified to be president?

Bill Clinton, that two term max rule should be scrapped. When Clinton was in office everything was good.

[wtf]

after reading the SMALL Print of the "loan" to AIG it is a staggering 8.5 points above LIBOR. which means it is impossible to pay this back and survive, this is bridge loan so they can dispose of assets in an orderly manner. very very clever. of course nobody will give administration for this move.

[lys3rg0]

who is qualified to be president?

whoever is a milf