Comments on: Are they trying to make the Democrats LOSE??? http://punkassblog.com/2008/10/03/are-they-trying-to-make-the-democrats-lose/ Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:58:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: James H http://punkassblog.com/2008/10/03/are-they-trying-to-make-the-democrats-lose/#comment-76200 James H Mon, 06 Oct 2008 13:19:25 +0000 http://punkassblog.com/2008/10/03/are-they-trying-to-make-the-democrats-lose/#comment-76200 And, after all the money that's been chucked at the problem both in the States and in Europe (nationalisation of key banks in the UK, Iceland and Ireland, and state-backed guarantees of all savings in Ireland, Germany and possibly the UK and Spain before long), we're still seeing massive falls in the stock markets. It may take some time for Paulson to start making his billions felt, but the politicians certainly can't claim a victory yet and I suspect they'll be a long time waiting for the stability this bill is supposed to deliver. I'd be interested in following the money to see which States end up having done best from all that stuffing (it won't all be going to Wall Street). I suspect that the majority of them will be 'blue.' I also suspect that the passing of this bill isn't going to make a huge difference in which House members get returned to Washington in a few weeks time. People have short memories and strong allegiances. And, after all the money that’s been chucked at the problem both in the States and in Europe (nationalisation of key banks in the UK, Iceland and Ireland, and state-backed guarantees of all savings in Ireland, Germany and possibly the UK and Spain before long), we’re still seeing massive falls in the stock markets.

It may take some time for Paulson to start making his billions felt, but the politicians certainly can’t claim a victory yet and I suspect they’ll be a long time waiting for the stability this bill is supposed to deliver.

I’d be interested in following the money to see which States end up having done best from all that stuffing (it won’t all be going to Wall Street). I suspect that the majority of them will be ‘blue.’

I also suspect that the passing of this bill isn’t going to make a huge difference in which House members get returned to Washington in a few weeks time. People have short memories and strong allegiances.

]]> By: Quin http://punkassblog.com/2008/10/03/are-they-trying-to-make-the-democrats-lose/#comment-76063 Quin Sat, 04 Oct 2008 10:14:13 +0000 http://punkassblog.com/2008/10/03/are-they-trying-to-make-the-democrats-lose/#comment-76063 A thought just hit me. That was pretty stupid of me to label a measly $2 million amendment as pork, when the WHOLE BAILOUT BILL is pork. Pork for the legislature's most important local constituency: Wall Street. I gotta get my sense of perspective in order. A thought just hit me. That was pretty stupid of me to label a measly $2 million amendment as pork, when the WHOLE BAILOUT BILL is pork. Pork for the legislature’s most important local constituency: Wall Street. I gotta get my sense of perspective in order.

]]> By: Quin http://punkassblog.com/2008/10/03/are-they-trying-to-make-the-democrats-lose/#comment-76024 Quin Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:16:28 +0000 http://punkassblog.com/2008/10/03/are-they-trying-to-make-the-democrats-lose/#comment-76024 James H, Democrats.com <i>aren't</i> labeling the bill progressive. They're seeking to block the bill from being passed. And yes, absolutely, the new amendments are full of pork. A $2 million "<a href=http://www.distantocean.com/2008/10/these-are-a-few-of-my-favorite-provisions.html rel="nofollow">Excise Tax Exemption For Wooden Arrows Used By Children"</a>? Who are they kidding? Actually, I think this bailout, if it passes, will be quite beneficial to the poor. Because, you see, there would soon be <i>so many more of them</i>. And there's strength in numbers! As for how long it's taken, I don't see how it could possibly have played out any other way. Even assuming there had been a strong "do-nothing" faction, there still would have been a faction trying to push through a bailout plan as well. And since, nominally at least, it's not a dictatorship, that meant going through all of the hoops that you need to in the Legislative branch. In fact, if anything, it's all gone distressingly quickly. James H, Democrats.com aren’t labeling the bill progressive. They’re seeking to block the bill from being passed. And yes, absolutely, the new amendments are full of pork. A $2 million “Excise Tax Exemption For Wooden Arrows Used By Children”? Who are they kidding?

Actually, I think this bailout, if it passes, will be quite beneficial to the poor. Because, you see, there would soon be so many more of them. And there’s strength in numbers!

As for how long it’s taken, I don’t see how it could possibly have played out any other way. Even assuming there had been a strong “do-nothing” faction, there still would have been a faction trying to push through a bailout plan as well. And since, nominally at least, it’s not a dictatorship, that meant going through all of the hoops that you need to in the Legislative branch. In fact, if anything, it’s all gone distressingly quickly.

]]> By: James H http://punkassblog.com/2008/10/03/are-they-trying-to-make-the-democrats-lose/#comment-76011 James H Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:19:47 +0000 http://punkassblog.com/2008/10/03/are-they-trying-to-make-the-democrats-lose/#comment-76011 I'd like to see a lot more of the detail in the amended Bill before declaring it in any way 'progressive.' If it's had the usual pork-barrel treatment (and it's gone from 1 page to over 300 with the amendments) prior to being passed in the senate then it'll mean very regressive taxation over the next few years. I am fundamentally opposed to bailing out the poor choices made by millionaires in the stock market, but I also find myself opposed in principle to bailing out the poor choices made by 'Joe Six-Pack' in the housing market. What happened to personal responsibility (or corporate accountability for that matter)? The only people that'll really end up getting hurt by this sort of bailout is, as usual, the middle class. The rich will either benefit directly from it or, being rich enough, will be insulated from the payback it'll exact from the middle tier. The poor, assuming they're making payments on a home, will benefit from the mortgage assistance and will be spared the full thrust of the tax rises needed to fund it. Regardless of that, the whole fiasco has played out in the worst possible way. They should have either left the banks alone to live or die (the market wouldn't have liked it but they'd at least have known where they stood), or got the bail-out through immediately. By allowing the situation to run for over a week, they've caused uncertainty in the markets and almost precipitated the crash that the bailout was meant to prevent. I’d like to see a lot more of the detail in the amended Bill before declaring it in any way ‘progressive.’ If it’s had the usual pork-barrel treatment (and it’s gone from 1 page to over 300 with the amendments) prior to being passed in the senate then it’ll mean very regressive taxation over the next few years.

I am fundamentally opposed to bailing out the poor choices made by millionaires in the stock market, but I also find myself opposed in principle to bailing out the poor choices made by ‘Joe Six-Pack’ in the housing market. What happened to personal responsibility (or corporate accountability for that matter)?

The only people that’ll really end up getting hurt by this sort of bailout is, as usual, the middle class. The rich will either benefit directly from it or, being rich enough, will be insulated from the payback it’ll exact from the middle tier.

The poor, assuming they’re making payments on a home, will benefit from the mortgage assistance and will be spared the full thrust of the tax rises needed to fund it.

Regardless of that, the whole fiasco has played out in the worst possible way. They should have either left the banks alone to live or die (the market wouldn’t have liked it but they’d at least have known where they stood), or got the bail-out through immediately.

By allowing the situation to run for over a week, they’ve caused uncertainty in the markets and almost precipitated the crash that the bailout was meant to prevent.

]]>