i can hasz bayleout nao?

  • Leave a comment ?

    37 Responses to i can hasz bayleout nao?

    1. To start the inevitable internet argument:

      Retirement funds are tied to Wall St.
      No liquidity means no college funds, car loans, or even buying a shiny new PS3.
      A bad economy is bad for everyone.

      The best part is that Republican were hoping that Democrats would pass the bill unilaterally, so that they could use public resentment against the people who did pass the bill (in this theory: Democrats). Instead it backfired, and now they’re to blame for a new 7 year record stock plunge. Awesome!

      Reply

    2. shit, what fucking moran would tie their retirements funds into the stock market? that’s a stupid idea.

      I would never do that. Instead, I invest in ammo. You need to survive the zombie apocalypse in order to make it to retirement age, and I plan on being well stocked.

      Reply

    3. @Paul: The economy may be fucked, but at least the Republicans put their party first!

      Reply

    4. I want the bill to pass.. but the current version is not clear enough…

      Reply

    5. Come on Duece, its much deeper than that.

      There wasn’t enough Democratic support for this bill either, it just wasn’t going to pass.

      Reply

    6. @Paul
      You’re right about all those things, but buying bad investments isn’t going to solve any fundamental problems. Housing pricing are (still) way out of wack with actual value and so all housing related investments are going to suck until that is fixed. Government should be promoting sectors of the economy that have potential for actual growth instead of buying into a ponzi scheme.
      If you need to go into debt to pay for college, a car or PS3, maybe you shouldn’t be buying those things. I know its anti-American of me not to have 3 times my salary in debt, but that’s the way that real wealth growth works.

      Reply

    7. “The best part is that Republican were hoping that Democrats would pass the bill unilaterally, so that they could use public resentment against the people who did pass the bill (in this theory: Democrats).”

      Not quite, homeboy. As much as I hate to admit it, the Republicans in DC are a lot more fractured and factioned than anyone – republican or democrat – would like to admit.

      Half the Republican congressmen said they’d make an effort to fuck up any major bailout that Bush or McCain back, back at the conference at the beginning of September. Presumably these are the same ones that have read Adam Smith and understand capitalism beyond the basic concept of “WAT WI DO IS CAPTLISM U COMMIE PINKO”

      Thank god not fucking everything is partisan rhetoric in that fucked up country.

      Reply

    8. @reboot
      I’m not only an American college graduate, an adequate amount of my income comes from the housing market. Yes, housing prices are crap. (Thank *insert your deity here* that they’re still decent in Portland).

      As for “going into debt to go into college…” I’m going to say a giant FUCK YOU unless you agree that college education should be subsidized like in a majority of the other industrialized nations. I say that, because if you aren’t for that, you are saying either be born rich or stay out of the white collar job market.

      Sure, you could say be an entrepreneur, but without liquidity in the market, where are you going to get that initial investment? Oh, right. BE BORN RICH.

      @Caio

      Perhaps, perhaps not. Either way, the Republican immediately asked afterward when they would get a chance to vote again. They realize it is important to pass this. I won’t deny there was a number of them against any bail out, but there were also a good number of them with a prepared statement saying they ruined the economy because their feeling were hurt by the House Speaker. (They knew ahead of time, just like McCain *knew* ahead of time he would win the debate).

      Either way, the House Republican are the ones that are going to bear the brunt of the blame no matter how they spin it. If they bluffed, they got called and they have to pay big (as do we).

      Reply

    9. @Paul
      I’m not rich (grew up in a trailer park) and I haven’t paid more than a couple grand for college total. That’s two bachelor’s and masters degree, so far. There’s state schools, scholarships, military and a ton of options other than going into debt. Even major schools like Harvard and MIT will adjust or waive tuition if you can’t afford it.

      Reply

    10. @reboot
      My state school education cost me roughly $50,000 in debt. The average for full scholarships in a state school is 16%. Military service is for an indefinite period of time while we have 2 wars going and not enough soldiers. The choices for most of us that have done it are either student loans or be born rich.

      Ahhhhhh… I feel much better now that I got to rage.

      Reply

    11. As that I no longer live in the US let me be the first to say “burn”. As in “burn, muthafukkaz burn”.

      In grade school I figured out that there are some people that you just don’t borrow your shit to. Sub-prime lending is not much different… unless the cash your loaning doesn’t belong to you. Then its all good and fun.

      Karma is bitch.

      Reply

    12. @Paul
      So that’s $50,000 divided by 4 years. Let’s say you get a half scholarship (you should be able to do that much, right?). That’s $520 a month. Flip some burgers.
      My point is that even if lending does tighten up, its not going to bring the sky raining down on us. People may have to delay buying a new car or downsize their McMansion, but those who work and save will still get by.

      Reply

    13. As for college… I will quote an idiot, who I respect for his brutal honesty.

      “If you’re smart enough to go to college, your smart enough to figure out a way to pay for it.”

      If that involves joining the military – suck it up and do it, pussy.

      Reply

    14. I think Canada might need to strengthen our presence at the border. You chumps looking for another country to destroy? Try Mexico.

      Reply

    15. @reboot
      o_O Did you really go to college?

      The percentage of students that go to a state school without any scholarship is over 50%. As for “flip some burgers.” I fought wildlife forest fires 14+ hours a day in 12 day shifts during summers protecting people to pay off my loans. At any rate, I did it.

      The point isn’t me or what I did. The point is that a majority of students have to take out loans of some sort to go to college.

      As for the economy, what do you think businesses are going to do without liquidity and a declining economy? CUT FUCKING JOBS!

      Cut the jobs of people “who work and save” like you describe. This affects everybody.

      Trickle down theory doesn’t work with tax cuts or making money, but it works VERY WELL for losing money. We already had to let a good 20% of our staff go this year because of the market. Guess what? If this doesn’t pass, it isn’t us owners that are going to lose our jobs, IT’S OUR WORKERS!

      Reply

    16. @paul
      What I meant by “flip some burgers” is that people who work will still be able to afford college, even if its just flipping burgers. Your example of fighting fires supports that.
      If businesses can jobs 20% of their jobs and still remain in business, then they should. Those people should be working at jobs where there is demand (and, yes, there are sectors of the economy that are high in demand and growing). That’s how a free-market works. Its not perfect, but its better than all the alternatives.
      The government buying worthless investments, is not how a free-market works. The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.

      Reply

    17. I don’t know about any of this but I knew a girl once who went to the fanciest university in Switzerland and payed something like $300 a semester, flat, for tuition.

      So something must be wrong on this continent.

      Reply

    18. @reboot
      Unemployment is at 5.8% That’s high.
      ~
      This number is growing because people are getting fired, and no new jobs are being offered.
      ~
      They could create new jobs, but then they would need liquidity. So still fucked there.

      “Free market” is semantics.

      For example: Utilities are not free market. The California energy crises is a good example why.

      American farmers are subsidized to the tune of $180 BILLION a year. That’s not free market.

      American airlines? Subsidized.

      I could go on, but the point is that we don’t truly have a free market.

      SECONDLY, the stock market just dropped $1 TRILLION today. $1 MOTHER FUCKING TRILLION! That’s more than the bail out. All those 401K plans just got set back by a huge amount, and now all those people are going to have to work harder and longer.

      No matter what happens, the tax payers are going to pay for it. Why the fuck is it that no one cares when the national debt goes up by a few trillion to pay for a fucking war, but to bail out our economy it’s suddenly a big deal?

      THE WAR COST A SHITLOAD MORE THAN THIS BAILOUT, AND ALL WE GOT WERE HIGHER GAS PRICES. (Gas prices actually have to do with a growing world economy, but I feel like this guy won’t get that).

      I mean… did you seriously go to college and get “2 bachelors and a masters?!!” >_< I feel like I’m talking to a spoiled rich 15 year old kid.

      Reply

    19. @paul
      Some things, like utilities, don’t work as a free-market. Honestly, we shouldn’t be bailing out farmers or airlines, but that’s how votes and lobbyist money is bought.
      I understand your position. Especially on 401k’s. But the truth is the market crashed today because those stocks aren’t worth the prices they were asking. That kind sucks for people who are planning on drawing on their 401k’s in the next few months, but its better in the long run.
      If you don’t believe me, believe a Harvard economist (ran across this article after we started this discussion, but he agrees with all my main points).
      www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

      Reply

    20. @reboot
      With gas prices, airlines could never run with subsidization. Look at American airlines, prices, & food then compare that to more subsidized airlines in Europe and abroad. Without airlines, we wouldn’t be able to compete economically at any rate.

      It’s a digression, anyways. The point is that we are not a free market.

      If you really want to argue free market -vs- socialization, just look at Japan & Germany. Japan has an economy 1/3 the size of our, and a population to match. Germany? Same thing. They also happen to be the 2nd and 3rd largest economies in the world. They also bailed out their economies with similar packages.

      7 of the top 10 economies in the world? Socialized.

      If you are going to argue that the free market is infallible, then you can’t ad, “Well, but…” to it. Either it is, or it isn’t. If it isn’t, then free market isn’t the answer to everything. I mean, for the love of fucking puppies, deregulation is what got us into this mess in the first place!

      As for your Harvard economist (and self professed libertarian), Bush has an MBA from Yale. I don’t trust that fucker.

      Harvard University has also produced creationists. Doesn’t make them right. In fact, I’m pretty sure this guy is in the minority opinion at Harvard. He just got his name in the press because ever since the Republican bitching about news channels, it’s required to present every view these days, no matter how minor or retarded.

      Argue whatever you want, but the war cost us more, and the there is the potential for recuperation of funds from this package, which incidentally every other industrialized nation already passed because they don’t want to see their economies go to shit.

      Reply

    21. *Airlines could never run without subsidization.

      Getting distracted by Guitar Hero here. This shit is hard for people who actually play guitar.

      Reply

    22. If you are going to argue that the free market is infallible, then you can’t ad, “Well, but…” to it.

      The hell, I can. There are certain requirements for a free market to work and some industries don’t meet those requirements. Roads, for example, since having multiple road between the same location is inefficient. I would argue that healthcare is similar, since there is no buyer choice to break a leg or have a heart attack.
      There are some aspects of our economy that are a free market and some that aren’t. The exact same statement is true in the other 7 of the top 10 economies. The argument is whether mortgages securities are essential enough to the economy to be socialized. So far, you haven’t made any compelling argument as to why they should be. They’re crap investments and the people who bought them shouldn’t get a free pass on bad decision making. Paulson is an idiot or a liar when he says that the taxpayers will make their money back when the market recovers, because the housing market isn’t going to recover. It was already overpriced and nothing is going to change that.
      80% of Americans agree with me. Most of Congress agrees with me. A leading Harvard economist agrees with me (your ad hominem attack aside). And frankly, I think you are a little biased by your own situation of earning money through the housing market.
      The war cost argument is irrelevant. Just because we’ve wasted a ton of money one thing doesn’t make it alright to waste a ton of money on another.

      Reply

    23. @reboot
      *achem*

      70% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

      80%, huh?

      More recent REAL numbers here:
      www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0908/Bailout_Poll_30_percent_for_45_against_.html

      45% of people agree with you. Not even a majority.

      57% of people agree that some sort of bail out package must be passed.

      If a car is overvalued at $25,000 over a ‘real’ value of $20,000… is that car worthless? No. It still has worth. Houses will always have a value. Even if they are overvalued by something like 10%, that still means you can sell for ~90.09% of the inflated value. Mind you, that is an example.

      (If I have to explain to you why ~90.09%, then I’m going to have to laugh at your ‘2 bachelors and masters.’)

      Yes, they are ‘crap investments,’ but that’s not what the government is trying to do. They’re trying to free up banks to make loans, recover the stock market so we don’t have another depression, and they want to hold on to these mortgages and sell them down the road to RECOUP EXPENSES.

      Shit, even if they only make back 70% of the $750 billion package, that means the whole coast of this package to tax payers is only $245 billion. That’s barely %50 over what we give to farmers each and every year!

      For the record, houses never go for as little as 70% of value.

      Ad hominem?

      Your argument was that this guy know what he is talking about BASED ON THE FACT HE WAS FROM HARVARD. I pointed out that he was in the minority opinion in Harvard, THE INSTITUTION THAT YOU INSINUATED MAKES HIM RIGHT. I never once attacked the man.

      Look, the free market either heals all wounds or it doesn’t.

      “There are some aspects of our economy that are a free market and some that aren’t. The exact same statement is true in the other 7 of the top 10 economies.”

      Are you fucking retarded?

      That’s true for every economy, not just the 7 of the 10 that I pointed out where considered socialist. You do know that the United States is part of those top 10 economies, right? That’s also exactly my point!

      The housing market is already regulated anyways. Zoning permits, loan regulations, etc. Stock market? Heavily regulated.

      Oh, and guess what? The last time we had a drop this big in 1987, guess what we did? WE ADDED LIQUIDITY TO THE MARKET, AND IT WORKED!

      Okay, this is not so much a point as me calling your bluff. What are your two bachelors, what is your master, and how did YOU pay for school?

      Because I don’t believe you, and I’m not going to argue with some lying kid in his basement.

      Reply

    24. @Paul
      I was quoting numbers from a CNN poll Friday, that’s off the site now. But even your own poll shows that more people are against this bail-out, than in favor it.
      “For the record, houses never go for as little as 70% of value.”
      Do you have any reason to believe that? Because they’ve already dropped nearly that in some markets and show no sign of stopping.
      money.cnn.com/2008/04/29/real_estate/housing_price_fall_deepens/index.htm?postversion=2008042914
      Also see the housing price rollercoaster link that I posted in the other thread. Obviously, if housing prices have got up by over 200% since 1995, they can drop by 50%.
      My point linking the article was that he’s making substantially the same points that I am, but better written and cited. Trying to tie him to Creationism or Bush was a weak ad hominem.
      OK, call my bluff: I have one bachelor’s in mathematics, one in chemistry and master’s in chemistry, currently working on PhD. When I was on a slightly different career path, I passed the first two exams for Society of Actuaries, so I know a little bit about finance as well. Time to show your hand, what makes you such an expert?
      “Look, the free market either heals all wounds or it doesn’t.”
      No. Wrong. There are no absolutes. There is a time and place for free-market economics and a time and place for socialization.
      “Are you fucking retarded?
      That’s true for every economy,”
      Of course, that was my rhetorical point. I have no problem with regulation, I have a problem with bail-outs for institutions who have already demonstrated irresponsible investment practices. Take every argument the Republicans use against social welfare and it applies even greater as an argument against this bail-out.
      I’m really trying to have a civil discussion here, but you resorting to name calling, you really start to lose any intellectual high ground.

      Reply

    25. As for the 1987 bail-out: I don’t think it ever actually worked. I think it dragged things on for a few more years until Fannie Mae started sponsoring sub-prime loans which caused the current bubble. The fundamentals of our economy, as John McCain puts it, have sucked since the mid ’70s.

      Reply

    26. @reboot
      Well thank you for the diploma information. I was getting highly suspect if that was true.

      Quoting your own article:
      “Other metro areas recorded only modest price declines, including Portland, Ore., down 2.0%”

      I admit, I have it pretty nice here. Then again we aren’t a boom city like Las Vegas, Miami, and Phoenxi (the 3 highest declines).

      So, I’ll admit, I was wrong there. Value is a relative term, but rather than belabor the point, I’ll move on.

      As for ad hominem (always a bad sign when an argument devolves into grammar attacks or semantic attacks), I contested that said man’s position at Harvard gives him no special merit.

      By stating, “a HARVARD economist” you implied that simply being from Harvard gave him weight. I proved that it did not.

      You can infer that I compared him to Bush or creationists, I was simply pointing out that that particular institution does not instantly make someone right.
      What makes me an expert?

      I HAVE FACTS AND FIGURES TO BACK UP MY POINTS!

      Oh, and 95% of people agree with me. (Yep, I just made that up, but at least I am man enough to admit it when I make up numbers).

      Oh, there also just also happens to be the fact that it worked the last time we tried it in 1987.

      …and I stated how it wouldn’t cost the tax payers much more than farming subsidies.

      …and every other country tied to the banking crises (read: everyone) has already done so to a relative successful outcome.

      …AND your citing the very reason to oppose it (Republicans against government regulation) is the VERY REASON WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

      I also have the right to name calling because of righteous indignation from arguing against someone who is not only making up figures, lying about a CNN poll (I go there all the time and they have permalinks for EVERYTHING), and who has just admitted to me that they’ve never actually lived in the real world outside of college!

      Screw this, I’m out.

      Reply

    27. Whoops. Just did the Quick Vote on CNN.com and 52% of people think not passing the bailout is a bad thing.

      This time I’m really out. As in I have to leave my computer. Though I really did enjoy taking out my rage on you. (Because you asked, my diploma is in Evolutionary Psychology. Kinda worthless, but I went to school to learn, not get a job, and just having a diploma helped me with my first business loans). Perhaps we can argue over… say… atheism -vs- religion some other time? (I’m an atheist). I’m looking forward to it.

      Reply

    28. What are you two arguing about, at this point, exactly?

      Reply

    29. Must go… locking up office in 20 minutes…

      Okay, quick facts check. My partner says Sweden face a similar crises in 1992, had a similar plan, and was able to make back at minimum 50% (number in debate for some reason) of the tax payer funds back. Can’t check facts right now, still able to admit what’s a fact and what’s not.

      @Caio
      Started out over whether or not the bailout would work, devolved into paying for college, at the end it seems like free market -vs- government regulation. Also: Lying.

      Mostly I just came here to pick a fight, as you can see from my first post. I knew someone would take the view of “bailout = BAD!” and that I could rage against a representative for all the idiots that are opposed to the bailout.

      15 Minutes…

      Reply

    30. Since you’re bowing out, I’ll just stick with standard Lincoln-Douglas debate proceed and refute your final points without presenting any new points of my own.

      “you implied that simply being from Harvard gave him weight”
      I stated nothing but the facts. What you read into it, is your problem.

      “and I stated how it wouldn’t cost the tax payers much more than farming subsidies.”
      Which was based on you’re 70% estimate, which was demonstrated to be questionable.

      “and every other country tied to the banking crises (read: everyone) has already done so to a relative successful outcome.”
      That remains to be seen. European and Asian stocks aren’t doing so hot.

      “AND your citing the very reason to oppose it (Republicans against government regulation) is the VERY REASON WE HAVE THIS PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.”
      I was drawing an analogy to how Republicans oppose social programs, not regulation. Way to miss the point.

      “they have permalinks for EVERYTHING”
      Really? Do they have peramalinks to previous front page polls? Because, honestly, I just couldn’t find it. Lets call the poll issue a draw since the LA Times demonstrates that people’s opinion in polls is strongly determined by how the poll is worded. Most people want the government to do “something” (so do I, in terms of better regulation), but most people don’t want a cart-blanche hand-out.

      “who has just admitted to me that they’ve never actually lived in the real world outside of college”
      There you go with your ad hominem again. I’ve worked in the semi-conductor industry, the mining industry and dozens of part-time jobs to pay for living expenses.

      “atheism -vs- religion some other time? (I’m an atheist) I’m looking forward to it.”
      Sure. But I’m an atheist, too.

      “My partner says Sweden face a similar crises in 1992, had a similar plan, and was able to make back at minimum 50% (number in debate for some reason) of the tax payer funds back.”
      That’s interesting, but irrelevant, without knowing the details of the bail-out. How large was it terms of %GDP? What restrictions and regulations reform went along with it?

      “Mostly I just came here to pick a fight, as you can see from my first post. I knew someone would take the view of “bailout = BAD!” and that I could rage against a representative for all the idiots that are opposed to the bailout.”
      Ah, the I Was Just Trolling defense. Sad how you think someone is an idiot, just because they disagree with you. Honestly, I don’t think you stupid for supporting a bail-out, but I respectfully disagree.

      Reply

    31. God you people are stupid.

      Reply

    32. “Ah, the I Was Just Trolling defense. Sad how you think someone is an idiot, just because they disagree with you. ”

      Anyone else find this ironic?

      Reply

    33. ^^^ Seconded.

      I don’t really mind though. It can be fun to watch a hissy spat. Not as good as gawking at a bloody traffic casualty, but still acceptable.

      Reply

    34. @ Caio:

      Switzerland is a country, my friend…

      @ everyone else in general:

      It seems as if a depression is inevitable. The goddamn derivatives market has iceberg-ed the Titanic that you all know as Wall Street. Even Warren Buffet, Donald Trump, and Robert Kiyosaki have had some ominous statements regarding the derivatives bubble, a stock market crash, and depression.

      @ Us Americans:
      It’s the best time to find an alternative plan and work with that: whether it be moving to another country, settling down in a rural state like Wyoming, or getting incredibly rich in an unconventional way. Good luck.

      Reply

    35. @reboot
      Very first thing I said,
      in the very first post:
      “To start the inevitable internet argument:”

      If I walk into a bar and say I’m looking for a fight, that’s not trolling. That’s picking a fight. You were the drunk who stood up and said, “I’ll fight ya!”

      Information on the Swedish bailout plan:
      www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html

      Is it EXACTLY like our plan? No. But it is a plan similar to our, and it worked VERY VERY WELL.

      At any rate, we need a plan, and not approving a package is stupid. It’s also reckless. Guess what world response to us not approving a package was?

      “Americans are irresponsible”
      ~Japanese man interviewed on street

      “Do they not understand what is at stake?”
      ~Argentinian man, street
      (Argentinian markets PLUMMETED)

      “The attitude here is much like the weather: Gloom. There is a feeling that we can do nothing to stop this impeding crises.”
      ~London

      Those are just some examples I just saw on BBC. I know I’m belaboring the point here against someone who won’t concede defeat, let alone when they are lying, but your stubborn refusal to accept the obvious is as bad as anyone in the Bush Administration.

      Yell “Ad Hominem!” all you want.

      Also: Feel free to to point out the 200 point rise in the first 30 minutes of trading today, all though the net loss in two days is still 550+, and the gain is around the supposition that a bailout package is inevitable.

      Reply

    36. GARRRRR with all youz scallywaggers!

      First off, I read everyones posts and those who did present arguments have a valid standing regardless of how trolling they could have been and were.

      This a perfect example of trying to put out the fire with a hose full of holes rather than figuring out how to not let this happen again. This crisis was an instant give-away after hurrican Katrina with the fact that Banks got screwed and couldn’t hold their end of the bargain and people should have realized that ” oh crap, what if the housing problem hits the rest of the U.S.A… oh wait it has!!” Bad loans and bad investments = FAIL
      Great Britain based their finacial markets on the same infrastructure of the U.S and they are drowning too. The CCP made the same mistake and cut corners and became so dependant on the over consumption of the U.S that they too are now screwed 7 ways from Sunday ESPECIALY with their population desity…they are going to get butt hurt more than anyone.

      CANADA’s market is hurting, BUT back in the 1970s they decided to change the infrastructure of the finacial institutions and made it illegal to dish out loans like halloween candy. Indeed our neighbours in the U.S have a direct influence but its seems that those who are across giant bodies of water are getting hit with the worst of it.

      The bottom line is that the major US and Europeen banks screwed up from their greed and reckless behavior regarding loans and they will have to answer to the crisis themselves. The Governement should not step in and bail them out WHY? because if they do then the major banks with turn around and do it again but only this time be a little more watchful, Slapping and kid on the wrist and paying his credit card depts will not teach him a lesson. Its takes a harrowing experience to bring people together and change the problems that plague them and the begining of this crisis will be the catalyst to reform and a new regime of financial institutions. Lets prevent the fires from happening again rather than set up pretty gardens that will make the rage spread.

      Reply

    Leave a Comment




    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Motorcycles Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas