What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
193 Comments
- frcc, on 02/08/2009, -16/+110Both parties are bankrupting the country. Don't get suckered into the fake R's vs D's misinformation and distractions.
- ThinkOutTheBox, on 02/08/2009, -31/+88Not letting the banks fail is what doing what all the leftist were crying about for the past 8 years. Which were continual cries of fascist and the like.
Now that Obama is proposing doing the same thing Bush did it is suddenly OK. The fact is BofA and Citi have reached the length of their chain and have made bad decisions and now they have a right to fail. Pumping trillions of dollars in taxpayer money into the banks is only rewarding failure.
If you let them fail it will send the message to other up and coming banks not to make the same bad decisions that those banks did. Let the banks fail, it is as simple as that. Also, by keeping these banks afloat it is driving banks it is keeping consumer confidence down, because BofA and Citi have so much stature in the financial industry they are like two large piles of crap holding up everything thing else.
There are lots of banks out there that didn't do the sub-prime business and have plenty of liquidity, those banks will never get the business if the two giants are not allowed to fail and go the way of the dinosaur. - Striker101, on 02/08/2009, -12/+68How is the Obama bailout different from the Bush bailout?
It is the PEOPLE who are being forced to bail out of the USSA. But we have nowhere to go. - kingUssop, on 02/08/2009, -7/+36Where was the WSJ the last 8 years when all the problems that crushed the economy could have been addressed before it happened?
- jetboyterp, on 02/08/2009, -18/+47Keynesian economics doesn't work. Period.
Not for nothing, but I had to do a double-take seeing this on the front page of Digg...kudos!
Funny too...Bush doubled the national debt, but it took 8 years and 2 wars to do it. Obama might succeed in TRIPLING the national debt well within his first 100 days. Cheers. - supercandy, on 02/08/2009, -23/+51Paul Krugman has no idea what he is talking about...
Harvard economist Robert Barro, interviewed in The Atlantic: “This is probably the worst bill that has been put forward since the 1930s.”
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/02/an_intervi ...
Mr. Barro: "He (Paul Krugman) said elsewhere that it was good and that it was what got us out of the depression. He just says whatever is convenient for his political argument. He doesn't behave like an economist. And the guy has never done any work in Keynesian macroeconomics, which I actually did. He has never even done any work on that. His work is in trade stuff." - tightsqueeze, on 02/08/2009, -4/+28The point is that in a free-market there is no such thing as a "too big to fail". If your company sucks, then you go bankrupt. If you did the right thing, you survive. Simple as that.
- Danltn, on 02/08/2009, -4/+24So it's Obama's bailout now?
- Mothrog, on 02/08/2009, -1/+21Have you ever considered that, while the ramifications of letting one major bank fail are bad, the implications of a bailout are even worse? If a bank stands to be given free money every time they make a risky decision that doesn't pan out, but stands to gain a lot of money if the plan works, what do you think the bank is going to do every time they hit a risky decision? At some point, enough banks will make the same risky decision and the government won't be able to provide enough to bail them all out. Better to let a few fail and let the bankers know there are ramifications to their actions than to show that Uncie Sam will bail you out, now matter how stupid you run your bank.
- motters, on 02/08/2009, -3/+22For anyone who is interested in how fascism took hold in Europe in the wake of the 1929 market crash investigate the "Mosley memorandum". In the early days the fascists were proposing *exactly the same* measures as are now being implemented in the US and Europe. Basically the government cannot underwrite the banks - whether it wants to or not, it just doesn't have the money. If the government acquires the money via speeding up the printing presses the consumer economy collapses because the money just isn't worth anything if you have to spend thousands just to buy a loaf of bread. In such an environment nations become insular and blame foreigners for their plight - which are the perfect ingredients for fascism.
- patpl22391, on 02/08/2009, -6/+23Have you seen Obama speak about the stimulus? So much for hope over fear. He is scaring us into supporting it the same way Bush scared us into supporting the first bailout. There will be no accountability. Accountability should be defined as the banking institutions that got themselves into this mess (with the help of Government) to fail, and we'll be stronger because of it.
- AikoMiko, on 02/08/2009, -8/+25It's now owned by Rupert Murdoch. And yes, it has changed since he took ownership.
- RonPauls, on 02/08/2009, -5/+21Jennifer,
You're an idiot. The democrats passed the TARP over republican objections. The democrats even accused the Republicans of being "obstructionists". McCain and Obama both supported the TARP. Do not try to revise history.
Plus, Obama had congress release the second $350 billion. That's a bailout. - GrodyChamp, on 02/08/2009, -3/+17So Bush does the same thing, he's terrible, now Obama does it, it's a great idea? Bailout conundrum FTL
All bailouts are stupid *****. Bush AND Obamas - clemsontiger, on 02/08/2009, -0/+12Very true. Most people don't know that the main thing that destroyed our markets back then was the implementation of the Smoot- Hawley Tariff act. The market has this uncanny way of fixing it self. It always does and always will.
- Barackalypse, on 02/08/2009, -3/+14As a person who actually bothered to save money instead of borrow it, stagflation scares the crap out of me. I expect the Federal Reserve to continue its easy money policies that helped cause this whole speculative and bad debt mess in the first place, meanwhile Washington will throw around borrowed money to try and look like they're fixing things.
- badenglishihave, on 02/08/2009, -7/+18To help clarify your point to those diggers who are burying you, here's a metaphor. Let's say an employee starts stealing from his company. One day he gets caught. Which of these results do you think will stop him from stealing and discourage that kind of behavior?
1. The government lets the employee keep the money. In fact, they give him more $$$ to help him recover from the costs of fighting it in court. They also demand the company retain the employee and give him a raise.
2. The government locks him up for 20 years.
#1 is similar to what Obama wants (and Bush wanted) to do. #2 is letting the banks fail. I'm pretty sure other banks will learn by example since nobody wants to fail. - ousthouse, on 02/08/2009, -4/+14It's too bad Obama wasn't a senator last year. Then, he could've voted against it and helped talk others to vote against it too.
- rizzo2008, on 02/08/2009, -1/+11What if we somehow got hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people to simply refuse to pay their taxes this year in opposition to this? Its not like they could arrest everyone?
This is absolutely absurd. The first bailouts were not popular with the American people but all of sudden this one is ok because it is called "stimulus." We are digging our own grave - LeepII, on 02/08/2009, -5/+15Until Americans start taking up the Iceland option, we will continue to be ripped off by both parties.
- pyite, on 02/08/2009, -2/+12Stagflation is definitely the biggest risk with this bailout because the amount of underwater over-the-counter derivatives is more than $1 quadrillion.
These conditions will continue until trust in ratings agencies is restored - it is impossible to do business when nobody knows who is bankrupt. - ScienceDoc, on 02/08/2009, -47/+57WSJ = Murdoch propaganda.
- DeathToaster, on 02/08/2009, -4/+14Dugg for truth.
- inactive, on 02/08/2009, -8/+18Systematic nationalization of the private sector- don't buy the hype. This is exactly how the Great Depression happened, not the stock market crash.... government interference in a cyclical market. This is all intentional. Mark my words.
- throop77, on 02/08/2009, -1/+10@AikoMiko - The salary cap is a joke. Employees can be compensated a million different ways other than salary. Obama, like Bush, will continue dumping an endless stream of tax dollars into the bank black hole and it will have NO positive effect. Its a ***** disaster. The biggest ripoff in history continues with the man who claims to bring change. FUUUUUUuuUUUCCCKKK!!!
- kc8hr, on 02/08/2009, -7/+16Correct!
WSJ will NEVER say anything good about President Obama, no matter what. - AikoMiko, on 02/08/2009, -1/+10True Dat.
- lolwutpear, on 02/08/2009, -3/+11IT'S A TARP
- ironhide, on 02/08/2009, -4/+12Do you say anything when the right whines about "the librul media"?
- rmccs0x, on 02/09/2009, -0/+8THANKS OBAMA ZOMBIES FOR POUNDING THE FINAL NAIL INTO OUR COUNTRY. I DONT EXPECT ANY EURO'S TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE YOU'RE ALL SOCIALIST BASTARDS ANYWAYS. ***** idiots..
- TrancePhreak, on 02/08/2009, -0/+7Even the same exact stuff Bush did?
- throop77, on 02/08/2009, -0/+7@maidaa - They didn't make a profit but it didn't cost much.
"But the final cost to Sweden ended up being less than 2 percent of its G.D.P"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbu ... - MacEnvy, on 02/08/2009, -2/+9You seem to have economists confused with Wall Street bankers, and the WSJ confused with The Economist.
I know, I know, they're like one letter apart. Easy mistake. - methdwman3, on 02/08/2009, -2/+9Saying Bush forced it through meant Dems were bullied around by a lame duck president, who didnt have a majority in either house, to pass a bill that wasnt even popular amongst their constituency. Yikes. Thats whose controlling the whole show now.
- maidaa, on 02/08/2009, -2/+9In the 90's, Sweden took over the failing big banks and made a "bad" bank to take hold of the "bad" loans, and did run the nationalize banks. Later they sold the then solvent banks back to the privet market.
And in the end the government made a profit!
¢ - nunofgs, on 02/08/2009, -0/+6You sir, are what's wrong with society.
- throop77, on 02/08/2009, -1/+7It sure is. He could have put a stop to this nonsense and let the ***** banks fail. He didn't. He is going to expand the bailout into the many trillions.
- inactive, on 02/08/2009, -1/+7Just to add fuel to the burning inferno that is the now government banking crisis- there were absolutely NO stipulations in the bail-outs. The money is gone, the fire rages on, and yet the idiots continue to cry broke waiting for another hand-out.
- RonPauls, on 02/08/2009, -5/+11If he didn't support it during his campaign, it wouldn't have happened.
republicans were against it, but dems were able to ram it through - PGPirate, on 02/08/2009, -0/+5Die *****
- emmeron, on 02/08/2009, -0/+5@netant:
I hope you are right. We need that kind of outrage to have some freedoms again -- this whole system allows far too much government intervention in the first place. Indeed, that was the point of the system. A complete failure could allow for something better (or worse, granted) to take its place. Either way, the system we have is a failure and should be treated as such. - Metasquares, on 02/08/2009, -3/+8The easiest way to eliminate problematic models is to let the banks that used them go bust. The ones that remain and rise to prominence will be the ones who have done things differently.
- Claverhouse, on 02/08/2009, -0/+5Really ???
*edges away discreetly* - alieneggsac, on 02/09/2009, -1/+6You mean, he's giving tax refunds to people who didn't pay taxes to start with. Talk about rewarding bad behavior!
- MugPunter, on 02/08/2009, -0/+5No taxation without [Real] representation.
- Frixionburne, on 02/08/2009, -0/+5No, he means lesbian president.
- inactive, on 02/08/2009, -1/+6Amen! I like how we are getting buried silently, I suppose the lemmings silently jumped off the cilff in 29' too.
- Frixionburne, on 02/08/2009, -4/+8If only there was a way I could have dugg this up twice.
It makes me happy to see articles pop up like this to bring out the rotten side of the governments actions, and people actually make valid points instead of a wall populated by "WSJ is propganda" remarks.
I've always likened Obama's popularity with that of Hitler (I'm stepping into a really bad place right now), but it has absolutely nothing to do with tyrannical genocides. I compare the two in respect to the effect that they have on the people at paralleled times in their reigns. When Hitler came into rule in Germany, the populous was in shambles after the economic annihilation of the first world war. People loved him as a leader because he promised them swift action to fix the economy and reunite the German people as a whole. In the same effect, Obama touted the word "change" around with him wherever he went. He promised to hastily fix the economy and to reunite the peoples of the USA. The approach at which Obama'a planners pursued his campaign is very similar to that of the advisor used to induce the Third Reich in Germany.
The one thing that I always tell friends of mine that are madly in love with our new president is to always be skeptical, especially when we really haven't experienced any fruits from the "labor" that is currently in the works at the white house. I don't hate the president, I just don't trust people when they don't show results. -
Show 51 - 100 of 199 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is