It wasn't about him owning the houses, it was about him not KNOWING he owned them. I mean, seriously?
Aren't most of the properties people counting investment properties, under multiple names, ultimately owned by his wife?
Yes, he's not up-to-date on his wife's investments...that's a far cry from saying he's so rich, he doesn't even know how many homes he owns. The contexts are very different.
I think the public got it, which is why the "McCain is an elitist!" attacks never really stuck.
Wow, that's a pretty good retort. You know what wasn't? "I was a POW."
It was entirely irrelevant to the issue being discussed. The fact that that issue was itself irrelevant to the presidency (arguable, but assuming we conced that) is...well, irrelevant.
Seriously, though, his idealism resulted in the shitty FP we have had through the cold war to now.
Didn't he try to give the German people a fair break after WW1 but got shot down by the Senate, France and England, who wanted to make Germany pay for the whole war?
Correct... the other allies wanted to fuck Germany's shit up, and succeeded in doing so. Wilson was also responsible for the League of Nations, I believe.
Of course because he was an obstinate bastard who wouldn't compromise (and Henry Cabot Lodge was an asshole) we never ratified the Treaty of Versailles (which of course was a stupid treaty) and the League of Nations was crippled.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
It wasn't about him owning the houses, it was about him not KNOWING he owned them. I mean, seriously?
Aren't most of the properties people counting investment properties, under multiple names, ultimately owned by his wife?
Yes, he's not up-to-date on his wife's investments...that's a far cry from saying he's so rich, he doesn't even know how many homes he owns. The contexts are very different.
I think the public got it, which is why the "McCain is an elitist!" attacks never really stuck.
Wow, that's a pretty good retort. You know what wasn't? "I was a POW."
It was entirely irrelevant to the issue being discussed. The fact that that issue was itself irrelevant to the presidency (arguable, but assuming we conced that) is...well, irrelevant.
Well, it could be that torture causes various challenges, mentally as well as his well know physical ailments, but that just leaves the question of whether we really want a mentally challenged president.
I wish this story would catch on - I really, really, really hope it catches on. But I think it's probably too complicated.
Google for new articles written about the time Bill Clinton signed that bill.
It's pretty powerful to read what people wrote 9 years ago about how this could be a disaster.
I just read that article.
Holy fucking shit. A market in the US for debt which was more then the GDP of the entire world? How was this not a giant fucking red flag to the government? Well hell, it seems it was to a lot of people. Jesus fucking christ, we're probably fucking lucky this isn't Great Depression 2: This time it's really global.
I wish this story would catch on - I really, really, really hope it catches on. But I think it's probably too complicated.
Google for new articles written about the time Bill Clinton signed that bill.
It's pretty powerful to read what people wrote 9 years ago about how this could be a disaster.
I just read that article.
Holy fucking shit. A market in the US for debt which was more then the GDP of the entire world? How was this not a giant fucking red flag to the government? Well hell, it seems it was to a lot of people. Jesus fucking christ, we're probably fucking lucky this isn't Great Depression 2: This time it's really global.
It still could be, which is why the Bush Administration is going to get away with just giving away 700 billion dollars to their friends with no oversight.
Let's just say I don't trust these assholes to do this with anything resembling ethics.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
I wish this story would catch on - I really, really, really hope it catches on. But I think it's probably too complicated.
Google for new articles written about the time Bill Clinton signed that bill.
It's pretty powerful to read what people wrote 9 years ago about how this could be a disaster.
I just read that article.
Holy fucking shit. A market in the US for debt which was more then the GDP of the entire world? How was this not a giant fucking red flag to the government? Well hell, it seems it was to a lot of people. Jesus fucking christ, we're probably fucking lucky this isn't Great Depression 2: This time it's really global.
Its also where the predatory short sellers have moved to.
I wish this story would catch on - I really, really, really hope it catches on. But I think it's probably too complicated.
Google for new articles written about the time Bill Clinton signed that bill.
It's pretty powerful to read what people wrote 9 years ago about how this could be a disaster.
I just read that article.
Holy fucking shit. A market in the US for debt which was more then the GDP of the entire world? How was this not a giant fucking red flag to the government? Well hell, it seems it was to a lot of people. Jesus fucking christ, we're probably fucking lucky this isn't Great Depression 2: This time it's really global.
Thus it becomes obvious another reason why many of us weren't much more thrilled for a third Clinton term than we were for a Bush fourth term.
Dracomicron on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
So the GOP doesn't want homeowners in danger of foreclosure included in the buyout deal. Because spending a rough trillion dollars of taxpayer money on big business fuck ups is fine, spending that taxpayer money on taxpayers in crisis is too far.
I wish this story would catch on - I really, really, really hope it catches on. But I think it's probably too complicated.
Google for new articles written about the time Bill Clinton signed that bill.
It's pretty powerful to read what people wrote 9 years ago about how this could be a disaster.
I just read that article.
Holy fucking shit. A market in the US for debt which was more then the GDP of the entire world? How was this not a giant fucking red flag to the government? Well hell, it seems it was to a lot of people. Jesus fucking christ, we're probably fucking lucky this isn't Great Depression 2: This time it's really global.
Thus it becomes obvious another reason why many of us weren't much more thrilled for a third Clinton term than we were for a Bush fourth term.
Meh, Clinton didn't really have much Political capital to use to fight bills like this.
I wish this story would catch on - I really, really, really hope it catches on. But I think it's probably too complicated.
Google for new articles written about the time Bill Clinton signed that bill.
It's pretty powerful to read what people wrote 9 years ago about how this could be a disaster.
I just read that article.
Holy fucking shit. A market in the US for debt which was more then the GDP of the entire world? How was this not a giant fucking red flag to the government? Well hell, it seems it was to a lot of people. Jesus fucking christ, we're probably fucking lucky this isn't Great Depression 2: This time it's really global.
Thus it becomes obvious another reason why many of us weren't much more thrilled for a third Clinton term than we were for a Bush fourth term.
Meh, Clinton didn't really have much Political capital to use to fight bills like this.
I doubt he would have, though- Clinton was very much a Washington Consensus, market deregulation type.
Professor Phobos on
0
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
So the GOP doesn't want homeowners in danger of foreclosure included in the buyout deal.
I don't see where this is. The govt would be buying the debt. This has to happen before they can start forgiving loans.
Isn't that essentially what Paulson is implying? Don't add households to the buyout deal?
EDIT: I read this wrong-
Democrats said they understood the need for urgency but insisted that the measure needed to provide help for homeowners threatened with losing their homes, perhaps by changes in bankruptcy laws to allow for mortgages to be modified, and by capping pay and benefit packages for executives at the huge Wall Street firms that will be selling their bad debt to the government.
"I don't want the American taxpayer to get this bad debt and then the guy (whose company once held the bad loans) gets millions of dollars on his way out the door," said House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass.
I wish this story would catch on - I really, really, really hope it catches on. But I think it's probably too complicated.
Google for new articles written about the time Bill Clinton signed that bill.
It's pretty powerful to read what people wrote 9 years ago about how this could be a disaster.
I just read that article.
Holy fucking shit. A market in the US for debt which was more then the GDP of the entire world? How was this not a giant fucking red flag to the government? Well hell, it seems it was to a lot of people. Jesus fucking christ, we're probably fucking lucky this isn't Great Depression 2: This time it's really global.
Thus it becomes obvious another reason why many of us weren't much more thrilled for a third Clinton term than we were for a Bush fourth term.
Meh, Clinton didn't really have much Political capital to use to fight bills like this.
Which is essentially my point. The Clintons play ball. That's what they do. Professor Phobos has a key point: Not only did Clinton manage to make his presidency a joke (a good joke, mind you, the opposite of what Bush II is) in his last few years, but he was a DLC type who was mostly interested in political expediency. He was a good manager, but he wasn't willing to fight for much.
Obama sounds like his instincts are anti-this bailout:
The news of the day isn’t good.
The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has led us to a perilous moment. They said they wanted to let the market run free but instead they let it run wild. And now we are facing a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression
But here’s the truth:
Regardless of how we got here, we’re here today. And the circumstances we face require decisive action because your jobs, your savings, and your economic security are now at risk.
We must work quickly in a bipartisan fashion to resolve this crisis to avert an even broader economic catastrophe. But Washington also has to recognize that economic recovery requires that we act, not just to address the crisis on Wall Street, but also the crisis on Main Street and around kitchen tables across America.
As of now, the Bush Administration has only offered a concept with a staggering price tag, not a plan. Even if the U.S. Treasury recovers some or most of its investment over time, this initial outlay of up to $700 billion is sobering. And in return for their support, the American people must be assured that the deal reflects the basic principles of transparency, fairness, and reform.
First, there must be no blank check when American taxpayers are on the hook for this much money.
Second, taxpayers shouldn’t be spending a dime to reward CEOs on Wall Street.
Third, taxpayers should be protected and should be able to recoup this investment.
Fourth, this plan has to help homeowners stay in their homes.
Fifth, this is a global crisis, and the United States must insist that other nations join us in helping secure the financial markets.
Sixth, we need to start putting in place the rules of the road I’ve been calling for for years to prevent this from ever happening again.
And finally, this plan can’t just be a plan for Wall Street, it has to be a plan for Main Street. We have to come together, as Democrats and Republicans, to pass a stimulus plan that will put money in the pockets of working families, save jobs, and prevent painful budget cuts and tax hikes in our states.
So I know these are difficult days. But here’s what I also know. I know we can steer ourselves out of this crisis. That’s who we are. That’s what we’ve always done as Americans. Our nation has faced difficult times before. And at each of those moments, we’ve risen to meet the challenge because we’ve never forgotten that fundamental truth – that here in America, our destiny is not written for us; it’s written by us.
But another thing I know is this – we can’t steer ourselves out of this crisis by heading in the same, disastrous direction. And that’s what this election is all about.
Because while I certainly don’t fault Senator McCain for all of the problems we’re facing right now, I do fault the economic philosophy he’s followed during his 26 years in Washington. It’s a philosophy that says it’s ok to turn a blind eye to practices that reward financial manipulation instead of sound business decisions. It’s a philosophy that says even common-sense regulations are unnecessary and unwise. It’s a philosophy that lets Washington lobbyists shred consumer protections and distort our economy so it works for the special interests instead of working people and our country.
We’re now seeing the disastrous consequences of this philosophy all around us – on Wall Street as well as Main Street. And yet Senator McCain, who candidly admitted not long ago that he doesn’t know as much about economics as he should, wants to keep going down the same, disastrous path.
He calls himself “fundamentally a deregulator,” when reckless deregulation and lack of oversight is a big part of the problem.
And here’s the really scary part. Now this “Great Deregulator” wants to turn his attention to health care.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Oh my. openleft has some anonymous emails from a congressman talking about the bailout process, and they have some very colorful language about the whole thing:
Paulsen and congressional Republicans, or the few that will actually vote for this (most will be unwilling to take responsibility for the consequences of their policies), have said that there can't be any "add ons," or addition provisions. Fuck that. I don't really want to trigger a world wide depression (that's not hyperbole, that's a distinct possibility), but I'm not voting for a blank check for $700 billion for those mother fuckers.
Nancy said she wanted to include the second "stimulus" package that the Bush Administration and congressional Republicans have blocked. I don't want to trade a $700 billion dollar giveaway to the most unsympathetic human beings on the planet for a few fucking bridges. I want reforms of the industry, and I want it to be as punitive as possible.
Henry Waxman has suggested corporate government reforms, including CEO compensation, as the price for this. Some members have publicly suggested allowing modification of mortgages in bankruptcy, and the House Judiciary Committee staff is also very interested in that. That's a real possibility.
We may strip out all the gives to industry in the predatory mortgage lending bill that the House passed last November, which hasn't budged in the Senate, and include that in the bill. There are other ideas on the table but they are going to be tough to work out before next week.
I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family. That would just be petty and childish, and completely in character for me.
I'm open to other ideas, and I am looking for volunteers who want to hold the sons of bitches so I can beat the crap out of them.
Here's the industry's play: progressives will approach Nancy with ideas for reform, and she'll agree to push for their proposals, and she'll really mean it. Then industry lobbyists will go to Dennis Moore, Melissa Bean and a few other Democrats, and tell them how dire the consequences of the proposals would be, and that the members who understand how the economy works need to step up to stop Nancy and the crazy liberals from doing something rash. Then those Democrats will go to Steny and tell him how terrible Nancy's crazy ideas would be, and how we can't rush into something like that without much, much more thought. Maybe Barney will try to talk to Dennis or Melissa, but it will become apparent quickly that they have no idea what they're talking about; they're just repeating by rote what the lobbyists told them to say. Melissa may actually be dumber than Sarah Palin. Barney will realize he might as well talk to the lobbyists directly and save a step. The lobbyists will agree to something inconsequential, but certainly nothing that would really affect the industry's conduct. Then the leadership will do the math and conclude that because the vast majority of Republicans will vote against any bill, we can't get enough votes without the Dennis and Melissa crowd. The only way, our leadership will conclude, to get anything at all passed is to include nothing more than the inconsequential proposals that the lobbyists agreed to. Then we'll all go along because it would be wildly irresponsible not to act when we're staring over the brink of a complete collapse of world financial markets.
I'd diagram it for you if I had a chalkboard. I've seen the play again and again, and it always goes for long yardage.
The only defense for the play is for a significant group of Democrats to say they won't vote for any proposal that isn't unpalatable to industry, and mean it. It's a pretty high stakes game of chicken, but otherwise we come out of this with nothing but a $700 billion giveaway to a crooked industry.
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
So there's a Princeton survey that I just did asking me to predict the election outcome.
This was not anywhere close to being as straightforward as 'here's a map, make with the reds and blues'. Oh, no. There were 28 questions and every last one of them had to do with this group of states:
*Illinois
*Kansas
*Nebraska
*Oregon
*Connecticut
*New Jersey
*Maryland
In every possible permutation I was asked about these seven and these seven only-
"Okay, supposing Obama wins Nebraska, what are the chances McCain wins New Jersey AND Obama wins Maryland?"
"OBAMA'S NOT GOING TO WIN NEBRASKA YOU DOLTS AAAAARGH"
"Okay, now what are the chances that Obama wins Kansas OR McCain wins Illinois?"
"Please go away. I have a gun."
(I don't actually have a gun. Princeton doesn't know that.)
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Seriously though, whoever that is, real or not, is right. A $700 billion blank check to the chucklefucks who created this mess, with no regulatory changes, is a bigger disaster in the making.
Senjutsu on
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
Why is it when shit like this happens, people still think 'oh shit, regulations, have to stop that!'?
This is their gameplan, folks. This is what they're doing.
If the image doesn't show up, it's a shop of the famous National Lampoon "we'll shoot this dog" cover with the text "If You Don't Give Henry Paulson $700,000,000,000 We'll Wreck The Economy And Shoot This Dog."
Well i have decided to join the navy so now this election has taken on a whole new meaning for me and my family. All the hours i have put in for Obama in Ohio better pay off.
You been to MEPS yet?
narvinye on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
What's going to probably end up happening is the Dems let it stew for a bit, just long enough to let it sink that this is a Republican bill, and make sure voters hate it nice and frothy.
That looks to be already done.
Then they water the thing down as best they can and then let it pass (because the 'Democrats surrender again' accusation is a lot easier to take than 'and the Democrats did nothing'). They'll take the hit, knowing the GOP takes a bigger hit, and then run like hell for their districts and leave Obama to do his job in the debates.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
I think the amazingly short text of the proposed plan is going to hurt it more than help. You condense it so much that literally anyone can understand it and they're going to quickly realize it's a piece of shit.
There is literally only one problem with the legislation. It does not allow oversight.
There are other problems in that it doesn't fix the underlying problem with the lack of regulation, but those are tangential to the legislation in question.
What's going to probably end up happening is the Dems let it stew for a bit, just long enough to let it sink that this is a Republican bill, and make sure voters hate it nice and frothy.
That looks to be already done.
Then they water the thing down as best they can and then let it pass (because the 'Democrats surrender again' accusation is a lot easier to take than 'and the Democrats did nothing'). They'll take the hit, knowing the GOP takes a bigger hit, and then run like hell for their districts and leave Obama to do his job in the debates.
I sure as hell hope so, because the bill as it is now is going to be the centerpiece of a future book titled "The Administration That Stole America."
There is literally only one problem with the legislation. It does not allow oversight.
There are other problems in that it doesn't fix the underlying problem with the lack of regulation, but those are tangential to the legislation in question.
No, not really. Naked capitalism has a nice post titled "Why you should hate the treasury bailout proposal". There is nothing here to protect us from being robbed, and it seems pretty implicit that the intent is to pay above market value for the toxic debt. And given that foreigners are the ones who have been footing most of the federal debt as of late, the repercussions could be just as bad.
This isn't a plan, this is a blank check and a transfer of wealth to the least deserving who got us into this mess.
Savant on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
Well i have decided to join the navy so now this election has taken on a whole new meaning for me and my family. All the hours i have put in for Obama in Ohio better pay off.
You been to MEPS yet?
Man, I should start a thread for dudes in the military or about to join. Didn't realize there were so many of us on these boards.
Also, here's my question: where the FUCK are we gonna get 700 billion dollars from? Seriously, where? Isn't our entire fucking economy based on credit from China right now?
Well i have decided to join the navy so now this election has taken on a whole new meaning for me and my family. All the hours i have put in for Obama in Ohio better pay off.
You been to MEPS yet?
Man, I should start a thread for dudes in the military or about to join. Didn't realize there were so many of us on these boards.
Also, here's my question: where the FUCK are we gonna get 700 billion dollars from? Seriously, where? Isn't our entire fucking economy based on credit from China right now?
Ironically, our government is getting fantastic "low rate offers" right now, as investors scramble to the safety of Treasuries. Interest rates have fallen below 1%!
Well i have decided to join the navy so now this election has taken on a whole new meaning for me and my family. All the hours i have put in for Obama in Ohio better pay off.
You been to MEPS yet?
Man, I should start a thread for dudes in the military or about to join. Didn't realize there were so many of us on these boards.
Also, here's my question: where the FUCK are we gonna get 700 billion dollars from? Seriously, where? Isn't our entire fucking economy based on credit from China right now?
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Negotiators from the campaigns of Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain agreed to format details in the October 2nd debate between Vice Presidential running mates Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin, according to sources involved in the talks.
At issue was the length and duration of the questioning period for both candidates, as well as the topics covered. The format finally settled on was split between the candidates. Mr. Biden will be governed by shorter answer periods than the presidential candidates will see, and also a shorter response period to Palin’s answers. His range of topic areas will vary between foreign policy, widely believed to be his strong suit, and areas such as the economy, energy policy and social issues.
Mrs. Palin will be governed by a slightly altered set of rules. Instead of being asked questions by the moderator, she will be given a series of nouns, all of which fit into categories such as “Things That Are Sharp” and “Places You Wear Boots”. Her task will be to name the category in which all of the people, places or things fit, and do so for six such categories in sixty seconds. Mr. Biden, kept in a soundproof booth, will then have to come out and replicate the task. The winner will be determined based on who either names all six categories most quickly or, barring completion, who names the most categories accurately.
Posts
Wow, that's a pretty good retort. You know what wasn't? "I was a POW."
It was entirely irrelevant to the issue being discussed. The fact that that issue was itself irrelevant to the presidency (arguable, but assuming we conced that) is...well, irrelevant.
Of course because he was an obstinate bastard who wouldn't compromise (and Henry Cabot Lodge was an asshole) we never ratified the Treaty of Versailles (which of course was a stupid treaty) and the League of Nations was crippled.
Well, it could be that torture causes various challenges, mentally as well as his well know physical ailments, but that just leaves the question of whether we really want a mentally challenged president.
I'm going to hell, aren't I?
Holy fucking shit. A market in the US for debt which was more then the GDP of the entire world? How was this not a giant fucking red flag to the government? Well hell, it seems it was to a lot of people. Jesus fucking christ, we're probably fucking lucky this isn't Great Depression 2: This time it's really global.
It still could be, which is why the Bush Administration is going to get away with just giving away 700 billion dollars to their friends with no oversight.
Let's just say I don't trust these assholes to do this with anything resembling ethics.
Its also where the predatory short sellers have moved to.
Thus it becomes obvious another reason why many of us weren't much more thrilled for a third Clinton term than we were for a Bush fourth term.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/21/paulson-resisting-democra_n_128035.html
I don't see where this is. The govt would be buying the debt. This has to happen before they can start forgiving loans.
I doubt he would have, though- Clinton was very much a Washington Consensus, market deregulation type.
Isn't that essentially what Paulson is implying? Don't add households to the buyout deal?
EDIT: I read this wrong-
Which is essentially my point. The Clintons play ball. That's what they do. Professor Phobos has a key point: Not only did Clinton manage to make his presidency a joke (a good joke, mind you, the opposite of what Bush II is) in his last few years, but he was a DLC type who was mostly interested in political expediency. He was a good manager, but he wasn't willing to fight for much.
I want to see what Obama does about this.
This was not anywhere close to being as straightforward as 'here's a map, make with the reds and blues'. Oh, no. There were 28 questions and every last one of them had to do with this group of states:
*Illinois
*Kansas
*Nebraska
*Oregon
*Connecticut
*New Jersey
*Maryland
In every possible permutation I was asked about these seven and these seven only-
"Okay, supposing Obama wins Nebraska, what are the chances McCain wins New Jersey AND Obama wins Maryland?"
"OBAMA'S NOT GOING TO WIN NEBRASKA YOU DOLTS AAAAARGH"
"Okay, now what are the chances that Obama wins Kansas OR McCain wins Illinois?"
"Please go away. I have a gun."
(I don't actually have a gun. Princeton doesn't know that.)
XBL Gametag: mailarde
Screen Digest LOL3RZZ
Wexler is more of a presence on the blogs and nearly as liberal, that's my bet.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I'm rather pessimistic about this thing, because it seems like we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
You could be right, he mentions the Judiciary Committee staff
This is their gameplan, folks. This is what they're doing.
If the image doesn't show up, it's a shop of the famous National Lampoon "we'll shoot this dog" cover with the text "If You Don't Give Henry Paulson $700,000,000,000 We'll Wreck The Economy And Shoot This Dog."
You been to MEPS yet?
That looks to be already done.
Then they water the thing down as best they can and then let it pass (because the 'Democrats surrender again' accusation is a lot easier to take than 'and the Democrats did nothing'). They'll take the hit, knowing the GOP takes a bigger hit, and then run like hell for their districts and leave Obama to do his job in the debates.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
There are other problems in that it doesn't fix the underlying problem with the lack of regulation, but those are tangential to the legislation in question.
I sure as hell hope so, because the bill as it is now is going to be the centerpiece of a future book titled "The Administration That Stole America."
No, not really. Naked capitalism has a nice post titled "Why you should hate the treasury bailout proposal". There is nothing here to protect us from being robbed, and it seems pretty implicit that the intent is to pay above market value for the toxic debt. And given that foreigners are the ones who have been footing most of the federal debt as of late, the repercussions could be just as bad.
This isn't a plan, this is a blank check and a transfer of wealth to the least deserving who got us into this mess.
Also, here's my question: where the FUCK are we gonna get 700 billion dollars from? Seriously, where? Isn't our entire fucking economy based on credit from China right now?
Ironically, our government is getting fantastic "low rate offers" right now, as investors scramble to the safety of Treasuries. Interest rates have fallen below 1%!
China