Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Senate bailout PASSES

Rate this topic


brian0918

Recommended Posts

Well, CSPAN says the bailout just passed. That's it.

I'm glad it passed! We obviously need tax breaks and credits for:

  • "Certain wooden arrows designed for use by children" (Sec 503) :dough:
  • Wool Research (Sec. 325)
  • Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
  • Litigants in the 1989 Exxon-Valdez oil spill (Sec. 504)
  • Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
  • American Samoa (Sec. 309)
  • Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
  • Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
  • Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
  • Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
  • Railroads (Sec. 316)
  • Auto Racing Tracks (317)
  • District of Columbia (Sec. 322)

:)

This is how little it takes to buy a senator, for whatever purpose you wish.

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

As far as I know from my early reading of the Draft, they have carte blanch to do whatever they want in order to "stabilize" the economy. Hope I'm wrong about that, but that was my understanding of it. I guess Paulson becomes the Credit Czar,if it passes in the House Thursday.

:)

I wasn't able to keep track of who voted Yes, but I think at least one of my Senators voted Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well let's be clear though - this is a new bill that the Senate passed. The House still has to vote on this new bill on Friday before Bush can sign it into law. So there is technically still two days of hope to convince the House to vote it down.

...There's more headbanging in this thread than a Metallica concert.

Edited by KevinDW78
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there is technically still two days of hope to convince the House to vote it down.

Be that as it may, I don't expect the House to vote against it, and thereby come across as the bad guys. They all know that the tax payers do not want it -- some for the wrong reasons, but still, they have been speaking out against it. And I guess technically, the Senate does not represent the people anyhow, but rather their state, but both my Senators voted for the damned thing!

I did notice something, however, I don't know that they voted for the legislation by the same name as they have been calling it, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. At least the bit of C-SPAN I watched where they were debating it didn't have that title up there. So, I wonder if in some way they are pulling a fast one: Yes, the people are against the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, but that isn't what we voted on tonight. I hope they were not that sleazy about it, but they also never acknowledged that it was their legislation that got us to this mess in the first place, and never wanted to reverse such legislation. The very same problem is going to be there, and I guess they will be calling for another bail-out in a few year's time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I heard listening to the senators speaking was essentially "this bill isn't ideal, but we have to act or we'll suffer because credits frozen". They do not seem to understand at all why banks aren't lending as much or to each other. They think that throwing more paper money at it is the solution. If I write my reps again for the house voting I will (in addition) stress the real reason for the tight lending. If I understand it right these two articles help shed some light on why:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2...rust_capit.html

"There has always been a stigma attached to borrowing directly from the Fed and for good reason. If a bank can't get other banks to lend it money, that tells the market something about the condition of the bank in question. Last August, Bernanke convinced three large banks to borrow at the discount window in an effort to remove that stigma. When that didn't work, he concocted a scheme to allow banks to borrow from the Fed in anonymity via a mechanism he called the Term Auction Facility. When Bear Stearns blew up, he added the Term Securities Lending Facility for investment banks. By removing the stigma of borrowing from the Fed and hiding the identity of the borrowers, Bernanke removed important information from the market."

and from KendallJ's recent blog post

http://crucibleandcolumn.blogspot.com/2008...is-no-good.html

"By implying that it will [meddle in the economy], government actually impedes the free market from functioning as it should since distressed bank management are hoping to preserve their operations through government action, rather than lose their banks in recapitalizations."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was only able to e-mail one of my senators, as for some reason the other senator's website rejected my message for some reason. Perhaps an influx of e-mails?

Anyhow, the good thing is that the one that did receive my message responded that she opposed the package, but her reasons are flawed. She thinks this crisis came about by a failed philosophy (good) that rewards greed (not good). I sent her a response clarifying my position on government intervention and hopefully all makes some impact.

The house is voting on the bill tonight right? Hopefully those who gave a principled stand against the bill continue to do so. We need all the luck in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since they're voting on it tomorrow that gives time to write our reps again. I'm going to stress the real reason that credit is "frozen" and that the ban on short selling only adds to the market instability and should be lifted immediately. At least I will if this old codger's web server can let up for a moment to allow me to get through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the few who voted no last night...

Allard ®

Barasso ®

Brownback ®

Bunning ®

Cantwell (D)

Cochran ®

Crapo ®

DeMint ®

Dole ®

Dorgan (D)

Enzi ®

Feingold (D)

Inhofe ®

Johnson (D)

Landrieu (D)

Nelson (FL) (D)

Roberts ®

Sanders (I)

Sessions ®

Shelby ®

Stabenow (D)

Tester (D)

Vitter ®

Wicker ®

Wyden (D)

We can still hope the House doesn't pass it, but with all the pork they added to make both Dems and Reps happy, I'm not optimistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...