Comments for sursumcorda.salemsattic.com/post/should-we-be-afraid-or-very-afraid

Comment #1408

2008-10-14T18:52:07Z

Please read:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20081010/news_lz1e10schiff.html

Comment #1407

2008-10-12T22:52:56Z

Phil, I forgive you. It was more the attitude than the words, and I suspect that if you had used any off-color words, Mom would have deleted the comment.

Thanks for the apology.

Comment #1406

2008-10-11T23:19:55Z

FYI, if I'm not using any words banned by the FCC, I generally regard that as being polite. I guess I'll have to try even harder.

Comment #1405

2008-10-11T22:52:46Z

Sorry

Comment #1404

2008-10-11T21:13:38Z

Maybe the key to Colson'sarticle was "compassionate." Phil, you are being rude and unkind. It should be clear to you now that it's not just the irresponsible who are suffering in this. Anyone at all who has money in the stock market has lost a lot of savings. This includes those with IRAs and 401(k)s which was supposed to be a wise place to put money. Please be more considerate in your posts to this blog. (I am the author's daughter and it angers me when people are rude to her.)

Comment #1403

2008-10-10T11:13:49Z

Instead of stimulating productive activity by removing doubt, the bailout has impeded it by multiplying doubt. It has also encouraged lenders to hold off dealing with their bad debt in hopes of getting a better deal from the Treasury than they can dream of getting from anyone else. But postponing the banks' rendezvous with reality will not speed recovery.

BTW, if you want an essay from a christian that is *actually* intelligent I'd suggest www.daveramsey.com. Chuck Colson doesn't know jack about econ.

Comment #1402

2008-10-03T19:39:51Z

Charles Colson has an essay on the subject that is both intelligent and compassionate.

Comment #1401

2008-10-01T23:18:12Z

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

Comment #1400

2008-10-01T15:38:40Z

We are a nation full of immoral consumptive pleasure seekers full of sinful PRIDE. Neither God, nor the laws of economics will tolerate this for long.

Comment #1399

2008-10-01T15:35:16Z

"We are being told that this plan will help the economy by keeping the spigots of consumer credit flowing. However, to really address the fundamental problems, those spigots must be tightened. Since we have already borrowed and spent ourselves into bankruptcy, the last thing we need is for consumers to borrow more.

Our leaders maintain that without this bailout consumers will not be able to borrow money to buy cars. So what is wrong with that? We already have plenty of cars, and if we are broke, why do we need to buy more? Instead, we need drive our old cars longer, pay off our underwater auto loans, and produce more cars for export. It is also argued that without access to credit parents will not be able to borrow money to send their kids to school. That’s fine by me as it will force Universities to reduce tuitions to levels families can actually afford. They will either have to cut out all of that bureaucratic fat, or go out of business for lack of customers."

--Peter Schiff

We're gonna have to start producing goods and services for export, instead of doing nothing but consume.

Comment #1398

2008-10-01T15:31:19Z

If you want to educate yourself about the issue, I'd recommend reading Peter Schiff who has been right about the housing market for several years now. He's been on financial programs for a long time now having to listen to morons tell him that "bubbles are for bathtubs".

http://www.europac.net/

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/your-money/2008/05/30/permabear-peter-schiffs-worst-case-scenario.html

Comment #1397

2008-10-01T15:15:51Z

The people 'panicking' are the people at Goldman Sachs. I suppose they have been functioning stupidly, which is why we shouldn't give them taxpayer money. Real simple!

Comment #1396

2008-10-01T15:12:53Z

Then again, in our panicked efforts to quell the panic, we may very well be doing more long-term harm; emergency measures that are good short-term have a distressing tendency to hang around long after the original reasons for them have passed.

Comment #1395

2008-10-01T13:30:19Z

I may be wrong; it's an extremely complex issue in an area in which I can claim no particular expertise. But panicking = not functioning, or functioning stupidly, most of the time.

Comment #1394

2008-10-01T02:55:25Z

If everyone had a bunch of extra cash, this wouldn't be a problem in the first place. But nobody's saved any money for years.

You just said above that you were in favor of the $700 billion bailout. Sounds expensive to me. Is that what "Done Right" looks like?

Comment #1393

2008-10-01T02:05:58Z

I've read the article and listened to jerks like this guy all evening. The credit markets are functioning fine. Fine equals not lending money to people who can't pay it and right now, most people can't, you included apparently. What is needed is for the markets to drive prices lower so that people can afford to buy stuff for real.

I can't stand it when finance jerks talk about how low prices = non-functioning markets. It's like saying a scale weighing you in higher is non-functioning, lets redefine the pound.

Comment #1392

2008-10-01T01:44:02Z

This may have started as a mortgage problem, but it has gone 'way beyond that. Did you read the article? Childbirth 101 tells us that fear and feeling out of control cause pain -- our economy may have gone beyond Lamaze to the point where an epidural is all that will help, no matter how much we'd like to avoid it.

Done right, it needn't be all that expensive. If I had a whole bunch of extra cash I'd be looking to buy up some of those fire-sale assets personally. I more fear the government taking too much power than spending too much money in this case. Think Joseph and the famine in Egypt. Pharaoh made a real killing on that "bailout."

Comment #1391

2008-10-01T00:09:53Z

Question: If you're in favor of a $700 Billion bailout, why not a $10 Trillion bailout?

Comment #1390

2008-09-30T23:54:06Z

Let me put it this way. The free market is basically now recognizing that home prices are way overvalued because there aren't any "greater fools" to flip houses to anymore. Furthermore the fools that were buying houses couldn't afford the loans they used to purchase them and didn't put any money down when 'purchasing' them. Plus there is a huge oversupply of homes due to high prices leading to increasing supply. As you can see, banks holding the loans for this have serious problems.

WHat is being proposed is that taxpayers be forced to buy the loans on this junk at full price, when the free market probably values it at like 10-20%.

This will allow banks to continue to make the same loans as before but

you should be able to tell that banks could and probably would just continue to do the same thing as before, especially if we don't want recession.
we'll just have the same problem happen again later.

On the other hand if we do nothing, yes people will have to spend less and will actually have to put money down before buying a home and yes home prices will go down as a result. But shouldn't people have to do that anyway?

BTW, if you really want "something to be done" there are *toms* of other options. If you're comfortable with $700 Billion expenditures, how about $700 Billion in payroll/income tax cut commitments. That would allow taxpayers to deleverage their lives and to start actually saving money. It would also make it easier for employers to hire people.

I think $700 Billion would be too much, but I think a reasonable middle class tax cut would be acceptable and sufficient.

Comment #1389

2008-09-30T22:52:27Z

Are you insane? You claim to be responsible low debt sort of person and you like this bailout bill? You want you and your children in your and their capacity as taxpayers to pay to bailout wall street investment banks who knowingly lent money to people who had no hope of paying back the loan?

Comment #1388

2008-09-30T16:42:28Z

Cool - I didn't know how to find this data. My rep, Rick Boucher (D), whom I voted against for being too liberal for my taste, voted for the bill.

But what surprised me is that a bill, supported by Bush, apparently (as far as I can make sense of Mr. Random Observations in his Pepsi post) engineered by Republicans, gets accepted by the Democrats and turned down by the Republicans. Apparently, 25 times more people are calling their reps in anger over the plan than in support of it - why?

Finally, should we conclude that pre-boomers ought to run the country? Or Virgos?

Comment #1387

2008-09-30T12:56:04Z

I may have just had an important lesson in Civics 101. Unfortunately, I closed all those browser tabs, so I can't be sure of exactly what I was looking at. All I found when I try to go back is this: "To Amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to Provide Earnings Assistance and Tax Relief to Members of the Uniformed Services, Volunteer Firefighters, and Peace Corps Volunteers, and for Other Purposes."

Huh? Was I looking at the wrong vote all along? A listing of all the votes for yesterday shows only two that failed, this and a motion to adjourn. Was Yes, No, and No, Yes? Further research here shows that what appears to be about firefighters was actually part of HR3997, the Economic Stabilization package. Package indeed!

Civics lesson? Read the bill CAREFULLY. You never know what might be in it. Anyway, you should be able to find out how your representative voted here.

Comment #1386

2008-09-30T11:37:17Z

Where do I find out what my representative voted?

Comment #1385

2008-09-30T00:13:43Z

A day late and a dollar short, perhaps, but I waited patiently through the long process (everyone else is also writing their congressmen, apparently) and finally got to "Your message has been sent. Thank you for writing."

Thank you for reading, Mr. Feeney, if you do, and thank you much more if you subsequently act responsibly.

Comment #1384

2008-09-29T23:24:33Z

Our own representative voted NO! What was he thinking? Guilty as charged: I didn't write or call to tell him what I thought. I respect him for many things and assumed he had a modicum of sense. What was I thinking???