home

Federal Government Bails Out Wall Street

Treasury Secretary Hank Paulsen just announced that the federal government will bail out Wall Street:

. . . The underlying weakness in our financial system today is the illiquid mortgage assets that have lost value as the housing correction has proceeded. These illiquid assets are choking off the flow of credit that is so vitally important to our economy. . . . These illiquid assets are clogging up our financial system, and undermining the strength of our otherwise sound financial institutions. As a result, Americans' personal savings are threatened, and the ability of consumers and businesses to borrow and finance spending, investment, and job creation has been disrupted.

More.

To restore confidence in our markets and our financial institutions, so they can fuel continued growth and prosperity, we must address the underlying problem. The federal government must implement a program to remove these illiquid assets that are weighing down our financial institutions and threatening our economy. . . The ultimate taxpayer protection will be the stability this troubled asset relief program provides to our financial system, even as it will involve a significant investment of taxpayer dollars. I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative – a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion.

(Emphasis supplied.) What this means is the federal government is buying the Big Sh*tpile, as Atrios calls it.

Here's my question, why don't those who made the mess pay the most? Why not a special tax on Wall Street to fund this as much as possible? I am no expert but I think this was inevitable, as Paul Krugman wrote today. Now how about some fairness on the consequences. Let Wall Street foot the bill over time by a tax for this bailout.

Krugman writes:

We don’t know yet what that “comprehensive approach” will look like. There have been hopeful comparisons to the financial rescue the Swedish government carried out in the early 1990s, a rescue that involved a temporary public takeover of a large part of the country’s financial system. It’s not clear, however, whether policy makers in Washington are prepared to exert a comparable degree of control. And if they aren’t, this could turn into the wrong kind of rescue — a bailout of stockholders as well as the market, in effect rescuing the financial industry from the consequences of its own greed.

(Emphasis supplied.) That would be a travesty.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Has McCain's Week Decided The Election? | Fineman: It's Clinton's Fault >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    How I wish (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by votermom on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:50:21 AM EST
    a Clinton were in charge.
    sigh.

    Hillary';s speech (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by sas on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:45:12 AM EST
    on the economic crises and WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT
    (missing from Obama's an McCain's speeches)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QUrbrE51ME&eurl=http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/

    Can we please heve Hillary back now?


    Parent

    When you listen to that speech, (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by fercryingoutloud on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:55:06 AM EST
    all 22 minutes of it, with the displayed knowledge & understanding of both the problem and the solutions we are reminded how grossly inadequate both McCain and Obama are in the ability to deal with our domestic problems particularly the underlying problem affecting the entire economy including job creation.

    Many people supported Obama for a number of reasons, none of which had anything to do with the kind of first hand knowledge and EXPERIENCE that Clinton displays in her speech. Experience does not matter we were told. Really?

    Whoever wins between the two candidates - we are screwed because both are ill equipped and have no clue on how to solve the mess we are in.

    I just went back and read Obama's acceptance speech with all it's fantasized promises that have no chance of becoming reality in our current economic state. How could he even give that speech if he had one iota of understanding of where we currently stand? How?

    Parent

    please just stop (3.00 / 2) (#93)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:40:05 AM EST
    I'll settle for any decent democrat (none / 0) (#72)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:36:50 AM EST
    at this point.

    Parent
    A Democrat with a big "D". (none / 0) (#88)
    by Fabian on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:12:25 AM EST
    I don't trust little "d" democrats.

    Parent
    Right now, the only one I trust is Hillary. (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by alexei on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:42:56 AM EST
    She was talking about this crises as early as March 2007 and had solutions.  Too bad, the Dem enablers who backed Obama went with the Bush Administration and the Republicans who have brought us to the brink of a Depression!

    I urge everyone to contact their Senators and Congresspeople to urge them to back Senator Clinton's plan - we can't wait for Obama and his advisers to "formulate" essentially her plan and we can't have a "rookie" who is now using a teleprompter on his stump speeches to avoid "mistakes" that will make him look "not Presidential".  Obama will be worse than Carter and the Dems will be painted as total failures if he gets in office.

    "This is not a game, who's up or who's down", this is our lives, our children's futures at stake - neither Obama or McCain are up to the task - get Congress off their butts and make them do their jobs.  Call, write your representatives and write letters to the editor.  Get friends and colleagues to do the same.  Frankly, it is essential that we do this now - we can't afford to wait for who may become President.

    Parent

    Privatized profits (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:50:21 AM EST
    Socialized risk.  Same old story.  Meanwhile, we'll give you pennies if you're unemployed and no health care AND toss a trillion down the tubes in Iraq on our Roman Empire descent into self-destruction.

    Also, if you were smart and didn't buy into the real estate mirage, like my wife and I, well, you get no bail out, no relief, and your housing costs will most likely rise in the near future.

    Here's what I believe: Help the genuinely needy, not simply the temporarily, but still comfortably, inconvenienced.  You think the real sad stories out there are going to be helped by this?  I don't.  It is a boon to the upper middle class and above.  Not much if you're just a normal schlub.

    We will never make the affluent, and those who CAN afford it, pay like they should.  It's always the public till, and the least among us, who get the least when all is said and done.

    I like your comment soooo much (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:06:42 AM EST
    because it is so true!!!!!  If we only helped the gunuinely needy it would be much cheaper for all of us, the rich who did this wouldn't be all that rich anymore and you and I who did not buy into the housing mirage would also not face rising housing costs.  There are prices to pay for insanity and what has been going on on Wall Street has been so insane for so long now and EVERYBODY wanted to play and nobody wanted to talk truth.

    Parent
    At least we know the truth now.... (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:53:37 AM EST
    the Republicans in power never had a problem stealing from the many to give to the few through taxation...the problem was who was getting the funds.  Poor people, brown people, women in trouble...do f*ck yourself.  Whitebread in a 3 piece suit...help yourself, the treasury (err Chinese credit line) is over there!  

    This has me so angry...as angry as I've been since the last time I got arrested.  I despise my government.

    Parent

    I can't tell you how much I agree. (none / 0) (#80)
    by liminal on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:48:55 AM EST
    As we've gone on bailing out (or not bailing out) these gigantic Wall Street entities, I keep thinking about all the people whom we do not and will not bail out, like this lady, who is sick of Peeps at her local food pantry:

    Not long ago, a woman visited the Catholic Charities food pantry in Webster County. She said she had already gotten food from another food pantry, but would it be OK if she got some at this one, too?

    "The only thing they were giving out was Cheetos and Peeps," the woman confided. "And I'm kind of sick of Peeps."



    Parent
    hm (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by connecticut yankee on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:54:04 AM EST
    I read last night the costs could run over a trillion dollares (1-2 really).  Which I assume is added directly to the debt. Making our 9.6 trillion dollar debt rise by 10-20% in one go.  It was $5 trillion when Bush came along.

    Remember when Clinton started paying off the debt?

    Irony: again (5.00 / 5) (#33)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:59:11 AM EST
    Hillary was calling for a master plan to deal with this issue two years ago.  Until yesterday, Jason Furman, one of the Chicago boys, was against an orderly plan, was all for the ad hoc hit an miss method.  I wanted to throw the radio across the room, thought he was a McCain advisor then it turns out he was an Obama advisor.  He sounded like the "wall street boys" the oh so clever MBAs that brought us this disaster.  

    By the way, for a breath of fresh air, watch bill's interview on CNBC
    and then tell me why we did not want this guy running around the White House or the VP mansion.  Makes my skin just ache all over.

    buying debt on margin (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by roy on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:00:08 AM EST
    I don't have the background to say whether this is a good plan or a bad one, but it's at least odd.  I'd feel better about it if we had a federal piggy bank instead of a massive federal debt.  As it is, we're effectively buying risky assets with lots of leverage, which is among the things people blame for this problem in the first place.

    roy, please stop noticing that they are (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:12:26 AM EST
    talking about buying risky assets with lots of leverage as a solution to the consequences of convincing us all to buy risky assets with lots of leverage.

    Parent
    How about no bonuses (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by votermom on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:09:13 AM EST
    and salaries switch to the govt pay scale in these newly acquired government companies, eh?
    (just kidding)

    Easy votermom.... (none / 0) (#102)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:03:09 PM EST
    if the incompetent ceo's can't cash out for 20 million or more a year, then these companies aren't worth saving.

    They won't be "too big to fail" anymore:)

    Speaking of which....dudes, you failed, therefore you aren't too big to fail, the proof is in the pudding.

    Parent

    Jerome a Paris says the same: (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:11:28 AM EST
    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/19/71015/5006/600/603508

    But there is a simple solution: punitive marginal tax rates on income. It worked after WW2, it will work now too


    No Bailout Without Conditions (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by santarita on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:32:59 AM EST
    Paulson wants the bailout and he wants to save the reforms for a later day.  This seems to be the worst possible approach.  At this point Congress and the Administration has the best bargaining power and the perpetrators have the least.  Later what will be the incentive to negotiate?

    One condition that I would like to see is some attempt at disgorgement or take back of compensation packages paid to CEOs and directors.  Someone wasn't doing their due diligence.

    Who really owns stocks in the US (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by DFLer on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:43:23 AM EST
    Earlier, tiger said that the majority of Americans own stocks. Yes, they do, slightly under 50% do own SOME stocks. This is a slight drop from slightly over 50% of previous years. However, that is not the complete story.

    But what do average Americans really own? This report from the CEPR

    ...the ownership of stocks was particularly unequal. In 2004, the top 1% of stockowner's held 36.9% of all stocks, by value, while the bottom 80% of stockholders owned less than 10%. Additionally, stocks are a bigger part of the asset portfolio for wealthier households. For those in the top 1% of the wealth distribution, stock assets made up over 21% of their total assets, while stocks consisted of just 4.8% of all assets for households in the middle fifth of the wealth distribution. While stock performance is very important, on a daily basis it does not significantly affect average households.

    I remember in the old days that when employment figures were released, if unemployment was low the stock market fell, as low unemployment represented upward pressure on wages. I've often thought that the 401K plans were in most cases an attempt by the monied overlords to co-opt average Americans wage-earners by making them think they had a stock in the stock market. So what if it's only $2,000.00 worth? Now all that Wall St. bs really matters to me!

    I realize that retirement/pension funds affect many, but pensions have already disappeared for most wage-earners. It remains the same ole story...the fat cats get nearly all of the cream.

    Thanks for the reality check (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:47:35 AM EST
    DING DING DING DING! (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:56:13 AM EST
    We have a winner.

    Here's another idea. Hmmmm maybe if the "huge number of people who now rely on the stock market" feel some pain, maybe just maybe, they will develop the political will to stop sucking at the GOP ideology trough.

    From some of the comments on this board today seems to be some serious pain is necessary to wake people the f%&k up.

    Parent

    I have a 403B (none / 0) (#95)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:44:29 AM EST
    (which is a 401K for University professionals) .

    It's worth 1/2 of what I owe in student loans. (I still have 26 years until I retire)

    I rent.

    I am pretty sure I am not alone.

    If my investments go away, I have no retirement other than social security.

    I consider myself the investor class, but not the homeowner class (hell, houses start at 500K where I live)

    Parent

    Welcome to the club coigue.... (none / 0) (#103)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:05:44 PM EST
    The "work till you die club".

    There are worse things...like running to Uncle Sam with your hand out, a la Wall St.  

    Parent

    All I am saying is... (none / 0) (#106)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:14:47 PM EST
    I am an investor too.

    We should not tax people based on whether we are investors, we should tax them based on the amount of money we have.

    ANd if I have to work till I die, I guess I'd better find a job I really really like.

    Parent

    If we have to tax income at all.... (none / 0) (#109)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:27:30 PM EST
    and I'm not sure we do, but if we insist it should all be taxed at the same rate...whether earned by labor or investment.  

    Parent
    not across income and investment levels I hope (none / 0) (#112)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:38:17 PM EST
    This (none / 0) (#107)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    If my investments go away, I have no retirement other than social security.

    Is what I am talking about when I talk about waking people up. Guess what? There are plenty of people who already have nothing to rely on but social security. And with so many people uninsured just one major illness can wipe out people's life savings anyway.

    The GOP wants us all shackled to their "free market" so that we will go along like good little market serfs when they manipulate the rules "for the good of the free market." This is why they want to priviatize social security. This is why they want to protect "all" stockholders.

    This is why 401k plans are pushed the way they are. This is why pension plans are sliced and diced.

    People in this country are not angry enough at the oligarchy. They still think that all these a$$holes that push trickle down economics are "on their side." The American people are a bunch of cattle and until the pain hits cattleprod levels people aren't going to wake the f&ck up.

    Parent

    Personally I am way past angry (none / 0) (#111)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:37:29 PM EST
    I feel more deflated and defeated. Like there isn't a cure. Like this is the country we live in.

    Parent
    It's very very upseting. (none / 0) (#115)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:56:19 PM EST
    No question. The only cure is to get active. Start fighting. How? Each person needs to figure out the actions that will makes sense to them. But make no mistake an Obama presidency is just a tiny first step. We've all got a lot of work ahead of us. Don't let the bastards get you down.

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#116)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 01:12:30 PM EST
    My mom uses that phrase to cheer me up.

    I am working locally. It's easy to be positive in blue California.

    It's the federales I am worried about. How could people elect Bush twice? Over al Gore and John Kerry? This is the country we live in.

    Parent

    there is a great way to pay for this (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:16:06 AM EST
    you simply disallow corporations to offshore accounting to Bermuda and the like and the tax windfall would be enormous.  Of course it will not pick up the entire tab but how unpatriotic is it to have a po box in another country for the sole purpose of avoiding US taxes?

    and barack hits him with it in a new ad (none / 0) (#123)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Sep 23, 2008 at 08:36:03 AM EST
    "Hitting on economic and pocketbook themes, Barack Obama is out with a new ad today accusing John McCain of supporting tax breaks for businesses that operate in the shelter of Bermuda."

    hmmmm.

    Parent

    More people in this country invest in the (none / 0) (#1)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:40:11 AM EST
    stock market then don't. They aren't all greedy robber barrons. The vast, vast majority are regular people trying to make something for their future and retirement. I dislike this "populist" idea that nothing should be done to help the majority of Americans.

    Furthermore, even if you have no money in the market, a total economic collapse hurt you.

    Say what? (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:42:38 AM EST
    If a majority of Americans pay a tax on this, because they own stock, then what is the problem? I do not like the idea YOU are floating that the investor class of citizens should be subsidized by the non-investor class.  

    Parent
    The "investor class" consists of anyone (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:49:42 AM EST
    with a 401 k, IRA and pension. We aren't talking about JP Morgan's great, great grandson. These are people with 40,000 a year jobs who put a couple thousand into the market in hopes of actually living once they retire.

    Parent
    Biggest investor: Cal Pers (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:54:18 AM EST
    the California public employees retirement fund.  No one wants that to bust.  

    Parent
    'Specially moi. (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:17:53 AM EST
    GOP talking points (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:57:05 AM EST
    I guarantee you folks do not think of themselves as the investor class.

    Parent
    And you think a Bush plan will help them? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:54:57 AM EST
    I'd love to believe it, but somehow I think, for the average person, it will turn out to be a pile of sh*t.  

    Parent
    I'm pretty sure Bush had nothing whatsoever (none / 0) (#30)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:57:50 AM EST
    to do with the plan.

    Parent
    So you're calling. . . (none / 0) (#7)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:44:09 AM EST
    for accompanying the financial bailout with a tax increase on the majority of Americans?

    Please tell me this is advice for the McCain campaign, not Obama!

    Parent

    Pleasee tell me (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:46:38 AM EST
    you do not believe that the American people want to subsisdize Morgan Stanley and CEOs.

    Sheesh, you are dense as hell today.

    Parent

    Oh please. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:57:44 AM EST
    You wrote:

    If a majority of Americans pay a tax on this, because they own stock, then what is the problem?

    Are you suggesting that a majority of Americans are directors of Morgan Stanley?

    As a matter of fact, I think that the management of these firms ought to be targeted for punishment -- but that won't happen through the tax system but more likely civil or criminal legal charges (or possibly moral suasion, if such a thing is imaginable in that world).

    But that is completely different from the remedy that you seem to be calling for.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:59:32 AM EST
    And the tax the little guy would pay is not the issue and you know it.

    Sheesh, the GOP talking points are rolling form you folks today,

    Hell, repeal the capital gains tax is what I expect you folks to cry next.

    Parent

    I do NOT know. . . (none / 0) (#67)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:31:16 AM EST
    what the heck you are talking about.

    You yourself just called for a tax on the majority of Americans several comments above.  That's the most explicit example of what you mean by a "Wall
    Street tax".

    I honestly cannot tell if you have an actual tax policy in mind, or are simply pushing the idea of "making Wall Street pay" as a political issue.

    And please don't attempt to muddy the waters by suggesting that the folks who want to know what you actually mean by "tax Wall Street" are somehow trying to defend the CEOs there.  I'm happy to listen to any realistic, sensible policy to bring accountability to the folks whose malfeasance or incompetence got us into this situation.

    Parent

    Did I? (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:33:12 AM EST
    The majority of Americans own the Big Sh*tpile already? The country is in need of a bailout? Where are the Chinese then? We need their help.

    Hell, I imagine you will be blaming Clinton next for the crisis.

    Parent

    'Confiscatory Shark Tax' (none / 0) (#104)
    by daring grace on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:09:04 PM EST
    I'm not usually a big fan of Joe Klein, but he had a doozy of a column at the Time magazine Swampland blog lauding a speech by Joe Biden about taxing the affluent and taking it a step further:

    snip:

    "As for Biden, he's proposing that the wealthy return to tax rates that are actually lower than those imposed by Clinton--rates which, as you recall, really stifled the economic boom of the 1990s. Obama is proposing only a 20% tax on capital gains, which is lower than 25% rate Clinton demanded, and significantly lower than the income taxes imposed on labor.

    "And Biden's right: in a system of progressive taxation, it is the patriotic duty of the wealthy to pay more than the middle class or the poor...and furthermore, since we're all going to be paying for the mess the Wall Street sharks made, I'd go Biden a step further: there probably should be a confiscatory shark tax for any and all executives whose companies have gone belly up and required a federal bailout."

    Parent

    I a relative simpleton. . . (none / 0) (#118)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 01:24:00 PM EST
    on these matters (just ask BTD), but I've never understood what the reasoning is that doesn't tax capital gains as regular income.  I'm not saying there isn't one, just that it's not obvious to me.  On a moral basis, I'd privilege the first $50 or $60 thousand of income before I'd privilege capital gains.


    Parent
    This isn't about Morgan Stanley. It's (none / 0) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:51:26 AM EST
    ultimately about the health of the economy. If banks are allowed to fail, if wall street is allowed to basically collapse, the entire country suffers greatly.

    Parent
    Let them fail, (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by eric on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:55:28 AM EST
    let the rich suffer.  Maybe they'll understand what the rest of us have been complaining about for so long.

    Parent
    But the truth is, they won't (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:12:25 AM EST
    this people who own three and four properties, who have millions invested, never pay. I am still reeling.  The recent rebates from Bush are an example.  I got nothing. Stupid me, I worked and made money above my pension because I am trying to pay off medical bills incurred (not covered by insurance). And build back a small savings.
    On the other hand, I have friends who inherited anywhere from a half million to more; people who own two homes, boat, two or more expensive vehicles, etc etc etc and they got the full rebate.  THEIR money is in the market and in their second and third properties.....like me they are retired so their only income is our pension.  But they did not have to work to make extra because they inherited money. I, on the other hand, coming from a poor family where we were thrilled that our dear departed father had enough insurance to cover his burial, are punished for working.

    I am no financial wizard. I know this much. The more people DON'T work for their money, the more they are rewarded.  Win the DNA lottery and you get a rebate.  Work your retired ass off to pay off bills and you get punished.

    Parent

    Amen Eric.... (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:42:01 PM EST
    scream it from the rafters...."Let them fail!  Let them fail!"

    Us poor working stiffs already know struggle and going without...I have no doubt the salt of the earth will survive...it's what we do.

    Parent

    You don't understand. A 70 year old man (none / 0) (#26)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:57:09 AM EST
    who wants to retire but can't because the market has gone bust and wiped out his funds is not rich.

    And, again, absolutley everyone would suffer during a depression.

    Parent

    Hell (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:58:25 AM EST
    Lower capital gains taxes then right?

    McCain sounds like your candidate to me.

    Parent

    Your response has nothing to do with (none / 0) (#40)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:01:44 AM EST
    my statement, as far as I can tell.

    Parent
    There's your problem (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:03:56 AM EST
    You can't tell.

    Parent
    I fail to see how caring about what (none / 0) (#43)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:05:56 AM EST
    happens to people with retirement accounts in a full economic meltdown has anything to do with Capital Gains or makes McCain my candidate.

    Parent
    How about this (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:08:43 AM EST
    We just give them the money directly and not bailout Morgan Stanley?

    Parent
    I like this idea!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:13:36 AM EST
    That keeps money in the pockets of the right folks and that means more money circulating in the economy.  Hmmmm.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by eric on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:19:15 AM EST
    I DO care about the retirement accounts.  I DO care about those that would suffer in their retirement.  I have no problem bailing them out.  I don't even call that a bailout.  I call that basic human decency.  A type of decency that most western industrialized countries have.  And NOW, since it is suddenly OK to talk about massive government involvement in the economic system, socialism isn't off limits any longer.

    Right?

    Parent

    Yes BTD! (none / 0) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:15:32 AM EST
    You are my man today!

    Parent
    Isn't that just a version of the stimulus (none / 0) (#56)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:16:16 AM EST
    checks? Those had no spectacular result. The focus right now is just on keeping the gears of the economy moving along. I'm not arguing that bailouts are a great thing, just our only option that keeps this country from turning into an apple based economy.

    Parent
    No (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    That is where you attempt to avoid the market correcting itself by throwing a bit of money at people.  This is about giving our retirees social security raises that they can live on while Wall Street goes through the hell it has earned itself. This is going to hurt all of us whether we like it or not.  I'm not liking it much but I've gotten used to feeling a little pain due to the people's desire to not have to deal with Republican philosophies and the destruction they bring.  I have friends in war zones right now and a husband going back in about a year so don't expect me to feel all concerned about other Americans having to experience a little pay back for allowing these a$$hole$ to remain lawless.  I wish people would stop trying to feel the hurt.  We all earned it.  You didn't have to be a rocket scientist to know this was going to happen.  We are all going pay somehow, now it is just about how much we end up paying and I'm not for bailing the rich out of anything anymore.  I'm not bailing out any CEO's or companies........companies don't feel hunger or pain or cold or heat.  They are not living things.

    Parent
    I can tell you that if my (none / 0) (#82)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:50:34 AM EST
    the fund that holds my parent's annuity fails our family is in trouble - I am already finding it hard to save for retirement because I am helping them out when they get sick.  My parents never did anything but pay their taxes and invest in the only economic system available to them for their retirement needs - much of that is driven by tax code by the way.  I am not sure I can oppose the feds bailing out these funds - I am sure that I don't want the CEO's and corporate boards to be compensated for their stupidity - but I don't want to see all kinds of elderly people thrown out of their homes, assisting living facilities and nursing homes because some jerks on Wall Street screwed up and the government decided to allow them to screw up.

    Parent
    As we now see, (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by eric on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:01:37 AM EST
    we apparently have enough money to bailout hundreds of billions of dollars of bad debt on Wall Street, so we SURELY can take care of that 70 year old man.  And every other person who needs a safety net.

    Why do we insist on propping up the institutions that have failed these people in the first place?

    Parent

    Because this is neither a laissez faire (none / 0) (#41)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:03:22 AM EST
    economy nor a communist one. It's one built upon free markets with a certain degree of government intervention.

    Parent
    The rich never suffer. (none / 0) (#74)
    by Salo on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:41:29 AM EST
    bankruptcy is as good as a boom time for these players.

    Parent
    True enopugh (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:57:50 AM EST
    And higher taxes on the fat cats will not bust the economy.

    OR are you a believer in GOP cant now?

    Parent

    I agree... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:16:00 AM EST
    tax their freaking cheating arses...and make their lazy kids pay too.  This "death tax" bs is how the right wing convinced people to not tax the rich people's brats like Paris Hilton while poor kids are in debt up to their necks to finish school.  Something is sick in this society when hard working people's kids are in debt, working, going to school while rich brats get a tax break.  It's been wrong for years.  We need a real revolution....some of these rich people need to be taxed until it hurts.

    Parent
    Punitive tax increases on the weathy (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:13:19 AM EST
    specifically to pay this off.

    Otherwise, where do you think the money will come from? Social Security?

    Parent

    Talk about a game changer. . . (none / 0) (#32)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:59:09 AM EST
    for McCain!  Obama to come out for a tax increase on the majority of Americans -- especially those hit hardest by the financial collapse?

    Parent
    A tax on 'Wall Street (none / 0) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:00:13 AM EST
    I would not use the GOP talking point as you did.

    Parent
    Does this mean (none / 0) (#2)
    by eric on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:42:28 AM EST
    that people will be paying their mortgages to themselves?

    Simple answers to simple questions (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:55:42 AM EST
    Yes.

    And while we're at it, can we get single payer from the insurance companies we now own?

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by eric on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:56:30 AM EST
    that would be socialism!

    Parent
    Mad Max here we come? (none / 0) (#105)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:09:34 PM EST
    If I was paying a mortgage after reading this news, I'd stop paying immediately...and buy some guns.

    While we're at it, a tax revolt is more in order than ever.

    Parent

    Special tax on "Wall Street"? (none / 0) (#4)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:42:54 AM EST
    What does that mean?  Anyone who walks on Wall Street?  Companies headquartered there?  A number of the big players are in Midtown.

    Or do you mean simply taxing the money that the government is pumping into the very same companies they're bailing out?  Seems kind of pointless to me.

    It reminds of something a propos from a talk radio show -- an elderly woman talking about some previous bailout and saying "I don't think the people should pay for this, I think the government should pay".

    Who should "pay"?  Well, probably the owners (shareholders) of the companies in question -- many of whom are taking rather severe haircuts during the crisis.  And the CEOs and management who "drove" their companies into bankruptcy -- although sometimes it's hard to figure out who these people are (the management team at the time of the bankruptcy is often one brought in a few months before to clean up the mess).

    We don't need to go back to debtor's prisons, but I think we ought to consider reviving the concept of public shame and humiliation for the kind of bankruptcies that we're seeing.

    Yes LArry (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:45:49 AM EST
    People who walk on Wall Street.

    If you want to make stupid jokes, then talk to someone else.

    Give me an effing break with this sh*t.

    You know precisely what I mean.

    Here is an example - how about a tax on the sale of the Big Sh*tpile to the government?

    Parent

    I do not know. .. (none / 0) (#16)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:52:12 AM EST
    precisely what you mean.  As near as I can figure out, you mean taxing the companies that the government is bailing out -- which would simply increase the size of the bailout.  We'd effectively be taxing ourselves.

    Elsewhere you suggest that the tax would actually be on shareholders of the these corporations, rather than on the corporations themselves.  But the shareholders of Bear Stearns, AIG, and Lehman are getting pennies on the dollar for their investments -- they're not coming out of it unscathed.  And many of those shareholders are pension plans and mutual funds.

    You could aim a tax at the management of the companies in question, but I doubt you get back a significant amount of the bailout that way.

    A tax on "Wall Street" is a nice sounding populist message, but it doesn't really mean anything.  If you care to be more specific perhaps there's a nugget of actual policy there to discuss.

    I understand that everyone thinks that anti-Wall Street populism is the secret to political success.  I don't happen to share that opinion.  But if you want to make the argument, tell me what you actually mean by "taxing Wall Street".

    Parent

    The shareholders (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:56:15 AM EST
    The poor shareholders. What about the poor taxpayers?

    Parent
    Problem. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by coigue on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:18:33 AM EST
    No one has pensions anymore, so most of us are relying on the market in one form or another for retirement, savings, etc.

    Don't tax all the shareholders...tax the wealthy. Tax them hard.

    Parent

    The shareholders are best punished. . . (none / 0) (#57)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:16:32 AM EST
    by allowing the companies to fail.  Then they are essentially wiped out.  I have no moral objection to that, only the practical one that a whole lot of other people will get hurt with them.

    Parent
    Bingo (none / 0) (#64)
    by Lou Grinzo on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:26:21 AM EST
    That's precisely the issue I keep arguing, and many people still seem to miss.

    Morally, I want the people who caused this mess to suffer greatly.  But there's no way to do that without causing immense harm to many, many completely innocent people.  I would rather live with the moral hazard and very high costs of socializing the failure than the truly staggering costs of letting this train wreck play itself out on its own.

    This is very analogous to the US car companies--they made a long string of phenomenally bad decisions about their products, they're now being crushed by a dramatic shift in consumer preferences, so they're screaming for help.  

    Parent

    I think the main difference is that if (none / 0) (#66)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:29:45 AM EST
    GM and Ford go under, better companies like Nissan and Toyota come in, pick up a large number of the workforce and continue on. That's fine.

    But if the financial system collapses, that's the whole shebang.

    Parent

    Uh, I don't have the figure in front of me (none / 0) (#61)
    by tigercourse on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:23:49 AM EST
    but well over 150 million Americans are shareholders. We can't say "screw em" to all of them.

    And yet again, an economic meltdown would punish not shareholders as well. Our 6% unemployment rate would get alot worse.

    Parent

    Don't Forget the Boards of Directors... (none / 0) (#87)
    by santarita on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:11:40 AM EST
    Don't throw them in jail.  Just allow class action shareholder derivative suits against them.  Have the SEC and Fed seek monetary penalties.  And since the Fed has control over AIG make sure that damages comes out of the director's own pocket and not rely on E &O insurance.

    Parent
    I just want to know (none / 0) (#5)
    by Steve M on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:43:08 AM EST
    at what price the new federal entity is going to be buying all this crap.

    If they paid fair value for it, the firms' balance sheets would be in no better shape than if they just kept the crap on their books.  So they're obviously going to be paying some kind of premium.

    It seems logical to me that the firms receiving a premium should have to return that windfall over time in some fashion.  You can call it a loan, you can call it a tax, whatever; one problem is that if the amount of the repayment is fixed and determinable, it no longer counts as an asset on the balance sheet and you're right back to having a net capital problem.

    It's kind of a thorny dilemma.  I'm interested to see how the Really Smart People get it all sorted out.

    Well (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:44:28 AM EST
    the devil will be in the details.

    Parent
    since I never followed market trends and (none / 0) (#35)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:59:52 AM EST
    never had interest in investments, I give my very naive interpretation (no background whatsoever, so may be like that of the non-investors):

    Government takes over the "assets" of the troubled banks etc.  These "assets" are the collateral used for the mortgages, the real estate. In essence, government goes into the real estate business.  The collateral no longer shows on the books of the banks, companies.  Instead, government "pays" them for them.  So, company gets an influx of $$$$$$. That shows on the books as liquid assets, and the debt disappears as to the bank/company.  

    This, to me, looks like an assumption of debt by the government but the government hopes it can offload these assets at some point in the future with very little loss, so the net burden on the taxpayer is hoped to be negligible.  Government also gets major deciding roll in many companies and banks since they will be major shareholders.  

    Ok, IS THAT THE PLAN??      

    Parent

    We are the proud new owners (none / 0) (#6)
    by joanneleon on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:44:01 AM EST
    of all of Wall Street's bad debt.

    I think the title should say "You, Your Children and Your Grandchildren Just Bailed Out Wall Street".

    "Comrade Paulson," Krugman says. . . (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:48:55 AM EST


    Do you mean (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:55:15 AM EST
    Are you talking about essentially a Capital Gains Tax? which is a tax on any money you make off of money - mainly stocks.

    Because if you are, then I agree.  I am not sure what you mean by a "wall street" tax though.

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:01:10 AM EST
    but not a gains tax - this is all gonna be a loss. A Big Sh*tpile Sales tax,

    Parent
    OK, then, a sales tax. (none / 0) (#63)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:25:12 AM EST
    Payable by whom, on the sale of what, and at what rate?

    BTD, you are so (understandably) angry, it's affecting your ability to think clearly this morning.

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:31:38 AM EST
    Are you joking? Do you not understand the concept of a sales tax? When we buy the Sh*tpile, the government charges "a fee" of you like, hell, call it an origination fee if you like, in the sale.

    Not to hard for you to understand I hope.

    Parent

    Sales taxes are paid by the buyers. (none / 0) (#73)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:40:06 AM EST
    In this case, that'd be us. Or am I missing something?

    Parent
    In this case (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:48:21 AM EST
    by the sellers.

    Got it?

    Parent

    So let's say someone sells a worthless CMO to the (none / 0) (#86)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:01:48 AM EST
    government for, say, $1000. Now the government turns around and charges the seller a 30% "stink origination tax," or whatever you want to call it. That doesn't pay for the program -- we've still paid $700 for some worthless paper.

    Parent
    700 is more than 0 (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:25:36 AM EST
    You mean 700 is less than 1000. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:47:02 AM EST
    Zero would be the best outcome, from our point of view.

    And zero is achievable, but only by NOT buying the worthless CMO in the first place (whether it be through McCain's MFI, Obama's RTC, or Hillary's HOLC).

    Parent

    Upload a flow chart (none / 0) (#81)
    by Faust on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:49:37 AM EST
    that will help people.

    Parent
    What about a return of the capital gains tax on (none / 0) (#71)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:36:06 AM EST
    real estate?

    Not entirely fair, I know, but why should someone who makes $50,000 buying and selling Apple stock pay for this unrelated problem, while someone who makes $500,000 buying and selling their San Francisco condo is exempt?

    Parent

    Biden says no bailout... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Exeter on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 09:57:45 AM EST
    I have no idea where Obama is, but he needs to get in front of this.  Remind everybody of what's wrong isn't going to cut it.

    Obama supports the bailouts (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by votermom on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:29:10 AM EST
    http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1934745820080919


    "The events of the last few days have made it clear that we must take further bold and decisive action to shore up confidence in our financial markets and avoid a deepening economic crisis that could jeopardize the life savings and well-being of millions of Americans," Obama said in a statement.
    ...snip...
    "Given the gravity of this situation, and based on conversations I have had with both Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, I have asked my economic team to refrain from presenting a more detailed blue-print of how an immediate plan might be structured until the Treasury and the Federal Reserve have had an opportunity to present their proposal."

    Obama said it was critical that the markets and public have confidence in the Fed and Treasury's efforts and that their work be "unimpeded by partisan wrangling."

    Must.Not.Make.Secret.Plan.Joke.

    Parent

    The Treasury simply doesn't have enough money (none / 0) (#47)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:09:43 AM EST
    to keep the residential real estate bubble from bursting. This announcement from Paulsen injects a bit of fairness into the de facto policy -- why should only those entities that get the tag "too big to fail" jump to the front of the government's triage queue?

    But it is essential that the stockholders in the rotten corporations eat their losses. A generalized Treasury policy of being the buyer of last resort for all mortgage-based assets, no matter how worthless, is a classic recipe for throwing good  money after bad.

    It's Too Late for a Tax on Wall Street (none / 0) (#48)
    by Elporton on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:10:22 AM EST
    to subsidize the clean up this mess.  Those horses are out of the barn.  How does one tax a bankrupt company?

    Perhaps a different approach would be to begin enforcing a tax (or insurance premium) to clean up the next mess.  And we all know there will be a next mess.

    That's how the FDIC fund on bank deposits has worked since its inception.  The problem with the FDIC is that while the fund is adequate to pay out the deposits of failed banks, it is woefully insufficient to bail of the entire bank, which has been the approach taken since the 80s.

    This new tax could be assessed on assets based on their perceived risk.  Their is a risk-based capital system already in place for commercial banks that could be adapted for investment banks.

    I support the bold move by Paulson and (none / 0) (#60)
    by Green26 on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:23:34 AM EST
    others. Market dynamics have made the housing-related and swap issues much worse than they are--which has impacted many financial institutions as well as Wall St.

    Note that the SEC is also imposing a temporary ban on short-selling, at least of financial institution stock.

    Paulson is saying that this new bailout/purchase of bad housing loans, etc. will be much less costly than the alternative of further collapse in the financial markets, and the spill over to other sectors.

    Credit card companies are starting to reduce spending limits, which will lower consumer spending.

    Banks are starting to close the doors on lending. I've already seen this impact a number of transacations I was working on this week.

    While the main economic indicators have not yet been showing the US to be in an official recession, these new developments are going to shrink the economy and change those economic indicators, perhaps significantly, is my guess.

    Because of pensions, retirement accounts and 401k's, the retirements of most people in the country are impacted by worthless financial stocks and a decreasing stock market. Note that investments in the financial sector has generally been considered safe and not risky like high tech stocks.

    Note that the bailouts of individual companies has tended to result in shareholders losing most of their ownership or value (Bear Stearns and AIG)

    As an aside, companies like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are strong. However, the crisis still caused Morgan Stanley to lose $20 billion in market cap in one day, I believe.

    Hillary's u tube speech (none / 0) (#77)
    by sas on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 10:47:01 AM EST
    I listened to all 22 minutes of this. (none / 0) (#101)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:00:35 PM EST
    It's not clear to me how her solution, the HOLC, differs materially from Obama's RTC, McCain's MFI, or Paulsen's proposal. Set up some agency to buy up and 'quarantine' the bad paper, is in essence what the are all saying.

    Parent
    My Zapatero? (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:01:26 AM EST
    WTF are you talking about? I think you have not made one sensible comment in this entire thread.

    The phrase "Big Sh*tpile" doesn't (none / 0) (#92)
    by JDM in NYC on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:37:36 AM EST
    refer to NYC- it refers to the huge pile of debt that has been sold as "investment vehicles." It has nothing to do with "Big Apple."

    I don't buy it. (none / 0) (#97)
    by LarryInNYC on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:47:40 AM EST
    The phrase in that case would be the Whole Sh*tpile.  I think it's pretty clearly a play on Big Apple.

    Parent
    WBTDRM (none / 0) (#98)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 11:50:32 AM EST
    Whole Sh*tpile, Big Sh*tpile, (none / 0) (#108)
    by Don in Seattle on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:23:00 PM EST
    what's the difference? Lipstick on a pig.

    Parent
    Since we're in a giving mood.... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:31:44 PM EST
    lets bail everybody outta jail who can't afford it.

    Now that's a bailout I could get behind.

    The discussion here today overlooks the forest (none / 0) (#114)
    by Manuel on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 12:46:48 PM EST
    This bailout is a necessary step to stem the crisis of confidence in the markets.  Doing nothing would lead to a situation far worse for everyone (stock holders and non stock holders alike).  There is consensus on this (international as well as bipartisan).

    The cost of the bailout won't be known for quite some time.  In fact, it is possible, though not likely, that the government is buying low on these securities and may be able to sell some for a profit later.  There is zero chance that these securities have no value.  The problem is no one knows the value so no one wants to set the market.  That is the role the government is taking.

    Politically, this makes it very unlikely that the Bush tax cuts won't be repealed.  We are going back to the Clinton era tax rates.  We won't go back to pre Reagan tax rates.  Capital gains will most likely stay where they are or go up slightly.

    The financial plans of both campaigns are severely affected.  McCain's permanent tax cuts are gone.  Obama will have to make a case for increasing the deficit to fund all his programs.

    Both campaigns so far have appeared more interested in scoring cheap political points than in seriously addressing the economy.  The level of discourse is disappointing.  Here is another chance for them to engage.


    Far worse for everyone.... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 01:21:25 PM EST
    Question...how would it be far worse to the taxpayer who doesn't own stock, doesn't wanna borrow any money from any bank, lives frugally, and is not in debt?

    Parent
    Sure, if you are a hermit (none / 0) (#119)
    by Manuel on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 02:20:43 PM EST
    then you need not worry.  The rest of us have kids, neighbors, and relatives that are affected when the economy goes south independently of stock ownership.  Recent graduates can't find work or are underemplyed.  Neighbors lose their home.  Relatives require financial assistance.  Here is a quick question.  Who had it worst during the depression?  It wasn't the affluent.

    Parent
    Well....some of the affluent (none / 0) (#120)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 02:38:58 PM EST
    were jumping out the windows of tall buildings during the great depression, you could say they had it worse than the poor, who are all too familar with "rock bottom".  

    Of course, no one wants to see higher unemployment and home foreclosures up the wazoo...but I have the haunting feeling we are just prolonging the inevitable...trying to hold out till the makers of the mess die fat and letting the kids deal with it at some later date.  Not kosher.

    The days of high home ownership, gas guzzling suv's, and throwing away enough food to feed an African village are over..whether we like it or not.  Welcome to the globalized new world order...quality of life between the first and third world is evening out.

    Parent

    I am not pesimistic (none / 0) (#121)
    by Manuel on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 03:18:22 PM EST
    I believe in the adaptability of humans.  Some of the limits we'll have to accept will be good for us and may even enhance our qauality of life.  I am optimistic that we will develop alternative clean energy and that we'll continue investing and improving health and education even if it takes deficit spending to do it.

    Parent
    I believe too... (none / 0) (#122)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 19, 2008 at 03:33:52 PM EST
    I have no doubt we will survive, maybe stronger than ever.

    But that will be in spite of deficit spending and the bailouts, not because of it.  And with a different quality of life than we are used to.

    My main feeling is lets deal with it now...take the hardship now....don't pawn it off on the kids and the not yet born.  That's too big a sin.

    Parent