Dirty secret of the bailout

[Cuchulain]

'A critical - and radical - component of the bailout package proposed by the Bush administration has thus far failed to garner the serious attention of anyone in the press. Section 8 (which ironically reminds one of the popular name of the portion of the 1937 Housing Act that paved the way for subsidized affordable housing ) of this legislation is just a single sentence of thirty-two words, but it represents a significant consolidation of power and an abdication of oversight authority that's so flat-out astounding that it ought to set one's hair on fire. It reads, in its entirety:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
In short, the so-called "mother of all bailouts," which will transfer $700 billion taxpayer dollars to purchase the distressed assets of several failed financial institutions, will be conducted in a manner unchallengeable by courts and ungovernable by the People's duly sworn representatives. All decision-making power will be consolidated into the Executive Branch - who, we remind you, will have the incentive to act upon this privilege as quickly as possible, before they leave office. The measure will run up the budget deficit by a significant amount, with no guarantee of recouping the outlay, and no fundamental means of holding those who fail to do so accountable.' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/dirty-secret-of-the-bailo_n_128294.html

[hippifried]

Jason Linkins is full of shit, along with everybody else who keeps trying to make the case that this bailout has anything to do with mortgages. These guys have already dumped their bad real estate paper on Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, who are now holding over 80% of the mortgage paper in America. The take-back of Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (which has yet to be approved by Congress BTW) is entirely separate from this latest bailout scheme. This is about buying up the bad debts floating around between the banks, brokerages, speculators, & everybody else who's been artificially driving up the various financial markets on a borrowed dime for the last 25 years or more. The whole industry has been trying to borrow its way out of debt. Sound familiar? The mortgage crisis, coupled with the oil fiasco, just shone a bright light on the speculators & short sellers along with their underwriters. Oops! The roaches had no place to scurry off to & now they're getting stepped on. It's just a big ponzi scheme.

[PapaGrande]

"failed to garner the serious attention of anyone in the press"

ahhhh, this has been all over the media, where have you been?

The whole thing is bullshit, Bush's plan and the Democrats plan. The only right option is to let these companies fail.

[NYBURBS]

The whole thing is bullshit, Bush's plan and the Democrats plan. The only right option is to let these companies fail.

Amen bro, I'm not looking to pay more taxes or see us go into bigger debt. Let them fail and then others will come along to buy their holdings and start fresh. Oh and of course it will send the message not to engage in bad business practices.

[Cuchulain]

Whether or not Linkins is full of shit, the idea of giving any one man that kind of power with no oversight should be a red flag. They're going to pass some kind of bailout. That language needs to be removed.

[Cuchulain]

Rachel Maddow's candy analogy and Robert Reich on those 32 little words in Paulson's 3 page plan: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26844712#26844712

[hippifried]

The whole thing is bullshit, Bush's plan and the Democrats plan. The only right option is to let these companies fail.
I agree with the sentiment, but pragmatism needs to trump sentiment.

What we have happening is a cascade of failures that could topple the federal reserve. Again, my sentiment says "So what?". I have my money in a credit union that's not tied directly to the fed & is solvent. I think. I hope.

Irrespective of anyone's opinion of whether the federal reserve should exist in the first place, if it falls, the entire US economy & maybe that of the world goes with it. The crash of '29 was bad, but the markets are a whole lot bigger now & tangled together globally. Solvent or insolvent won't matter. The only people who are independent from the financial markets are the destitute. If the banks all fail, & they will unless they're selling short & making things worse, so does industry & trade. There's no way to defeat the interlock.

I don't care about the mucky-mucks of the industry. As far as I'm concerned, they've been perpetrating a fraud & should have their personal assets siezed & be playing "pick up the soap" with Bubba. That includes Paulson & Bernanke. I'd like to see Alan Greenspan impaled & hanging 10 feet above the floor of the NYSE. Wishful sentiment. On the pragmatic side: I don't care about taxes. I can deal with them. Inflation has been a fact of life for almost my entire adult life. I've learned to cope, & not dwell on or let petty things like taxes & living costs rule my life. I've been in the situation where I didn't know where my next meal was coming from or where I was going to sleep that night. I don't ever want to go back to that. I don't want to end up in the soup line because of the incompetence of the thieves & gamblers on Wall Street. So, yeah. Something needs to be done to stop the hemorrhage & slow down the cascade of failures long enough to let everyone cool down & figure out all the details of how this situation came about. Speculation is all fine & dandy, but without knowing what's actually going on, there's no way to get a handle on it. I think it's pretty obvious by now that the market isn't going to straighten this out.

[NYBURBS]

Look if the market and economy crash that badly then there will be a revolt, and to be quite straight forward it's time for ppl to get kicked in the balls and wake up to what is taking place. The whole federal reserve system is insane to begin with, and it's not that I want to suffer myself or see others suffer, but this charade has gone on long enough and needs to end. If a catastrophic collapse is necessary for that to happen then so be it. As for the global issue, the rest of the world isn't going to raise their income taxes or increase their debt to help pay this 700 billion dollar bailout off, so these arguments about how they need us to bail out the market should fall on deaf ears.

Between these knuckle heads invading countries all over the world and rigging the economy via the fed, we have all been royally fucked. Perhaps from a pragmatic viewpoint there needs to be an intervention but placing generations to come in even bigger debt is not acceptable. We are printing money that is not backed by anything, we have long been on a course toward disaster and 700 billion dollars is not going to fix that.

[hippifried]

Look if the market and economy crash that badly then there will be a revolt, and to be quite straight forward it's time for ppl to get kicked in the balls and wake up to what is taking place. The whole federal reserve system is insane to begin with, and it's not that I want to suffer myself or see others suffer, but this charade has gone on long enough and needs to end. If a catastrophic collapse is necessary for that to happen then so be it.
No there won't. Why would there be? Nobody can agree on who the enemy is in actual war. What makes you think there'd be enough agreement on who to revolt against for people to aim their weapons at the same people? War requires organization & there just isn't any outside of the government you think we should revolt against. Nope. Just soup lines. If that lasts for a few decades, then maybe, but I doubt it.

As for the global issue, the rest of the world isn't going to raise their income taxes or increase their debt to help pay this 700 billion dollar bailout off, so these arguments about how they need us to bail out the market should fall on deaf ears.
True enough. That's why none of them can be a consideration in anything we do. Unless, of course, they want to cooperate. This really is a global problem & reigning it in on that scale would go a long way toward getting everything back on an even keel & toning down all this global animosity.

Between these knuckle heads invading countries all over the world and rigging the economy via the fed, we have all been royally fucked. Perhaps from a pragmatic viewpoint there needs to be an intervention but placing generations to come in even bigger debt is not acceptable. We are printing money that is not backed by anything, we have long been on a course toward disaster and 700 billion dollars is not going to fix that.
Again, I agree with the sentiment. I just think there's a major misconception about what's happening. We're already deep in debt from the stupidity of trying to solve problems with guns. At least buying assets, debts, has a potential of revenue neutrality if the debts get paid in the end. We're not talking mortages here, but it might be better if we were. 97% of consumers pay their mortgages & credit payments on time, or pretty close. What this really is, is loans that "financial institutions" took out to pay other debts that they already had. Over & over again, the marketeers have been trying to borrow their way out of debt. Kind of like running a tab at a casino hoping to hit the right number on the roulette wheel. Over 35 bets & you lose no matter what the little ball does. Everybody's tapped out.

I don't think it's necessary or desirable to try & "fix the economy". What's needed is a change in our mindset to rethink all these economic theories that we take for granted. As we go along, it's becoming more obvious that these theories don't work out as planned in practice. Economists are just philosophers. If economic mechanisms are so cut & dry, why do we need all of these guys? If economics is self-evident, why do we need it constantly sold to us?

This whole idea that we're "printing too much money" is also a misconception. What's too much? Is there a glut of cash circulating? Where is it? It's hogwash. Part of the sales pitch. You have to keep printing money because cash is perishable. If you added up every unit of tangible currency in the world, it wouldn't come close to the total of just US dollars that are entered on the various ledgers around just the US. Truth is that money isn't really a commodity & therefore isn't subject to the same rules of supply & demand that are supposed to control commodities. Money is the exchange medium that allows us to skip the intermediate steps in bartering what we have for what we want. That's all it is, & it only works if it's in circulation & accepted as tender. It can't continue to work if it's traded as a commodity because there's no exchange medium when you do that. Buying & selling money? With what? Currency trading is a fraud. It's all short selling. The only way to make a profit is to inflate the numbers, & you do that by devaluing the currencies one at a time. Stop this practice & inflation goes away or at least slows to manageable crawl because the downward pressure is allieved.

"That ain't workin'
That's the way you do it
Get your money for nothin'
& your chicks for free"

[NYBURBS]

No there won't. Why would there be? Nobody can agree on who the enemy is in actual war. What makes you think there'd be enough agreement on who to revolt against for people to aim their weapons at the same people? War requires organization & there just isn't any outside of the government you think we should revolt against. Nope. Just soup lines. If that lasts for a few decades, then maybe, but I doubt it.

First of all revolt does not necessarily mean armed revolt. There are many forms of it, and I most certainly do think there would be some form of it.


This whole idea that we're "printing too much money" is also a misconception. What's too much? Is there a glut of cash circulating? Where is it? It's hogwash.
It has to do with what can be backed up and what can not. What is it connected to or grounded in. Essentially the guarantees we make. You're right that the printing phrase is crude, but you seem like a bright guy that is aware of the actual issue here. It's these artificial gimmicks I have a problem with, they're designed to put lipstick on the pig and to keep the high valued assets in the hands of few.

[hippifried]

It has to do with what can be backed up and what can not. What is it connected to or grounded in. Essentially the guarantees we make. You're right that the printing phrase is crude, but you seem like a bright guy that is aware of the actual issue here. It's these artificial gimmicks I have a problem with, they're designed to put lipstick on the pig and to keep the high valued assets in the hands of few.
Ok... I can see that this is leading up to a discussion of the "gold standard". We've never really been on it. There's never been enough gold or any other metal in the treasury to back up the fiat currency. Gold itself has no intrinsic value except as a conductor or something shiny to make trinkets out of. It's worth exactly as much as you believe it's worth.

That said: I do believe that a currency needs to have a fixed valuation to remain viable. Like the gold mystique, it's all just faith. Declare a value & that's what it is. The dollar used to be pegged to gold. 1/20 of an ounce. In the '30s, Roosevelt devalued it to 1/32 of an ounce. That's where it stayed until Nixon devalued it in 1970. The difference was that Nixon didn't reset the value. He just let it float to "find its natural level in the market" blah blah blah... You can pinpoint the start of America's hyperinflation woes to that day in 1970. He didn't really devalue the dollar. He unvalued it. It needs to be revalued. I don't see where it'd make any difference what it's pegged to. Thin air if you like, since it's all just faith anyway. It just needs some kind of declared value & to be removed from the currency market so the treasury can have control over that value again. Fuck the money marketeers. They make their living causing inflation & screwing everybody on the planet. If we pull our dollars out of that market, I think the rest of the world will follow our lead & those slimeballs will be out of business.

[trish]

We should just put a dollar bill in the Bureau of Standards and declare all dollars are worth exactly what that one's worth...problem solved :)

[hippifried]

We should just put a dollar bill in the Bureau of Standards and declare all dollars are worth exactly what that one's worth...problem solved :)
That's it. It's worth exactly what you declare it to be worth. That's all the currency marketeers are doing. Get US dollars out of that scam & inflation stops.

[lahabra1976]

Of course with all this bailout stuff and people pointing the finger to Wall Street, "dirty" CEOs....but it is the government and the democrats where it all started, as shown by quotes below

* In 1977, Carter, along with a Democrat Congress, created a worthy
project with noble intentions**The Community Reinvestment Act.** Over
strong industry objections, it mandated that all banks meet the credit
needs of their entire communities.** *

* In 1995, President Clinton imposed even stronger regulations and
performance tests that coerced banks to substantially increase loans to
low-income, poverty-area borrowers or face fines or possible
restrictions on expansion. These revisions allowed for securitization
of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. *

* By 1997, good loans were bundled with poor ones and sold as prime
packages to institutions here and abroad. That shifted risk from the
loan originators, freeing banks to begin pyramiding and make more of
these profitable subprime products. *

By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer (and current Obama advisor) . ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market''

As you can see it was your so called democrats who are supposely for the poor and minority that were part of the mess. No wonder why they supported the bailout. You have to understand it isn't necessarily Fennie Mae, WaMu to blame, its the fact the government interfering with their business. The government wanted everyone to own houses, but this simply can't happen. They put pressure on these banks to do this. And now we are paying for that. Governments shouldn't interefer with business enterprises. We blaming the rich and Wall Street for the problem, but the poor and working class have their stake it also. Who do you think was writing and pressuring their government representatives to push these acts so the average person can "own a home." In the end, everyone as a whole is responsible for this mess, the poor for pushing the government to do this, the government for listening to them (of course, they have to, no choice), the rich and Wall Street for not telling them to "butt out."

[trish]

Don’t be an idiot. The banks are collapsing all around us not because they're being forced to give out vast numbers of bad loans against their will. Large commissions for each loan procured provided the motivation to approve loans that never should’ve past muster. People who were obvious risks were told, “No problem, you easily qualify for the loan,” not because of the law, but because of the commission. The fact that regulations were no longer in place (thanks to first to Keating, McCain et. al and later to Bush II) and there was no oversight, provided opportunity for this unscrupulous, if not criminal practice.

[El Nino]

Good points on that Trish. There are even more deeply rooted problems with the economy however.

[El Nino]

Here's some United States history that the public school systems didn't teach you.

http://posmedprod.webs.com/fractionalreservebanking.htm

[Paladin]

Of course with all this bailout stuff and people pointing the finger to Wall Street, "dirty" CEOs....but it is the government and the democrats where it all started, as shown by quotes below

* In 1977, Carter, along with a Democrat Congress, created a worthy
project with noble intentions**The Community Reinvestment Act.** Over
strong industry objections, it mandated that all banks meet the credit
needs of their entire communities.** *

* In 1995, President Clinton imposed even stronger regulations and
performance tests that coerced banks to substantially increase loans to
low-income, poverty-area borrowers or face fines or possible
restrictions on expansion. These revisions allowed for securitization
of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. *

* By 1997, good loans were bundled with poor ones and sold as prime
packages to institutions here and abroad. That shifted risk from the
loan originators, freeing banks to begin pyramiding and make more of
these profitable subprime products. *

By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer (and current Obama advisor) . ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market''

As you can see it was your so called democrats who are supposely for the poor and minority that were part of the mess. No wonder why they supported the bailout. You have to understand it isn't necessarily Fennie Mae, WaMu to blame, its the fact the government interfering with their business. The government wanted everyone to own houses, but this simply can't happen. They put pressure on these banks to do this. And now we are paying for that. Governments shouldn't interefer with business enterprises. We blaming the rich and Wall Street for the problem, but the poor and working class have their stake it also. Who do you think was writing and pressuring their government representatives to push these acts so the average person can "own a home." In the end, everyone as a whole is responsible for this mess, the poor for pushing the government to do this, the government for listening to them (of course, they have to, no choice), the rich and Wall Street for not telling them to "butt out."

From 1995 thru 2006 we had a republican controlled congress, so they are LEAST half to blame, and since 2000 it's been a republican admin too.

This is mainly a republican sourced problem with Bill clinton getting 98% of the democrats share of the blame! :P

[hippifried]

All currency is fiat & always has been. Gold itself is fiat because its value is merely declared. Its availability for circulation is subject to hoarding. That's why it was replaced with other currency forms. The dollar was pegged to gold until 1970 or 71, over a half century after the creation of the federal reserve, but there's never been enough gold or silver reserve in the treasury to back the currency. All this gold standard stuff is a bunch of hooey & way outdated.

We just need to close down the currency markets & stop thinking of money as a commodity. Currency exchange rates should be set between central banks & national treasuries. There's no exchange medium to trade exchange mediums. The entire currency exchange today is geared to short selling. Basically, you just swap for one currency that you think might stay stable for a couple of weeks & keep swapping for the ones that you think have bottomed out, while the others are falling. It inflates the numbers, but the value per unit is lowered. Profit is made through fees because it's all done on a borrowed dime, & there's a lag between the actual depreciation of the currency in the market & the effect in the originating nation.

Our inflation woes started the day Richard Nixon depreciated the dollar & floated it to find some imaginary natural market value. Its purchasing power is less than a tenth of what it was in 1970. It's criminal. Money isn't a commodity. It's the exchange medium for trading commodities. There's no reason for it to be subject to the rules of supply & demand. We need to rethink this whole thing. All the economic theories we're working with come from the 18th & 19th centuries, before the advent of branch banking & certainly without a thought about instantaneous worldwide trading. It's pretty obvious that this shit just ain't workin'.

[El Nino]

Congress has the power to mint money. Article 1, clause 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive right to coin money, issue currency, and regulate its value.

This right was taken from Congress in 1913 and granted over to private foreign bankers (the Fed) who now print our money and loan it to our government with an interest (hence the federal income tax and the IRS body) This is what the big problem is, and this can not be debated. Put the government in control of printing our money again (as it constitutionally should anyway) and many burdens will be lifted (super inflation, excessive taxation, lifelong debt, etc). Obama or McCain don't even talk about these hardcore issues. They are hacks for the power brokers. Obama's "Change" slogan is completely disingenuous. 100% Wake up sheep boy

[El Nino]

Maybe you missed this somewhere along the way? Somebody is stealing America!


http://political-resources.com/money/conversation.htm

[El Nino]

We should just put a dollar bill in the Bureau of Standards and declare all dollars are worth exactly what that one's worth...problem solved :)
That's it. It's worth exactly what you declare it to be worth. That's all the currency marketeers are doing. Get US dollars out of that scam & inflation stops.

Um, we lost control over having the say of what our dollars are worth in 1913. That is the problem. http://political-resources.com/money/conversation.htm

[El Nino]

blatant disregard

[hippifried]

Congress has the power to mint money. Article 1, clause 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive right to coin money, issue currency, and regulate its value.

This right was taken from Congress in 1913 and granted over to private foreign bankers (the Fed) who now print our money and loan it to our government with an interest (hence the federal income tax and the IRS body) This is what the big problem is, and this can not be debated. Put the government in control of printing our money again (as it constitutionally should anyway) and many burdens will be lifted (super inflation, excessive taxation, lifelong debt, etc). Obama or McCain don't even talk about these hardcore issues. They are hacks for the power brokers. Obama's "Change" slogan is completely disingenuous. 100% Wake up sheep boy
The treasury still mints the US currency. Well, they contract it out because the only presses they own are tied up printing the congressional record. The government contracts out everything that isn't for in-house use, & some of that too. They contract distribution of the currency to the fed.

The dollar was pegged at the same rate after the fed came into being for over 20 years. FDR initiated the devaluation in order to free up more currency during the depression. It still stayed pegged & stable until Nixon floated it on the currency market.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming the fed is innocent in all this. They're not. But they've been foist upon their own petard. They can't keep up with the inflation all this has caused either. The dollar's been in freefall for over 35 years now along with every other currency on the planet. It creates more debt, & that creates more money, but the rate of payback can't keep up with the rate of loss to the purchasing power by the currencies. Everybody's lost control of a market that never goes up because it can't go up, & even the banks are feeling the pinch.

My problem isn't with the fed or the politicians, or any of the other players in all this. Nobody's going to admit culpability & trying to force that issue is an exercise in futility. I'm tired of worrying about who screwed up because there's blame to be shared all around.

I'm looking for a solution. Attempting to turn the clock back a century ain't it. I'm of the opinion that dwelling on past economic theories is the biggest problem here. None of them work. They're all based on the idea that money has intrinsic value of its own, & works by the same rules as everything else. It doesn't & it doesn't.

[El Nino]

The congress aren't supposed to contract minting out to a privatized corporation or bank! It states this in Article one, section 8. It is illegal. This is the problem and hence, our exploit. Our problems and criminals are simply staring you in the face. Man, most Americans really do have the wool pulled right over their eyes!

[El Nino]

By the way, a great start to a solution actually would be turning back the clock and put the government in charge of printing their own money again. Not contracting it out to private foreign bankers, which causes super inflation, fractional reserve banking, arbitrary bureaucracies like the IRS and heavy taxation like the Fed income tax!! Its criminal whats going on. Do your homework before you espouse this BS. Your making an ass out of yourself

[NYBURBS]

It is an issue that they have delegated enumerated powers of the legislature to a private corporation of bankers. You are correct that no one entity is to blame as there are a variety of reasons for getting to this point. However, I am of a firm belief that the powers we grant our government should not be then placed in the hands of others.

I'll be the first to admit that economics is not my strong point and I need to study it further. However, constitutional law/history is something I study on a regular basis and the whole banking issue was a concern since the inception of our nation.

[El Nino]

Well, if economics is not your strong point, than have a look here to understan the basis of and inception of the Fed. http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=37913

[hippifried]

The congress aren't supposed to contract minting out to a privatized corporation or bank! It states this in Article one, section 8. It is illegal. This is the problem and hence, our exploit. Our problems and criminals are simply staring you in the face. Man, most Americans really do have the wool pulled right over their eyes!
Where? There's no restriction on contracting out the physical needs of the government. They contract out almost everything. Here's the link. Show me the restriction.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
Congress has the power to coin money, but that doesn't mean they're going to run the press. They're lawmakers, not engravers. Is the government supposed to own the ore mines or mill the paper & ink?

Get a clue.

[El Nino]

It does NOT allow for Congress to contract the job out to a private corporation. If it allowed for such an act, it would be written. The system was designed in such a way that the government itself would print its own money, in order to prevent what has happened. The Founding Fathers weren't stupid, they knew the risk and made sure to implement preventative measures with such laws. Remember, they were breaking free from an oppressive regime, not creating one.

Another thing you should really know about the way the Constitution was composed, was that when they used the term "May" or "shall" as in the section-8 phrase, "The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof"; it always means "must". It didn't say "shall sub the job out"! Don't believe me? Do your homework next time and don't tell me to get a clue, you annoying little bitch. Hey, I'm just looking out for yall and the integrity of the Republic.

[El Nino]

One last thing Hippiecrack, if you are enjoying foreign bankers being in total control of you Country's currency and putting a heavy interest on it when LOANED to the government for circulation; more power to ya! Me on the other hand, I think we ought to reinstate some good old United States LAW!

[Paladin]

ummm. last i knew the Philadelphia, Denver, SF and West Point mints were actual US mints staffed by us mint employtees.

Paper currency, there isn't enough paper currency in circulation to account for 1/10 of 1% of the "money" in circulation (i think it's way smaller than even that), and what is still printed is still printed at the bereau of engraving & printing, which is still staffed by US treasury employees.

[hippifried]

ummm. last i knew the Philadelphia, Denver, SF and West Point mints were actual US mints staffed by us mint employtees.

Paper currency, there isn't enough paper currency in circulation to account for 1/10 of 1% of the "money" in circulation (i think it's way smaller than even that), and what is still printed is still printed at the bereau of engraving & printing, which is still staffed by US treasury employees.
Then I stand corrected. It would make sense in that the contents of the facility could be more easily secured.

[Paladin]

ummm. last i knew the Philadelphia, Denver, SF and West Point mints were actual US mints staffed by us mint employtees.

Paper currency, there isn't enough paper currency in circulation to account for 1/10 of 1% of the "money" in circulation (i think it's way smaller than even that), and what is still printed is still printed at the bereau of engraving & printing, which is still staffed by US treasury employees.
Then I stand corrected. It would make sense in that the contents of the facility could be more easily secured.

But of course that does not include the millions of couterfeit US $100 bills that iran, hezbollah and the plo are constantly cranking out

[hippifried]

Yeah I've been hearing about all that countrfieting for decades now, but if there was millions of $100 bills getting cranked out, they'be showing up by now. Even a bartender looks twice at a $100 bill. Banks mark them & make sure you show up on the surveylance.

[Paladin]

Yeah I've been hearing about all that countrfieting for decades now, but if there was millions of $100 bills getting cranked out, they'be showing up by now. Even a bartender looks twice at a $100 bill. Banks mark them & make sure you show up on the surveylance.

They're all circuating ineurope and the middle east, but it does have an effect on the dollar.

Remember summer 2006 when iran / hezbollah made $10,000 cash payments to lebanon families - they made them with $100 bills. I wonder how many of them were counterfeit. :x

[El Nino]

Sorry my friends, counterfiet money isn't the catalyst or primary agent that is responsible for bringing the U.S. economy to a third world status... Try again.

[PapaGrande]

Don’t be an idiot. The banks are collapsing all around us not because they're being forced to give out vast numbers of bad loans against their will. Large commissions for each loan procured provided the motivation to approve loans that never should’ve past muster. People who were obvious risks were told, “No problem, you easily qualify for the loan,” not because of the law, but because of the commission. The fact that regulations were no longer in place (thanks to first to Keating, McCain et. al and later to Bush II) and there was no oversight, provided opportunity for this unscrupulous, if not criminal practice.

Trish, its not that banks were forced to do anything, they didn't have to be forced because with Fannie/Freddie backing every POS mortgage banks didn't have to worry about standards like credit history and down payments anymore. Fannie and Freddie are GSE (Government Sanctioned Enterprises) and while supposedly private, they were not as despite what was said it was always understood that they would be backed by the government when the shit hit the fan, and that is exactly what happened.
This mess we are in is a problem of Moral Hazard and Fed monetary policy. Cheap credit follows the fad/bubble of the day, and in the 90s till recently that meant housing.

Fannie and Freddie were two of the biggest lobbying companies and spread their money around to both Democrats and Republicans to buy support for their questionable business practices. Politicians, mainly Democrats, but many Republicans as well, leaned on Freddie/Fannie to constantly lower the standards and take on more debt and pump out more bad mortgages in the name of the American Dream of home ownership (and getting re-elected).

This whole mess is Exhibit A of the failure of Keynesian economics and American Corporatism, not free markets.

On a related subject I am so sick of hearing Barney Frank. Here is what he said in 2003 when Republicans tried to change the law and add more oversight and regulation of Fannie/Freddie due to their questionable business practices:

"These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

Of course now he is going to play the partisan game of blaming "Republican Deregulation" and capitalism.

[trish]

Fannie was initially a government institution established by FDR to secure the secondary mortgage market. It was until the late sixties that it was partially privatized (mistake number one), becoming a stockholder owned corp. with the Federal authority to make and insure loans. Being a partially private institution it lobbied for the deregulations. It took awhile to totally deregulate but finally 1999 (Clinton’s mistake) saw the demise of the Glass-Steagall Act which essentially prohibited banks from owning other financial institutions. Being partially public, its loans and mortgages were insured by the government. It is this public/private chimera that is susceptible to moral hazard. Take careful note, the hazard is a result of deregulation and not the regulations that prohibited banks from redlining (the practice of denying loans anyone who lives within a “redlined” region. Regulations that call for fair consideration loan applications based on case by case analysis are not the reason the banking system is plummeting into the abyss. This whole mess is Exhibit A of the refusal to regulate and govern responsibly. Like any machine, the market will not run itself, except into the ground.

[hippifried]

Well here's a bailout plan I think everybody can get behind.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42927143@N00/2891474863

[NYBURBS]

Well here's a bailout plan I think everybody can get behind.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42927143@N00/2891474863

HAHA Awesome

[NYBURBS]

Fannie was initially a government institution established by FDR to secure the secondary mortgage market. It was until the late sixties that it was partially privatized (mistake number one), becoming a stockholder owned corp. with the Federal authority to make and insure loans. Being a partially private institution it lobbied for the deregulations. It took awhile to totally deregulate but finally 1999 (Clinton’s mistake) saw the demise of the Glass-Steagall Act which essentially prohibited banks from owning other financial institutions. Being partially public, its loans and mortgages were insured by the government. It is this public/private chimera that is susceptible to moral hazard. Take careful note, the hazard is a result of deregulation and not the regulations that prohibited banks from redlining (the practice of denying loans anyone who lives within a “redlined” region. Regulations that call for fair consideration loan applications based on case by case analysis are not the reason the banking system is plummeting into the abyss. This whole mess is Exhibit A of the refusal to regulate and govern responsibly. Like any machine, the market will not run itself, except into the ground.

As far as I have been able to ascertain from reading it was never insured by the public/government as a matter of law or official policy. It was implied and when it went belly up the Chinese had a shit fit and insisted it be bailed out. Feel free to link me to something that contradicts that though, I'll read it.

Also I would have to say the real problem wasn't its privatization as much as it was its creation in the first place. The federal government should not be in the business of inserting itself into the market place in the name of the "general welfare". I say this both for helping people achieve mortgages and for bailing out wall street tycoons.

[PapaGrande]

Fannie was initially a government institution established by FDR to secure the secondary mortgage market. It was until the late sixties that it was partially privatized (mistake number one), becoming a stockholder owned corp. with the Federal authority to make and insure loans. Being a partially private institution it lobbied for the deregulations. It took awhile to totally deregulate but finally 1999 (Clinton’s mistake) saw the demise of the Glass-Steagall Act which essentially prohibited banks from owning other financial institutions. Being partially public, its loans and mortgages were insured by the government. It is this public/private chimera that is susceptible to moral hazard. Take careful note, the hazard is a result of deregulation and not the regulations that prohibited banks from redlining (the practice of denying loans anyone who lives within a “redlined” region. Regulations that call for fair consideration loan applications based on case by case analysis are not the reason the banking system is plummeting into the abyss. This whole mess is Exhibit A of the refusal to regulate and govern responsibly. Like any machine, the market will not run itself, except into the ground.

Send me your address, I need to send you some books on economics.

The moral hazard is that Freddie/Fannie and their investors knew they were "too big to fail" and made loans accordingly, this is econ 101. Politicians, especially democrats, encouraged this behavior cause home ownership is great for buying votes. The fact that Fannie/Freddie were too of the biggest contributors to campaign funds didn't hurt either.

Most of these questionable loans would not have been made in a true unregulated (and not backed by the gov'ment) market.

[trish]

I stand corrected, NYBURBS, the governmental guarantee is implied, but not because it was too big too fail but because it was initially a government institution gone, in part, private. This creates the possibility of moral hazard. However, that doesn’t explain how the rot spread like a virus throughout the banking system. With the Glass-Steagall Act out of the way, no regulations were in place to quarantine failures. If the little boys and girls on Wall Street can’t be trusted to exercise sound financial judgment (in spite of the temptation of moral hazard), then we need to keep their greed in check through proper regulation.

[hippifried]

Send me your address, I need to send you some books on economics.
That would help if there was a shortage of toilet paper.

We need a rethink on all of this 18th & 19th century economic theory that's been passed down from the early days of the industrial revolution, when the feudal barons were making the shift to capitalism. Especially the monetary systems. This shit ain't workin'. It's not the same world anymore.

We keep hearing about all these record profits & new records being set on the Dow, but compared to what? The purchasing power of the dollar has dropped by over 90% in the last 35 years. What good is having a bunch of money if it doesn't buy anything? It's all just so much smoke & mirrors. We need a rethink. This shit ain't workin'.

We've developed a revolving credit system where banks keep borrowing from each other on the chance that the interest rate will fall short of the inflation rate on payback. What?? On top of that, they're tapped out. they borrow short term (overnight) to show their required reserves on the books that aren't really there. Without a reserve, it only takes one default to break the bank. The measure of solvency is a 10% reserve. The highest default & forclosure rate estimate in the mortgage markets I've seen is 9%. Fannie & Freddie are the mortgage underwriters that are now carrying 80% of all home loan paper in the US, & they've already been taken back by the federal government. No bank is exclusive to mortgages, & even Wamu wasn't more than 40% invested in mortages before dumping on Freddie & Fannie. The investment banks that have been folding up had a lot less than that. But just for shits & giggles, let's say Octopus Occidental of Podunk Securities (OOPS) is 40% vested in mortgages. Even without a dump on Fannie/Freddie, you're still talking 9% of 40% in default. How does 3.6% send OOPS into bankrupsy if it's solvent to start? It doesn't. The "financial crisis" isn't about mortgages. This is about the revolving credit between banks to give an illusion of solvency that really doesn't exist. The mortgage problems merely blew away the smoke & exposed the mirrors. A now & then loan to cover overnight reserves is understandable, but these guys are doing it every day. Then they just loan it to the other guy who's doing the same thing the next day. The money just goes in a circle with a little skimming at each stop. If you have to take a loan every day to cover your reserve, you're not solvent. We need a rethink. This shit ain't workin'.

All this can be laid at the door of the stifling inflation that nobody seems to have a handle on or wants to address. Inflation is defined as currency devaluation. It's not just the dollar or the US. Every currency worldwide is falling. How is that possible in a free market economy that's supposedly booming? It isn't. Free markets fluctuate. They go up & down. There's no "up" in the currency markets. When all currency is traded as commodities, there's no currency to use as an exchange medium. Therefore there's nothing to guage any value against. There's no leveling dynamic, so the currency market can never find its level. The only measure of currency value is the rate of decline against other currencies. That rate is set by holders of currencies declaring how many units of other currencies they're willing to take in exchange. The declining rates inflate the number of currency units but devalue each unit. Profit is made by skimming off the top in the lag time between the trade & the economic effect on the country issuing the currency. The purchasing power of the dollar & every other currency on the planet is being controlled by speculators who are short selling on the currency markets. What??? We need a rethink. This shit ain't workin'.

Consumer spending makes up over 70% of the total US economy. All this hooey about monetary policies, banking practices, capitalization, capitation, Keynesian formulations, supply side formulations, & whatnot are just that. Hooey. Free markets are only free if they're not manipulated. That can't happen if ethics are left out of the equasion. Since it's impossible to enforce an ethical mindset, the only option is regulation as a guard against manipulation from the top. We need a rethink. This shit ain't workin'.

I listen to all this crap about tight money & loose money, blah blah blah... The more I look at economic theories compared to what actually happens, the less convinced I am that money supply has anything whatsoever to do with inflation. I don't think economists have any kind of a handle on what's happening. They're just guessing like everybody else, & they get it wrong more often than not just like everybody else. We need a rethink. This shit ain't workin'.

[PapaGrande]

hippifried, Keynesian economists have no handle on what happening, Austrians on the other hand have predicted this behavior and it fits in exactly with the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

Inflation is technically an increase in the money supply.

Default Credit Swaps show how a small % of bad mortgages can bring a whole company down.

[PapaGrande]

I stand corrected, NYBURBS, the governmental guarantee is implied, but not because it was too big too fail but because it was initially a government institution gone, in part, private. This creates the possibility of moral hazard. However, that doesn’t explain how the rot spread like a virus throughout the banking system. With the Glass-Steagall Act out of the way, no regulations were in place to quarantine failures. If the little boys and girls on Wall Street can’t be trusted to exercise sound financial judgment (in spite of the temptation of moral hazard), then we need to keep their greed in check through proper regulation.

Trish, I think you are completely underestimating the benefits Fannie/Freddie received from being GSEs:

http://affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/2004/12/fannie_maes_awf.html
Compared with ordinary mortal financial corporations, as government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have numerous built-in competitive advantages conveyed on them by the Federal government, including:

1. Implicit credit subsidy: $6.5 billion annually.
2. Higher leverage (gearing): Unquantified.
3. Exemption from state and local taxes: $0.7 billion annually.
4. Exemption from SEC registration: $0.3 billion annually.
5. Treasury line of credit: $2.25 billion (to each of Fannie and Freddie).
6. Implicit deniable arm of the Federal government: priceless.

They were required to make a certain % of loans to low income borrowers, and were continually allowed to lower standards to meet those goals. How is it that the banks are "greedy" when Fannie/Freddie are buying up every subprime mortgage they could get their hands on? The government directed Fannie/Freddie, who directed the banks to throw standards out the window and practically give everyone a home.

Fannie/Freddie were already regulated, do you know the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 created a new special dept, Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, just to regulate and oversee Fannie/Freddie?

You keep mentioning the Glass-Steagall Act, how exactly did the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act contribute to the current problem? Im not trying to be a smart ass, cause I cant figure it out. It seems to me the reason the left has jumped on this is because of Phil Gramm and because it was the last major regulation change. This is an example of re-regulation BTW, it only repelled parts of Glass-Steagall, kept other parts, and added new regulations as well. The major change was allowing commercial and investment banks to consolidate.

Did you know that pre Glass-Steagall banks that combined deposit and investment banking were safer than deposit banks without affiliates, and they issued higher quality securities than independent investment banks.

Did you know that even Glass himself moved to repeal the GSA shortly after it was passed, claiming it was an overreaction to the crisis?

Anyway, Im not trying to be a jerk, just trying to maybe open your mind to some things you probably didnt think about.

[hippifried]

hippifried, Keynesian economists have no handle on what happening, Austrians on the other hand have predicted this behavior and it fits in exactly with the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.
Yeah, I understand the theory of money creation through debt. I don't necessarily buy it. It leaves too many unanswered questions. The Keynesians actually buy into the theory. They just whistle around it like it didn't exist & look for ways to tweak & control the currency. It's the supply siders who claim the Austrian theory is wrong, but they just want to be the "new Keynesians". Where I really break from all of these theories is that I don't buy this:

Inflation is technically an increase in the money supply.
Or the variations on it. How does that explain stagflation? I'm not the least bit convinced that money supply has anything to do with inflation whatsoever. If that was true, then tightening the money supply would case deflation. The currency would rise in value & would gain in purchasing power. That doesn't happen. Show me where any currency has actually gone up in the last 35 years since the last fixed currency (the dollar) was declined. Ain't happenin'. Inflation is how currency markets make money. It's all smoke & mirrors.

I think the biggest problem in the whole thought process with all these economic theories is the idea that money is a commodity. It isn't. It's the exchange medium for trading goods & services. When you're trading currency, there's no trade currency. You're buying & selling money. With what? There's nothing to guage a value by, so you just make & take bets on which one/s you can drive down. The only value guage is the rate of decline. The idea that money is subject to the rules of supply & demand comes from the idea that money is a commodity. Personally, I don't see any reason that there should be limits on how much money is in circulation. The trick is to keep it in circulation, & not all hoarded at the top. Consumption drives the economy. Not banking. Don't get me wrong. Banking is a necessary service, but it's not the be all & end all of the economy & shouldn't be. Their job is to keep track of the currency & ease its distribution. All the rest of this crap is just skimming scams & a general ripoff.

All the current economic theories are a couple of hundred years old. Holdovers from a feudal system of barons & serfs. There's modern tweaks & methods of getting people to hand their money over to the barons voluntarily. It's still the same outdated theories that get upgraded with modern jargon & convoluted doubletalk by the factions of barons that are trying to gain power over the others. That's OUR money. It's our bank accounts, savings, mutual funds, 401Ks, annuities, pensions, life insurance policies, etc... It's our treasury that prints our currency. There's too many people playing fast & loose with our money, skimming off the top, devaluing our currency, taking away our purchasing power, etc... They're all hiding behind the gobbledy gook of economic theories & telling us that we aren't free unless they're allowed to continue doing it. We keep buying it. We need a rethink of all this.

In another generation or 2, China will become the world's largest market. That will give them an incredible amount of clout. There's already an Asian movement to create an economic confederacy along the lines of the EU. South America's already in full negotiations to do the same thing. We can't keep Africa down forever. They will develop & come into the modern world, & it'll be fast once the eurothink holdover dictators are gone. There's no reason to think that they're going to hold on to all those borders that the Europeans drew either. Africa will be booming in 2 or 3 generations max, & their infrastructure will be brand new. Is there any reason to believe that these folks will be constrained by the same economic memes that we are? There's going to be a rethink. I'd like to see it happen here because I wan't my grandkids to have a chance.

Default Credit Swaps show how a small % of bad mortgages can bring a whole company down.
Credit default swaps are just gambling. If we weren't so paranoid about being called commies or other names, we'd start slapping regulations on all these clowns, making them get permission from the people who's money they're putting on the roulette wheel, with full disclosure of what they're doing with all the risks. Let's see how many derivative markets survive that.

[trish]

I agree with Thoreau when in his essay Civil Disobedience he affirmed the motto, “That government is best which governs the least.” He went on to say, “…I believe_’That government is best which governs not at all;’ and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.”

Of oourse Thoreau knew, and you and I know we shall never have that kind of government because humankind will never be prepared for it. Those who lust for power will, unless checked, always attempt to subjugate others. Those who are addicted to wealth will, unless checked, always drain the common resources.

Regulations on power and money will always be necessary to maintain our freedoms and control of our country, its government and resources. Nineteenth century economists were hopeful that an absolutely free market would always seek an equilibrium where supply meets “demand” and everyone is happy. Mathematical proofs of this happy principle are lacking. Empirical evidence is to the contrary. Markets without regulation are like engines without governors, untuned and wildly oscillating.

Of course markets can be poorly regulated, and perhaps poor regulation is partially responsible for the current meltdown of the financial banks. Personally, I believe if you’re too big to fail, then you’re too big to bail. But I also think it would’ve been wise to regulate the size and complexity of banking firms. As I understand it (and I admit I’m not an economist nor am I a banker) that is in part what the Glass-Steagal Act did. No firm should be allowed to grow too big to fail.

Would such regulation put an undue restraint on our freedom as citizens? I think not. The constitution, as I read it, doesn’t say anything about the freedoms of markets, banks, corporations or other abstract agents (other than, of course, the States and the Federal Government). It provides instead for the rights and freedoms of concrete, everyday, individual human beings.

[hippifried]

Only individual human beings have rights or can have rights. No organization has rights. They merely have powers or priveleges that are granted by those who have rights, & those powers & priveleges can be taken away. Rights aren't granted. They're just recognized in writing or not. They're retained either way. Governing the actions of organizations & protecting the public from malicious or neglectful action is not the same as "ruling" individuals.

[NYBURBS]

Only individual human beings have rights or can have rights. No organization has rights. They merely have powers or priveleges that are granted by those who have rights, & those powers & priveleges can be taken away. Rights aren't granted. They're just recognized in writing or not. They're retained either way. Governing the actions of organizations & protecting the public from malicious or neglectful action is not the same as "ruling" individuals.

It ends up coming down to ruling individuals because it is individuals operating their private property who make up these organizations. It is one thing to have the government allow for civil and or criminal methods of redress for fraudulent actions, it is quite another to have them involve themselves in day to day oversight. Government is a necessary evil that should be tolerated only in the smallest amounts.

As for the discussion on economic theory, I do not know enough about it to keep up in a well informed debate. However, common sense seems to dictate that the whole federal reserve system is suspect, and any delegation of government powers to private entities should be viewed with the utmost hostility.

[trish]

You are right that government is necessary. It is necessary to protect people against the evil that humans inflict on each other through greed for wealth and power, through irrational fear and other human failings. It can provide to that end the necessary regulation of the transportation of goods, the regulation of immigration, of markets etc, just as can provide police and military to protect against more blatant crime and more outright invasion.

I agree that a government itself can be evil, but I don’t know why anyone would say government is in principle evil. Besides providing protection and/or redress against crime, invasion, fraud, persecution etc. etc.; government can also perform positive tasks. It can provide highway systems, river transportation systems through the construction and regulation of locks and dams, it can regulate the safe generation of unimaginable stores of energy, it can regulate the safe production of food, of drugs and food-like substances, it can provide the currency of the realm, it can establish schools, social security, health care, fire departments etc. etc. etc.

It is an empirical fact that all known governments support various evils (which is in part why I have sympathy with Thoreau), but it is not axiomatic that government is in principle so toxic that it is better to live without its benefits than risk its failings. It has never been revealed by god or man that government must be minimized. Nor has “minimal government” ever been rigorously defined. By accepting some of the benefits of government, people have already consented to the principle of government. The rest is just haggling. A given individual will usually, and understandably, support those aspects of government that are of benefit to himself and oppose those aspects which do not. That’s politics. One would hope that someday people can get beyond the vice of selfishness.

[NYBURBS]

“Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” - Thomas Paine

Government has some purposes, but it is grossly over extended now, and is basically a tool whereby a few rule over everyone else. You can not have large government and great freedom, they do not go hand in hand. Government necessitates that freedoms be handed over from the singular to the masses. We do this to secure a certain amount of peace and tranquility, but in large doses it is repressive.

I would point out the recent bailout, or the laughable "rescue plan" euphemism that they resorted to. It was overwhelming unpopular among American citizens and was defeated due to the pressure exerted on members of the House. The Senate threw in some rather disgusting examples of pork into the bill and now it has passed. It is that power to take from A and give to B in order to get C that most certainly corrupts.

Big government DOES NOT WORK. We have already been down this path and it has been a disaster. You point out roads/bridges in your argument. I agree that is a needed and valuable area, but even that they fuck up. Come to NY and you will pay on average 5 dollars crossing a bridge each way. Those tolls are suppose to support the upkeep of the roads. Yet somehow NY has the most fucked up roads I have experienced anywhere in this country that I have traveled to. Not too mention we are taxed and some of that even goes into road management. They can't even perform the necessary functions correctly so why should we think they will magically get all these other social programs right?

[PapaGrande]

You are right that government is necessary. It is necessary to protect people against the evil that humans inflict on each other through greed for wealth and power, through irrational fear and other human failings. It can provide to that end the necessary regulation of the transportation of goods, the regulation of immigration, of markets etc, just as can provide police and military to protect against more blatant crime and more outright invasion.

I agree that a government itself can be evil, but I don’t know why anyone would say government is in principle evil. Besides providing protection and/or redress against crime, invasion, fraud, persecution etc. etc.; government can also perform positive tasks. It can provide highway systems, river transportation systems through the construction and regulation of locks and dams, it can regulate the safe generation of unimaginable stores of energy, it can regulate the safe production of food, of drugs and food-like substances, it can provide the currency of the realm, it can establish schools, social security, health care, fire departments etc. etc. etc.

It is an empirical fact that all known governments support various evils (which is in part why I have sympathy with Thoreau), but it is not axiomatic that government is in principle so toxic that it is better to live without its benefits than risk its failings. It has never been revealed by god or man that government must be minimized. Nor has “minimal government” ever been rigorously defined. By accepting some of the benefits of government, people have already consented to the principle of government. The rest is just haggling. A given individual will usually, and understandably, support those aspects of government that are of benefit to himself and oppose those aspects which do not. That’s politics. One would hope that someday people can get beyond the vice of selfishness.

There is nothing the government provides that cannot be provided by alternatives means. This includes everything you mention.

The idea that man is inherently evil and therefor we need a government made up of men, who are then given a position of power over other men, is not logical to me.

[hippifried]

There is nothing the government provides that cannot be provided by alternatives means.
Nice sentiment.
It doesn't happen. The whole purpose of government is for people to pool their resources to do the things they want to do but can't do as individuals. It does tend to get out of control, but so does any large organization. It's up to the members of any organization to stay on top of it by being fully informed in all it's workings & doings. We are the government!

[beandip]

There is nothing the government provides that cannot be provided by alternatives means.
Nice sentiment.
It doesn't happen. The whole purpose of government is for people to pool their resources to do the things they want to do but can't do as individuals. It does tend to get out of control, but so does any large organization. It's up to the members of any organization to stay on top of it by being fully informed in all it's workings & doings. We are the government!

__________________________________________________ _________

"We are the government"?

LOL

Keep dreaming.

over 70+ % of the population did not want this bail-out.

[El Nino]

Nice Signature BeanDip. True

[trish]

Come on. You guys know better than that. You know that in in a republic the majority doesn't always rule. Consequently you should know that even when 70% of the outraged but unthinking public doesn't get their way, it doesn't follow we're not a republic. We are the government. Tell us beandip, why are you so un-American and unpatriotic? Why do alway blame American's and their CHOSEN form of government first?

[El Nino]

The highest levels of government have been taken over by a succesfully staged coup. Money AND Power have been centralized, a new world financial system is about to be introduced by design and the U.S. military is not being utilized on the country's best behalf. It is being used for missions completely outside and against the American people's will. It is a recipe for disaster for this country and in order to restore some semblance of decency will take some drastic measures by the people. Otherwise America as we know it, will be gone. It is a fascist corporatocracy where an imperialistic "leadership" does whatever they want under and unchecked and useless congress. Lobbyists succeed on every mission. Our Civil liberties have been stripped via Continuity of government legislation, the M.C.A. the P.A.s I and II, Presidential Executive Orders and Paranoia Buarocracies like FEMA, DHS etc. Local police are becoming militarized and federalized and WE are now the enemy combatant. Its happened before and we're in the thick of it as I type this. The country has been hijacked

"A NWO is coming into view..." -George Bush Sr. 9/11/1991

[trish]

I knew I could make the ragtag rebel's reveal themselves. We've got your addresses, resistance is futile.

[El Nino]

Don't be worried about a thing, everything is just fine in the Country! /sarcasm ;)

[El Nino]

I knew I could make the ragtag rebel's reveal themselves. We've got your addresses, resistance is futile.

Haha, works every time!

[Cuchulain]

[quote="trish" resistance is futile.[/quote]
So trish.....any pics of you in that 7 of 9 uniform? :wink:

El Nino, 'Guerrilla Warfare' by Che Guevara is available from Amazon.com. :)

[trish]

mmmmm 7 of 9. It's a possibility. I was invited to costume halloween party and have decided yet on my costume. thanks for the idea. i have to go now and check on the cost of borg brain implants.

[NYBURBS]

mmmmm 7 of 9. It's a possibility. I was invited to costume halloween party and have decided yet on my costume. thanks for the idea. i have to go now and check on the cost of borg brain implants.

Pic or it never happened 8)

[chefmike]

The highest levels of government have been taken over by a succesfully staged coup. Money AND Power have been centralized, a new world financial system is about to be introduced by design...It is a recipe for disaster for this country and in order to restore some semblance of decency will take some drastic measures by the people. Otherwise America as we know it, will be gone. It is a fascist corporatocracy where an imperialistic "leadership" does whatever they want under and unchecked and useless congress. Lobbyists succeed on every mission. Our Civil liberties have been stripped via Continuity of government legislation, the M.C.A. the P.A.s I and II, Presidential Executive Orders and Paranoia Buarocracies like FEMA, DHS etc. Local police are becoming militarized and federalized and WE are now the enemy combatant. Its happened before and we're in the thick of it as I type this. The country has been hijacked

"A NWO is coming into view..." -George Bush Sr. 9/11/1991

LMFAO...could you be any more melodramatic? Keep up the good work, you brave tinfoil warrior...Timothy McVeigh would've loved you...maybe Alex Jones will even allow you into the big bunker one day...I'm sure you'll look pretty snazzy in your brown-shirted uniform...you might even get to meet Dr. Ron Paul...McVeigh would've loved him too...

[El Nino]

The highest levels of government have been taken over by a succesfully staged coup. Money AND Power have been centralized, a new world financial system is about to be introduced by design...It is a recipe for disaster for this country and in order to restore some semblance of decency will take some drastic measures by the people. Otherwise America as we know it, will be gone. It is a fascist corporatocracy where an imperialistic "leadership" does whatever they want under and unchecked and useless congress. Lobbyists succeed on every mission. Our Civil liberties have been stripped via Continuity of government legislation, the M.C.A. the P.A.s I and II, Presidential Executive Orders and Paranoia Buarocracies like FEMA, DHS etc. Local police are becoming militarized and federalized and WE are now the enemy combatant. Its happened before and we're in the thick of it as I type this. The country has been hijacked

"A NWO is coming into view..." -George Bush Sr. 9/11/1991

LMFAO...could you be any more melodramatic? Keep up the good work, you brave tinfoil warrior...Timothy McVeigh would've loved you...maybe Alex Jones will even allow you into the big bunker one day...I'm sure you'll look pretty snazzy in your brown-shirted uniform...you might even get to meet Dr. Ron Paul...McVeigh would've loved him too...

You are like a broken record. Do you want to dispel or debate the points I have made or are you proving once again, that you will just deal out personal attacks? PATHETIC. Everything is fine Chef and Obama will save us!! Go back to sleep

[chefmike]

Do you want to dispel or debate the points I have made...LMFAO...what points? The only point you have ever made is that you are a raving paranoid who endorses lunatics like Alex Jones.

[Mugai_hentaisha]

'A critical - and radical - component of the bailout package proposed by the Bush administration has thus far failed to garner the serious attention of anyone in the press. Section 8 (which ironically reminds one of the popular name of the portion of the 1937 Housing Act that paved the way for subsidized affordable housing ) of this legislation is just a single sentence of thirty-two words, but it represents a significant consolidation of power and an abdication of oversight authority that's so flat-out astounding that it ought to set one's hair on fire. It reads, in its entirety:

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
In short, the so-called "mother of all bailouts," which will transfer $700 billion taxpayer dollars to purchase the distressed assets of several failed financial institutions, will be conducted in a manner unchallengeable by courts and ungovernable by the People's duly sworn representatives. All decision-making power will be consolidated into the Executive Branch - who, we remind you, will have the incentive to act upon this privilege as quickly as possible, before they leave office. The measure will run up the budget deficit by a significant amount, with no guarantee of recouping the outlay, and no fundamental means of holding those who fail to do so accountable.' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/dirty-secret-of-the-bailo_n_128294.html

Alas welcome the dying of a light. In this case a republic.

TES
William

[Mugai_hentaisha]

The highest levels of government have been taken over by a succesfully staged coup. Money AND Power have been centralized, a new world financial system is about to be introduced by design...It is a recipe for disaster for this country and in order to restore some semblance of decency will take some drastic measures by the people. Otherwise America as we know it, will be gone. It is a fascist corporatocracy where an imperialistic "leadership" does whatever they want under and unchecked and useless congress. Lobbyists succeed on every mission. Our Civil liberties have been stripped via Continuity of government legislation, the M.C.A. the P.A.s I and II, Presidential Executive Orders and Paranoia Buarocracies like FEMA, DHS etc. Local police are becoming militarized and federalized and WE are now the enemy combatant. Its happened before and we're in the thick of it as I type this. The country has been hijacked

"A NWO is coming into view..." -George Bush Sr. 9/11/1991

LMFAO...could you be any more melodramatic? Keep up the good work, you brave tinfoil warrior...Timothy McVeigh would've loved you...maybe Alex Jones will even allow you into the big bunker one day...I'm sure you'll look pretty snazzy in your brown-shirted uniform...you might even get to meet Dr. Ron Paul...McVeigh would've loved him too...

Exactly how do Brownshirts, Timothy McVeigh and Ron Paul go together? last I heard he stood for a weak presidency, which means giving power back to the constitution. Which in turn gives the power to where it belongs.
and all it seem McVeigh wanted was a race war....


TES
William

[El Nino]

Oh that Ron Paul is so kooky. What a kook he is for being right all the time. He's such a kook! LMAO