The Latest Federal Bailout

[Mirai Gen]

Yeah but it's like the first one was "Hey let's throw money at the problem!" and after taxpayers and the community and a whole bunch of people tried in vain to stop it, they made another one for Chrystler, and it was opposed by a majority but they did it anyway, and now we're making another one.

Granted of course Obama's at least running this one so I hope we've got it going somewhere that it'll actually do something other than repair the stitches in some fucker's golden parachute, but I'm still not holding my breath.

[Gorefiend]

Originally Posted by TheSparrow

Honestly I think that what a few economists have said is the best way to go about this. Take that 800 Billion dollars and instead of spending it on government programs, you give it to fanny mae and freddy mac and make them use it to buy up all of the troubled mortgages, then you have them redo those mortgages at current rates with different pay structures.

I'm less optimistic about the results, but it will definitely solve the banking crisis by making banks solvent, by giving them money for their now worthless assets (not necessarily Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, though. Something like TARP or the Resolution Trust Corp. would be fine, I think.) Problem is, 1) there's a LOT of resentment towards Wall Street from Main Street now (much of it rightly so, in my opinion, but that's another debate) and therefore pressure to nationalize those banks instead (which would also end the banking crisis), and 2) negotiations are hung up on the question of "For how much?" At first they were dead locked on banks asking for 100% and government offering 20%, but apparently those numbers may have shifted to 50% and 22% or so, so hopefully things will close at 25-30% soonish.

Originally Posted by Jagos

F&F buying and keeping the mortgages is what got us into this mess in the first place. They continue to allow people into houses that can't afford them, through allowing banks of various sorts to write them up to F&F. And these are considered toxic assets when they have to leave since there's no equity within them.

There's a value in this country that homeownership is a goal, a part of the American Dream. As a result, especially from Democrats but in general, there is a tendency to promote that. The virtues/vices of it are debatable, but its policy and its fairly bi-partisan, I think. That said, the crisis itself would be solved by giving the banks enough money that they'll remain solvent, and if that means buying bad loans, then that's what it means. Also, as for the pay structure, again, a lot of it is resentment, a lot of it is the feeling that taxpayers shouldn't pay for a person's wealthy lifestyle, or their bonus when they just fucked up the country.

Originally Posted by Demonlink2

Second, any old job can be created. If you hire a man to dig a ditch you've created a job. Hire another man to fill it in, and you've got 2 jobs. The problem is none of that does anything to help anyone who isn't one of the 2 men. It gives them money they worked for, sure, but it doesn't do anything beyond that. Take from the taxpayers, give to the ditchdigger.

Well, do it right, invest in some of the things the CWA and WPA did (like roads, wells, parks, levees, sewage lines, and those infamous "National Guard Armories" that in so many cases were a town's first truly solid building, and many of which are still used today) and you don't just create jobs, you create lasting investments. Even if you do it the way the fellows did back in the WPA. You'll earn the money back several times over if you do it right, and even if you didn't, having a populace secure in that they won't starve should be damned worth it.

Also, two reasons why this bill doesn't actually matter. 1) It won't solve the banking crisis. When we either announce that TARP negotiations are done or nationalize banks, the banking crisis will end, and 2) it's kinda government going out and telling people "Look! We're trying! Look!" cause what they're really doing wouldn't fly as publicly.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by TheSparrow

Honestly I think that what a few economists have said is the best way to go about this. Take that 800 Billion dollars and instead of spending it on government programs, you give it to fanny mae and freddy mac and make them use it to buy up all of the troubled mortgages, then you have them redo those mortgages at current rates with different pay structures. This does two things. One it stems the tide of home loss and actually helps people that need it, and two, it will actually BOLSTER the housing market, while untying the lending industry from these mortgages, opening up their money flow for businesses that need it. Plus eventually that 800 billion comes BACK to the government WITH interest from the mortgages.

So instead of spending our money on things that are actually useful, we're going to give it away in exchange for worthless garbage?

Originally Posted by TheSparrow

You watch...I am willing to bet that he doesn't strip out the 80 million in funds for sex education, the 20 million in funds to save a frog in southern california, ect.... and he will allow them to pass on the illusion that they will create jobs.

If by "illusion" you mean "it does in fact create jobs" then okay, sure, it's an illusion.

I know some people - and by "some people" I mean "republicans" - have a hard time grasping the fact that if it's not a job that involves murdering or robbing human beings, it is in fact still a job, but jobs as sex educators and saving southern californian frogs are, in fact, jobs. I know that they're not jobs that involve shitting billions of dollars into a desert on top of a pile of human bodies, but still!

[TheSparrow]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

So instead of spending our money on things that are actually useful, we're going to give it away in exchange for worthless garbage?



If by "illusion" you mean "it does in fact create jobs" then okay, sure, it's an illusion.

I know some people - and by "some people" I mean "republicans" - have a hard time grasping the fact that if it's not a job that involves murdering or robbing human beings, it is in fact still a job, but jobs as sex educators and saving southern californian frogs are, in fact, jobs. I know that they're not jobs that involve shitting billions of dollars into a desert on top of a pile of human bodies, but still!

Just...wow. If by worthless garbage you mean saving peoples houses and livelyhoods, and, as Gorefiend said, make the banks solvent and fixes thier financial crisis, then yes, worthless garbage.

And as for sex education, do you REALLY think any of the billions and billions going to education are going to create any jobs? DO you really think they are gonna hire new sex educators? or are they just gonna change the curriculum and buy different books....and for the rest of the money, are they gonna hire new teachers? no they arent, they are just gonna use the money on new programs.

As for the frogs, generally jobs created by conservation efforts like that are few and far between for the amount of money invested. (For example we have a superfund site here, and an enormous amount of money for it goes to studies and such, which are generally done by scientists with tenure...i.e. who already have jobs)

So yes.....the ILLUSION of jobs. 80 million dollars to protect a frog species will probably fund millions of dollars in studies, which direct the already existing government groups to enact new rules and perhaps hire a few new workers for compliance of these rules.

[Jagos]

...have a hard time grasping the fact that if it's not a job that involves murdering or robbing human beings, it is in fact still a job, but jobs as sex educators and saving southern californian frogs are, in fact, jobs. I know that they're not jobs that involve shitting billions of dollars into a desert on top of a pile of human bodies, but still!

Getting into the jobs argument for a second...

I have to agree with Thesparrow on a different basis. Just because we hire 2 people doesn't necessarily "create" a job. We hire them as dog catchers for the governent, that means those two may not work (or may have gotten laid off) for a business nor will they be willing to find a new job.

People are asking for government spending to decrease and yet it's as if that very government is responsible for every person working.

[Gorefiend]

Originally Posted by Jagos

I have to agree with Thesparrow on a different basis. Just because we hire 2 people doesn't necessarily "create" a job. We hire them as dog catchers for the governent, that means those two may not work (or may have gotten laid off) for a business nor will they be willing to find a new job.

Ok... As FDR proved, there is no legal reason the government can't fix unemployment by putting people directly on the federal payroll. And there is NO reason that is a bad idea except people get kinda freaked out by it. But it works. It ends unemployment, and under the WPA, no one thrived, really, but no one starved (and Orson Welles had his start there, so arguably some careers were born out of it).

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by TheSparrow

Just...wow. If by worthless garbage you mean saving peoples houses and livelyhoods

No, I mean things that are garbage, because they are worthless, as in having no worth, because they are not worth any money. Because you see when you give someone a lot of money for a thing that is worth no money, what you then have is no money, along with a thing that is not worth money. IE what these mortages are.

But you're right, we totally owe a livelihood to people who are so terrible at their jobs that they have completely annihilated the US economy, as opposed to like, a sex-educator somewhere whose job might at some point actually lead to a kid not getting herpes or something that has actual value.

And as for sex education, do you REALLY think any of the billions and billions going to education are going to create any jobs? DO you really think they are gonna hire new sex educators? or are they just gonna change the curriculum and buy different books....and for the rest of the money, are they gonna hire new teachers? no they arent, they are just gonna use the money on new programs.

So books and programs are created by... moon magic? Do they take the money and put in it a magic money-hole and then space-time configures the dollar bills into books?

Certainly they can't be created by people doing work in order to produce things in exchange for money, because those would be you know, jobs, which this doesn't create.

Originally Posted by TheSparrow

So yes.....the ILLUSION of jobs. 80 million dollars to protect a frog species will probably fund millions of dollars in studies, which direct the already existing government groups to enact new rules and perhaps hire a few new workers for compliance of these rules.

So we can't give money to people doing work that needs to be done so they can maybe hire people to do that... what we instead need to do is flush it into the massive steaming shit-hole of the banking industry, so they can continue doing worthless work that is actively destructive to the interests of anyone who isn't the banking industry.

[Kim]

I think one thing we could stand to at least spend some of the money on is low-rent, government controlled housing. It would create work, and rather than everyone needing to have a house, they could live in something they could actually afford and wouldn't create more debt for them.

[Tev]

I'd like to see more money spent on sex education, if for no other reason that to stop crap like this from happening over here in America. I mean, if Europe's doing it, I'm sure we've got it worse and I'd like it to stop. Reducing the number of people dependant of government money because they were born by children too young to be responsible with children will go a long way to putting a stopper in one of the bigger leaks in our money flow.

[Jagos]

As FDR proved, there is no legal reason the government can't fix unemployment by putting people directly on the federal payroll. And there is NO reason that is a bad idea except people get kinda freaked out by it. But it works. It ends unemployment, and under the WPA, no one thrived, really, but no one starved (and Orson Welles had his start there, so arguably some careers were born out of it).

The main reason FDR was able to get the US out of the Depression has more to do with WWII than his policies. Practically all of the laws that were passed during that time inhibited progress rather than allowed the US to use its workforce. Especially Congress's need for isolationism ending trade (and jacking up prices out the yin yang...)

It's not that I'm against federal or government jobs. It's just that once they're there... They don't get off the payroll and you have to hear people complain about government spending going up for yet another person.