Do You Suport the Bailout?

[AVG-JOE]

You truly want to truly solve this problem?

Make the government the LENDER of money that ALL of us borrow...

A National Credit Union in lieu of the Federal Reserve, with congress setting the interest rates?



-Joe

 

[xsited1]

Of course not. I found it interesting that Obama supported much of the bail-out that Bush proposed. If he becomes President, he'll definitely have to take much of the blame for it when it fails.

 

[Paulie]

A National Credit Union in lieu of the Federal Reserve, with congress setting the interest rates?



-Joe

I don't like it. Sounds like something Alexander Hamilton would jerk off to.

The only thing that will work in the long run is a sound currency. No more paper currencies backed by nothing and valuated by artificially adjusting interest rates.

 

[dilloduck]

Of course not. I found it interesting that Obama supported much of the bail-out that Bush proposed. If he becomes President, he'll definitely have to take much of the blame for it when it fails.

Are you kidding ? When have you seen liberals claim responsibility for anything?

 

[Paulie]

Of course not. I found it interesting that Obama supported much of the bail-out that Bush proposed. If he becomes President, he'll definitely have to take much of the blame for it when it fails.

Yes, make sure you forget about the plethora of others in government and the private sector who drafted this nation-killing legislation, and firmly place blame upon only those of your partisan choosing.

Like McCain doesn't share just as much blame. Or pretty much most of congress. Or most of the elite private sector bankers and corporation board members and executives.

People like you ENABLE this bullshit.

 

[gonegolfin]

A National Credit Union in lieu of the Federal Reserve, with congress setting the interest rates?



-Joe

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous proposal I have ever seen. Do you understand anything about how a free market should operate?

Brian

 

[Paulie]

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous proposal I have ever seen. Do you understand anything about how a free market should operate?

Brian

Sounds Hamiltonian, doesn't it?

But understand, not everyone embraces the idea of the free market, because decades of mistakes from bad policy have been made to APPEAR as though they were the result of a free market that is in actuality anything BUT "free".

Until people learn the TRUE free market, and that we have nothing CLOSE to one, and probably haven't in over 100 years, they will never understand how great it could be.

 

[elvis]

Of course not. I found it interesting that Obama supported much of the bail-out that Bush proposed. If he becomes President, he'll definitely have to take much of the blame for it when it fails.

I was surprised that neither candidate opposed it. I think it would have them points.

 

[gonegolfin]

Sounds Hamiltonian, doesn't it?

In the sense that Hamilton did not believe that the free market should determine rates of interest based on the supply and demand of money, yes. But Hamilton never would have been a proponent of Congress setting interest rates (I cannot think of anything worse). He only believed in the power of the Central Bank, the fourth and most important branch of the government.

Brian

 

[AVG-JOE]

This is quite possibly the most ridiculous proposal I have ever seen. Do you understand anything about how a free market should operate?

Brian

Yes, I do. This proposal flies in the face of free market banking. My stance is that we need to either nationalize banking, by establishing a National Credit Union or go with private banking that does NOT rely on government bail-outs or mandates. It is the quasi-public / semi-private Federal Reserve that is behind the unfair lending practices leading us to the current mess.

Public assistance is not evil... Profiting from it is.

Which would be more palatable to the American taxpayer today... A "Buyer Beware" cutthroat banking industry, or A National Credit Union, servicing deposits and loans to all citizens at the same rates of interest?

Either will work well on its own... What we can't continue to allow is a little of both in a quasi public entity like the Federal Reserve and expect success.

We must choose.

Please note that a National Credit Union does not mean or require Nationalizing the means of real asset production. This is different from banking services. Things like airplane factories, retail stores and restaurants are much better managed by the private sector.

-Joe

 

[xsited1]

Yes, make sure you forget about the plethora of others in government and the private sector who drafted this nation-killing legislation, and firmly place blame upon only those of your partisan choosing.

Like McCain doesn't share just as much blame. Or pretty much most of congress. Or most of the elite private sector bankers and corporation board members and executives.

People like you ENABLE this bullshit.

Why would I enable this 'bullshit'??????? You've obviously responded to the wrong poster.

 

[xsited1]

I was surprised that neither candidate opposed it. I think it would have them points.

Liberals were for the bill. Too bad there weren't enough conservatives to block it.

 

[Toro]

Pretty overwhelming for the "no" side.

 

[Valerie]

I didn't see such a poll elsewhere, so Mods, if there is one, please shut this one down.

I'm very interested to know if you support the bailout? Why or why not?

I was thinking, if they really wanted to be sure the $750 billion dollars ended up on Main Street instead of Wall Street, maybe the fed should have just given $15 billion dollars to each of the 50 states.

 

[Paulie]

Why would I enable this 'bullshit'??????? You've obviously responded to the wrong poster.

No, I responded to YOU. People who still think it's a problem that can be pinned on "sides". That somehow our elected representatives, whether they're conservative or liberal, have our best interest at heart.

My friend, in government, there is no liberal or conservative. They don't serve either side. They create the illusion that they do, so that liberal and conservative VOTERS still think they have a choice.

That you would have the audacity to try and pin this mess down the road on a current presidential candidate because he "supported" the bill, is what makes you an enabler. You can be against this bill all you want, but at the end of the day, you are still going to vote for the very people who don't give a FUCK about you or your family, or your friends, or your bank account, or your fucking pet goldfish. And you're going to do it, because you still think you have a choice. Your opportunity to have a choice came and went. You only have the establishment's choice at this point.

 

[jillian]

Liberals were for the bill. Too bad there weren't enough conservatives to block it.

It was YOUR administration's bill... can't you get anything right?

 

[dilloduck]

It was YOUR administration's bill... can't you get anything right?

----like I said---no responsibilty.

 

[gonegolfin]

Yes, I do. This proposal flies in the face of free market banking. My stance is that we need to either nationalize banking,

Your proposal of having Congress set interest rates flies in the face of the free market. As I stated, if you think that is allowing the free market to work, you do not understand free markets. This is at the very core of the problem we face today. The key difference being to whom you designate responsibility for managing interest rates. You are perpetuating the problem with your proposal (actually, making it worse). Today we have the Fed controlling interest rates and you propose Congress have that power. Neither are free market.

Brian

 

[AVG-JOE]

Your proposal of having Congress set interest rates flies in the face of the free market....

Brian

But not, apparently, the US Constitution; which places the responsibility for coining money and controlling the money supply squarely on the shoulders of congress.

My stance is one of choice: We choose free market banking with no bail-out, or we choose nationalizing the banking industry. I like the idea of a national credit union because banking is not a productive industry. I am open to free market banking - I read - but public involvement seems inevitable. So are we going to insist that congress be 'involved', like a chicken is 'involved' with a ham & eggs breakfast or do we demand they be 'committed', like a pig is 'committed'?

The quasi-private / quasi-public Federal Reserve, invented by a lazy congress with a brother-in-law in banking, must be dissolved and congress needs to take back the responsibility they shirked in 1913. (Not really relevant, I know... but The Fed is a pet peeve right now)

-Joe

 

[gonegolfin]

But not, apparently, the US Constitution; which places the responsibility for coining money and controlling the money supply squarely on the shoulders of congress.

The Constitution does not empower our government to control our money supply. Do you have any idea what government control of our money supply means? And that the founding fathers were vehemently against this specifically? Do you understand what coining means and how it worked? Do you have any idea how anti-free market your suggestion of Congress controlling interest rates is? I am sorry, but you are thoroughly confused.

The quasi-private / quasi-public Federal Reserve, invented by a lazy congress with a brother-in-law in banking, must be dissolved and congress needs to take back the responsibility they shirked in 1913. (Not really relevant, I know... but The Fed is a pet peeve right now)

Not really relevant? It is completely relevant. I am and have always been in favor of abolishing the Federal Reserve. That is obvious from my numerous posts on the subject. But simply substituting the Fed with our government does absolutely nothing to solve our problems. We would have at minimum the same monetary problems, arguably much worse since the branch of government that spends our money would also be in direct control of managing it (oh, the horror). And the very root of these monetary problems is steeped in not allowing the free market to set interest rates (and your proposal obviously does not allow the free market to set interest rates (it allows Congress) - this is an egregious anti-free market proposal).

Brian