Forums | MacLife

Yes.

KagroX over KOS says, in part:

What's truly astounding is that it may be necessary in order to keep the whole world's economic underpinnings from dissolving into anarchy, and yet everyone has to stop and think twice. Three times, even. Why? Because nobody in their right mind thinks Bush and his cronies can be trusted with the money, much less to actually do anything worthwhile with it. Yes, we're concerned that he may blow this whole thing even worse than it already is. But when you're talking about a guy who "lost" $9 billion in cash in Iraq, you kind of have to wonder whether he's even going to use the money for its intended purposes.

And frankly, if there's any thought more nauseating than the possibilities that may ensue if we can't fix this thing, it's that we're living in a world where giving a moment's thought to the possibility of the president's cronies absconding with some portion of this money isn't entirely crazy on its face.

The sad truth is that under no circumstances should this president be given unfettered and unreviewable authority over this fund. Sadder still is that despite the best efforts of well-intentioned legislators, no statutory regimen can be devised that can by itself make a president who believes he is above the law submit to real and rigorous oversight. Which in truth means that the bigger risk in this is actually funding this bailout while George W. Bush is president.

And that's amazing

All the 'off-the-table' stuff adds up.
If he were under impeachment already, there'd be some leverage.

Bush, Paulson, someone eles, or al of 'em .. does it matter?

That would depend on what would happen with the 'surplus' now, wouldn't it?

Which story has more drama and conflict, eh?

Paulson is a smug and arrogant smurf.  A lot like the types who felt that generating massive profits for their banks was worth the risk of causing the mess the economy is now in.  that alone makes me think he's totally the wrong guy for the job!

dvpierce wrote:

"Scotty, do you always multiply your repair estimates by a factor of four?"

"I told the Captain I would have this diagnostic done in an hour."
"And how long will it really take you?"
"An hour!"
"Oh, you didn't tell him how long it would really take, did you?"
"Of course I did."
"Oh, laddie, you have a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker."

Some people have suggested that the timing is suspicious, coming on the week that Congress usually closes up in order to campaign for the upcoming election so the pressure would be on to get something done.

You guys are looking at the sum in the wrong light. With inflation about to occur what you should be saying is:

"What was 100 is 10, what was 10 is 1, what was 1 is..."

JakeTheTall wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I think it's more likely he's incompetent. He probably figured the number alone would save the stock market. And besides, you know how Republicans are: there ain't no problem what cain't be fixed with mo-nay!

I think that his past history as chairman of Goldman-Sachs might point to a desire to toss his buddies some government cash.

I don't think that's quite it.  I think he was figuring on solving the problem as if he was running Goldman Sachs still, not as a government employee.  He saw a great chance to buy up (possibly) undervalued assets, to improve the profits at the organization he was currently working for.

I'm not so sure about this anymore.  The more one things about the situation, the less plausible it seems that these assets can be had at a discount and simultaneously fix the problems in the system.

If these assets, as currently marked (which is down many times) are underpriced, why is literally NO ONE interested in them?  There has to be a hedge fund out there willing to take the risk of these assets given the right price.  My guess is that no one is willing to sell at that "right price" because it would cause them to re-mark their whole portfolio of these assets, and that would be disastrous for their balance sheet (making everything worse).  So the only way a massive gov't purchase of these assets can accomplish the stated goals is if they overpay for them.

menglish wrote:

JakeTheTall wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

I think that his past history as chairman of Goldman-Sachs might point to a desire to toss his buddies some government cash.

I don't think that's quite it.  I think he was figuring on solving the problem as if he was running Goldman Sachs still, not as a government employee.  He saw a great chance to buy up (possibly) undervalued assets, to improve the profits at the organization he was currently working for.

I'm not so sure about this anymore.  The more one things about the situation, the less plausible it seems that these assets can be had at a discount and simultaneously fix the problems in the system.

If these assets, as currently marked (which is down many times) are underpriced, why is literally NO ONE interested in them?  There has to be a hedge fund out there willing to take the risk of these assets given the right price.  My guess is that no one is willing to sell at that "right price" because it would cause them to re-mark their whole portfolio of these assets, and that would be disastrous for their balance sheet (making everything worse).  So the only way a massive gov't purchase of these assets can accomplish the stated goals is if they overpay for them.

Did you miss Buffet and his 5 billion?

A fair deal in my opinion. Not their fault that the other banks' actions screwed them.

So if the bailout will stop a depression in the U.S. do you support it?

Or are you willing to bet you won't be one of the 25% unemployed/underemployed in a depression?