What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
The Ultimate Flash Website Design Tool view!
wix.com - Design a stunning website in 10 easy steps.
287 Comments
- PatchAdam, on 09/26/2008, -22/+138One week the GoP says "Everything's fundamentally sound."
Next week, "We've got to stop this massive bailout of failed companies and greedy corporations!"
To the Administration and Congress: Quit politicizing my paycheck and savings account, meager as they both may be.
This is not a "surprise" problem, but one started long ago in the 1980s.
At this rate, none of you deserve to be reelected. You deserve to be fired. The lot of you. - chupavacas, on 09/26/2008, -5/+107Great they bought us some time. If you recognize this bailout for what it is: a complete shameless scam then write your representative and senators now and urge them to refuse this turd.
- SRSco, on 09/26/2008, -13/+110Oh no. The people who most oppose the bailout are Republicans. What will Digg do?
- richmomz, on 09/26/2008, -10/+100OMG, politicians that have a spine? Republicans that still believe in small government and free market capitalism?! I'm... speechless! Mad props to the congressmen and women that still have the courage to put Main Street before Wall Street.
Next thing you know we'll start getting our civil liberties back and our leaders will respect the Constitution (I know, too much to hope for). - darkened, on 09/26/2008, -3/+69I agree I'm VERY glad this happened and to see this isn't getting steam rolled through congress yet atleast.
- Berkana, on 09/26/2008, -5/+61What would Ron Paul do?
He would NEVER stand for the government buying up crappy loans that nobody else in their right minds would buy. I'm glad they walked out. They don't call it "cash for trash" for nothing. - mythicflux, on 09/26/2008, -6/+58Invent a conspiracy where all Republicans are evil. Because it's too hard to admit that there might *possibly* be Republicans that actually are sick of this ***** too.
- nimbleprune, on 09/26/2008, -6/+52The republicans dont want to end up with the Feds owning our banking system...sounds like a reasonable concern to me.
- patrickHenry23, on 09/26/2008, -13/+59too bad the stupid leftists at the Daily Kos can't figure this out .. This banker bailout plan is the Patriot Act of the Financials. It gives complete control to the Fed/Executive branch, no one goes to jail, no one gets investigated, blank check for paulson which he could invoke at any time after the 1st 700B. I think it's time to buy back the Fed and put people in jail.Bail out criminal Banksters? No way!
- Sfenton, on 09/26/2008, -18/+62Anybody here realizing that the Liberals are on the wrong side?
- Phernoree, on 09/26/2008, -12/+53The Republicans finally grew a pair and are defending their party platform for the first time in nearly 8 years. Firstly, the bail-out is absurd financially, and secondly, is 100 percent in direct contravention of both Article 1 Section 8 and all of Article 3 in the constitution. Go Republicans!
- ouijimon, on 09/26/2008, -4/+35GET RID OF THE FED....Let those companies and banks that will fail, fail... Then we pick up the pieces with oversight and regulation to keep it from happening again. Let the market work itself out and don't screw with it until it hits bottom... it will be quicker that way.
- JHB800, on 09/26/2008, -4/+30And? Thats perfectly in line with their political beliefs, and is what they believe to be the right action.
Judging by the latest polls, the public supports them. (78% of those polled do not think the bailout is the correct course of action)
If this ends up passing, the Republicans will gain some big points in the congressional races. I'd also imagine that any voicing of support for an alternative by McCain will give him a boost as well.
I'm not usually a conspiracy theorist, but tonight I had the idea that this may all be an attempt by the Republicans to reshape the congressional race. (If the people feel like their reps haven't listened to their concerns about this, they'll be more likely to vote for the person that opposed it.) It probably won't have an effect on the presidential race, but I imagine it could have a big effect on who controls congress next session. - rexblade, on 09/26/2008, -3/+29Hey now dont lump us all together with those neocon idiots!
- mikesoba, on 09/26/2008, -15/+38Bush's own party won't support him. McCain sat in the meeting and didn't say a single word (thank god he rushed back). The Republicans are looking pretty messed up at the moment.
- ctenn2ls, on 09/26/2008, -10/+32It seems Daily Kos has no clue how bad the bailout idea is. This isn't some crazy ploy by the Republicans to make Democrats look bad, this is much bigger than that. This is about the value of everyone's money and the dangerous implications of bailing out every failing corporation for hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars. Terrible article. They need to take off the goddamn tinfoil hats and use their brains for ***** once.
- PhilLesh69, on 09/26/2008, -8/+30Thank you. The more true republicans who speak out against the hijackers of the republican party, the better.
The neocons are not republicans. They are sheep dipped. They are former liberals who learned that the democratic party wouldn't support their militaristic methods of creating a socialist state. They are students of Leo Strauss. They are corporatists who hope to accomplish through militarism and fear what Trotsky and Lenin accomplished through revolution.
From the conservative "Free Republic"
"Thus, several scribes have concentrated on laying bare the hidden wellsprings of neoconservative belief. These have been found to reside in the thinking of two improbable figures: the immigrant American political philosopher Leo Strauss (1899-1973) and the Bolshevik military commander Leon Trotsky (1879-1940). "Who runs things?," the New York Times asked, concluding that "it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to answer: the intellectual heirs of Leo Strauss" with whom the Bush administration is "rife." The Boston Globe ran a 3,000-word article claiming that "we live in a world increasingly shaped by Leo Strauss," while in a sidebar to its own feature story on the neocons, Le Nouvel Observateur introduced French readers to "Leo Strauss, Their Mentor."
Michael Lind, an American who writes for the British leftist magazine New Statesman, has been the most insistent voice invoking the name of Trotsky, or rather "the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement" of which, Lind says, "most neoconservative defense intellectuals . . . are products." Jeet Heer, who expounded the Straussian roots of neoconservatism in the Boston Globe, went on to disclose the Trotsky connection in Canada's National Post. ("Bolshevik's Writings Supported the Idea of Pre-emptive War," ran the subhead.) Others agreed about this dual connection. William Pfaff, in the International Herald Tribune, contributed one column on the influence of Leo Strauss and another linking Bush's foreign policy to the "intellectual legacy of the Trotskyism of many of the neoconservative movement's founders." In particular, in Pfaff's judgment, administration policy "seems a rightist version of Trotsky's 'permanent revolution.'" " - 2600dblzero, on 09/26/2008, -2/+22Has anyone read the text of the Paulson plan?
This is the coup d'etat
Sec. 8. Review.
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.
Go ahead and give the Federal Reserve the country! - mcarrel, on 09/26/2008, -39/+56These Republicans care nothing about this country or its citizens. To them, the financial crisis is just an opportunity to play politics and grab more power. I never thought I'd see so many traitorous SOBs in congress at one time.
Hard to believe, but there was a time when you could find large numbers of elected Republicans who actually believed in 'country first'. - richmomz, on 09/26/2008, -1/+18There's nothing wrong with free market capitalism... in fact I think we should give it a try some time!
If you missed the sarcasm - we do NOT have a "free market" system. If we did there would be no bailouts, no "too big to fail" nonsense and NO FEDERAL RESERVE. - inactive, on 09/26/2008, -6/+22I've never known a repup or dem who believed in putting the country first except for a handful like Paul and Kucinich. The rest are all in the pockets of the rich zionists and corporations.
- cyrix, on 09/26/2008, -1/+17You know....in a situation like this I'm torn.
I think congress should do what is necessary to help our ailing economy, yet the GOP's basic dismissive actions of the plan lead me to believe that there are in fact issues with what has been proposed thus far. And given that we're not seeing a large group of dems (I happen to be registered a Dem) do the same is surprising to me. I haven't gotten a chance to read everything that has been suggested thus far but I have to imagine that it's something radical (all areas considered) for the GOP to basically say "***** that noise" and walk out considering this initiative and it's notions have been technically pushed by the GOP itself. So there has to be some ***** up ideas proposed in here basically for the GOP to just rush out of it.
Or I'm an idiot that's missed something important here................ - yeediddy, on 09/26/2008, -2/+18diggers - lets get some things very clear - irregardless of party affiliation, a bailout is VERY BAD. This means all US taxpayers bear the burden.
By not bailing out, the companies that got themselves in this mess will be the ones that face the music. Let them take the hit, not the general public.
This isn't about the GOP vs the Dems - this is about our money. - richmomz, on 09/26/2008, -4/+17Looks like there are still some real conservatives in the Republican party after all...
- drmobutu, on 09/26/2008, -6/+18Uh...how are they going to blame the imminent economic collapse on the Democrats, then?
- Rustymetal, on 09/26/2008, -1/+14we should not even be talking about bailout in the first place.
- richmomz, on 09/26/2008, -0/+11The consequences of the bailout (hyperinflation and catastrophic economic collapse from so much debt) will be far greater in the long run. Bush just wants to push the day of reckoning out a few months so he will be out of office by the time the big crash comes.
- Pimptastic, on 09/26/2008, -0/+11700 billion could probably bail out a lot more people than just giving it to a business that failed on an epic scale.
How about we bail out everyone in the country that has student loans with that 700 billion. - MonoDede, on 09/26/2008, -5/+16 They're both a bunch of *****, to be honest. Although there are a few that really do have something worthwhile to say and do.
- JHB800, on 09/26/2008, -1/+12They do. They're opposed to a bailout that may or may not be necessary, and will be poorly managed by bureaucrats who have a crummy track record.
Based on what they're proposing, they're actually unwilling to give themselves and the government more power. - MrCobaltBlue, on 09/26/2008, -0/+10Good maybe if they keep fighting there will be no bailout!
- catalytica, on 09/26/2008, -3/+13Where've you been for the last 70 years? The Feds ALREADY own our banking system! Why the f*&^ do you think is failing?
- mfc5200, on 09/26/2008, -5/+15Seriously, and good for them. I want them voting against this bailout. Now, whether they do it for political points, or because they truly believe in small government, who knows. But at this moment, I dont care, good for them.
At least they aren't selling out the American people x2 and trying to buy votes by adding in foreclosure measures into the bill (which the Dems are pushing for) and are just opposing it altogether. Again, good for them. - Richandler, on 09/26/2008, -4/+15This is the plan Bush endorses. Notice the Democrats are the ones agreeing with Bush here. If we are going to give 700 Billion dollars to someone, lets give it to the people who will lose their savings when these companies collapse, not to the share holders and management who cause the "crisis" to begin with.
Please! Let the market correct these peoples mistakes and don't put that burden on us. - Pimptastic, on 09/26/2008, -3/+13I was thinking. If not doing a bailout will destroy the economy. Why arent all the big business and investors that have mad millions in the current economy stepping up and saying "Heres a billion or two. Hope it helps"
- Phernoree, on 09/26/2008, -0/+9If there's a collapse, then it's due to the finance and mortgage industries holding the economy hostage. "If I don't get my way so I can buy my 4th Rolls Royce, then I'm damning all of you!"
- CaptOblivious, on 09/26/2008, -1/+10How about we add all of those home buyers that got screwed by the ARM concept? We can re-fi them with decent fixed rates on loans and then they will
A) Not cause the entire system to fail
B) Not loose their homes and investments so far.
C) Actually pay back the loans with interest thereby putting the entire system back to where it should be.
But of course that won't happen because the politicians want to protect their corporate friends not the "common people". - VieRelative, on 09/26/2008, -0/+8I don't see this complete financial collapse at all. Companies today are producing real value to a wide variety of markets. They simply cannot fail. There may be a slowdown as loans become much more expensive but there will not be a collapse. Smaller banks that weren't as wreckless would finally be able to step in and provide loans, and over a couple years, the better, smarter banks will replace those banks that should go bankrupt today.
Let's compare this to the dot com boom/crash. During the boom there was 100s of billions worth (if not trillions) of companies that basically built vaporware. The investors and managers of those companies were simply not competent enough to understand that their product was a piece of crap.
But when the crash came around, all the crappy companies went away and were retasked (bought out, managers fired/retrained, developers sent to work on other products). This allowed the great companies like Google to get the recognition and investment they deserved and it's the reason why the US is now way ahead of the curve in software development.
Now imagine if instead of just letting the crappy companies die, the government decided to bail them out and institute regulation to make sure they remain dominant. Let's just say Google would be a french word. - catalytica, on 09/26/2008, -7/+14Republicans walked out on the bailout plan because they don't like the safeguards and provisions that Democrats insisted on. The Republicans would rather hand out a blank check and when they don't get their way then they act like babies and walk out. If their buddies on Wall Street must suffer then all of America must suffer by their logic.
- richmomz, on 09/26/2008, -2/+10Ron would applaud this. There is hope for us yet...
- quandrum, on 09/26/2008, -4/+12I think what happened was the Democrats said fine, we'll engineer a bailout, but it has to have independent oversight, help real people, be reasonably sized(more like 100 billion if that's reasonable).
And most importantly of all, it should be impossible for the executives in the bailed out companies to get rich from being bailed out.
The Paulson plan was designed to make the Republican's friends richer. Of course they said ****** that noise* when the Democrats said no, this should be more about the economy than your rich friends. - thegreenspanput, on 09/26/2008, -0/+8from 1999 NYT:
"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."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0 ... - TigerStar337, on 09/26/2008, -0/+7That was in the old plan. This is the new plans:
Here is the bipartisan plan that is called the Paulson Plan:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE48O8 ...
Here is the House Republican Plan:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE48P0 ...
Note the Private investment- more deregulation- tax cuts ect. - bitterbug, on 09/26/2008, -10/+17America on medical care: Socialism is evil!
America on corporate welfare: Just pick a number or we can leave it blank and you can fill it in later.
The next time someone in your family dies of a treatable illness because you couldn't afford medical care, just be glad that some suit used that money to put a tennis court behind his mansion. - ceredron, on 09/26/2008, -2/+9Too long ago for the digg population to remember, mcarrel. Those were the republicans of yore, who really did believe in values and morals and simple economic policy and small government. They've been run out of Congress by these new anklebiters and douchebags. I think it'll be hard to find the real cons here, but there are a notable few. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska comes to mind, for example.
- LSDigital, on 09/26/2008, -5/+12This problem we Americans face is a perplexing conundrum. On the one hand I don't believe in socialism, whether it be for the people or corporations. But we need to acknowledge the tangent between Main St, and Wall street.
It is basic economics. If the banks are not bailed out quickly and collapse, many business (including possible the one that employs you) will be unable to borrow from them to continue to operate. This would directly lead to the eventual collapse of Main street. In other words if our economy collapses, we all suffer.
I am of the opinion that we do need this bailout. Even if it goes against my beliefs. I am a moderate republican voting for Obama/Biden. I am very disappointed with what the term Republican has become. It use to stand for smaller government (less big-brother), and lower taxes. Now it stands for neo-conservative, corporate friendly, war obsessed, pseudo Patriotic. Many Republicans today speak as if anyone does not support the war, that in and of itself makes us un-patriotic.
And that could not be further from the truth. - Jmartin2683, on 09/26/2008, -3/+11anyone who supports this bailout, in any form, is supporting fascism. seriously, look up the definition if you have to. it's a bush family tradition. read about "the business plot". this is the financial equivalent of the patriot act.
- drmobutu, on 09/26/2008, -3/+10The Republicans still controlled Congress, in 2003...
- synarchy, on 09/26/2008, -0/+6A private banking cartel owns the banking system, which they call the Fed. And both republicrats have been dipping their snouts in the money trough for years. This time they got a bit too greedy.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 294 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is