• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Well, whatever it is, it’s better than being a Republican.

They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!

Let there be snark.

Hey Washington Post, “Democracy Dies in Darkness” was supposed to be a warning, not a mission statement.

I am pretty sure these ‘journalists’ were not always such a bootlicking sycophants.

Rupert, come get your orange boy, you petrified old dinosaur turd.

“Perhaps I should have considered other options.” (head-desk)

The real work of an opposition party is to hold the people in power accountable.

Come on, man.

President Musk and Trump are both poorly raised, coddled 8 year old boys.

We will not go back.

Innocent people do not delay justice.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

The Supreme Court cannot be allowed to become the ultimate, unaccountable arbiter of everything.

Hot air and ill-informed banter

Text STOP to opt out of updates on war plans.

Marge, god is saying you’re stupid.

This chaos was totally avoidable.

I desperately hope that, yet again, i am wrong.

Since when do we limit our critiques to things we could do better ourselves?

Fundamental belief of white supremacy: white people are presumed innocent, minorities are presumed guilty.

Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.

Compromise? There is no middle ground between a firefighter and an arsonist.

When someone says they “love freedom”, rest assured they don’t mean yours.

Mobile Menu

  • Seattle Meet-up Post
  • 2025 Activism
  • Targeted Political Fundraising
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • COVID-19
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • 2025 Activism
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • Targeted Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Politics / Domestic Politics / Not Socialism

Not Socialism

by John Cole|  October 30, 20088:36 am| 50 Comments

This post is in: Domestic Politics

FacebookTweetEmail

Lots going on in bailout news today:

U.S. banks getting more than $163 billion from the Treasury Department for new lending are on pace to pay more than half of that sum to their shareholders, with government permission, over the next three years.

The government said it was giving banks more money so they could make more loans. Dollars paid to shareholders don’t serve that purpose, but Treasury officials say that suspending quarterly dividend payments would have deterred banks from participating in the voluntary program.

Critics, including economists and members of Congress, question why banks should get government money if they already have enough money to pay dividends — or conversely, why banks that need government money are still spending so much on dividends.

Meanwhile, where the hell did all the money go at AIG:

The American International Group is rapidly running through $123 billion in emergency lending provided by the Federal Reserve, raising questions about how a company claiming to be solvent in September could have developed such a big hole by October. Some analysts say at least part of the shortfall must have been there all along, hidden by irregular accounting.

“You don’t just suddenly lose $120 billion overnight,” said Donn Vickrey of Gradient Analytics, an independent securities research firm in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Mr. Vickrey says he believes A.I.G. must have already accumulated tens of billions of dollars worth of losses by mid-September, when it came close to collapse and received an $85 billion emergency line of credit by the Fed. That loan was later supplemented by a $38 billion lending facility.

How long before AIG is back for more money, and how much will they need. And will they get it?

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Obama Chronicles
Next Post: Missing The Point »

Reader Interactions

50Comments

  1. 1.

    Shygetz

    October 30, 2008 at 8:39 am

    Bullshit! This pisses me off to no end.

  2. 2.

    David Hunt

    October 30, 2008 at 8:41 am

    How long before AIG is back for more money, and how much will they need. And will they get it?

    Not much time at all. Maybe the Dog Ate It. Today’s 4:41 am posting

  3. 3.

    robertdsc

    October 30, 2008 at 8:42 am

    What a goddamned waste.

  4. 4.

    Tim H.

    October 30, 2008 at 8:43 am

    Pretty soon.

    A shitpile.

    The plundering will continue until morale improves.

  5. 5.

    JGabriel

    October 30, 2008 at 8:46 am

    And in similiar news, Mark Leibovich at The New York Times:

    The wealthy, though, get a little less love at Mr. Obama’s rallies. "How many people here make less than $250,000 a year?" Mr. Obama says, asking for a show of hands, wanting to recognize all of those whose taxes he says would not be raised in an Obama administration. Hands shoot up, followed by big cheers – people celebrating nonwealth.

    People at McCain and Palin rallies often accuse Democrats of just wanting handouts. "A lot of people on the other side just want free money," said Susan Emrich, at a McCain-Palin rally in Hershey on Tuesday.

    Why is a tax break considered a "handout" if the recipient earns less than $250K per year, but considered the "rewards of productivity" if the recipient earns more than that?

    It just seems like a rather strange worldview.

    .

  6. 6.

    greynoldsct00

    October 30, 2008 at 8:47 am

    And I heard yesterday that Morgan Stanley, etc are hording cash so that they can pay BONUSES this year at an average of $102,000 per employee. Sorry don’t have a link, saw the story on the Today Show. Bonuses. We’re bailing them out, and they give out bonuses.

  7. 7.

    Person of choler

    October 30, 2008 at 8:47 am

    Nobody plundered here

  8. 8.

    greynoldsct00

    October 30, 2008 at 8:49 am

    "rewards of productivity"

    Strictly an attempt at good PR for rewarding their buddies…I can’t believe more people don’t see that

  9. 9.

    JGabriel

    October 30, 2008 at 8:51 am

    The American International Group is rapidly running through $123 billion in emergency lending provided by the Federal Reserve, raising questions about how a company claiming to be solvent in September could have developed such a big hole by October.

    Sounds like AIG engineered the $125 billion just to keep the party going.

    I think we, as in "We the People", got played and AIG will just spend whatever we give them on junkets, etc., until they crash.

    .

  10. 10.

    r€nato

    October 30, 2008 at 8:51 am

    Maybe next time the government is asked to hand out over $100 billion to a company that needs a lifeline, they’ll demand to take a look at their books – including their off-book ‘assets’ – and see how deep in the hole they really are.

  11. 11.

    The Pentagon

    October 30, 2008 at 8:52 am

    “You don’t just suddenly lose $120 billion overnight,”

    I beg to differ.

  12. 12.

    Xecklothxayyquou Gilchrist

    October 30, 2008 at 8:54 am

    This is why the collapse has been such a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I’m glad it happened now rather than in, say, February, so the Republicans can’t tar the Democrats with it as easily. On the other, you know nothing that has a hope of actually doing anything other than lining pockets can be done about it before Bush leaves office.

  13. 13.

    Dennis - SGMM

    October 30, 2008 at 8:54 am

    Meanwhile, GM has its hand out for some billions and, oh yes, the insurance companies would like some money too.
    Why don’t they just leave the doors of the Treasury unlocked and let these guys back up the trucks?

  14. 14.

    JGabriel

    October 30, 2008 at 8:55 am

    r€nato:

    Maybe next time the government is asked to hand out over $100 billion to a company that needs a lifeline, they’ll demand to take a look at their books…

    Only if it’s a Democratic administration.

    .

  15. 15.

    Rick Taylor

    October 30, 2008 at 8:56 am

    The government said it was giving banks more money so they could make more loans. Dollars paid to shareholders don’t serve that purpose, but Treasury officials say that suspending quarterly dividend payments would have deterred banks from participating in the voluntary program.

    One of the earliest suggestions I heard an economist give to treat the crises as an alternative to the Paulson plan was to (among other things) require the banks to cease paying dividends. The rational was that no bank could do that on their own as it would be signaling weakness, even if it would help the industry as a whole.

    The problem is that so many of the people running things are ideologically driven, the free market is always the answer, you never want to interfere with the private sector, etc. The upshot is that even when they’re forced by circumstances to implement government directed solutions, their heart isn’t in it and they don’t follow through, which means we get the worst of both worlds.

  16. 16.

    Genine

    October 30, 2008 at 8:59 am

    It just seems like a rather strange worldview.

    Yes, it is. The worldview is the wealthy are, somehow, better than others. That’s why they’re wealthy. I know a lot of poor and lower-middle class who think that way.

    This whole thing is bullshit. They should not be paying out dividends. If they wouldn’t take the bailout without being able to give money to their friends, then I guess the situation isn’t that bad, is it?

    Is this blackmail? Is that the whole crux of the matter? They know that Bush and his boys are on the way out. It appears as though McCain isn’t getting in, so this is the last shot for the Old Boys Club to get more from the Government. First, the Iraq war lined their pockets and now this.

    I’m glad that P2P lending networks are on the rise. Its not big yet, but its a way for people tp help each other and bypass banks. There are some other financial alternatives out there as well. I need to start reading up on them more. It gives me hope and optimism for the future.

  17. 17.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    October 30, 2008 at 9:02 am

    I can’t remember if you linked to this Joe Nocera piece in the NY Times but it has a real gem in it:

    In point of fact, the dirty little secret of the banking industry is that it has no intention of using the money to make new loans. But this executive was the first insider who’s been indiscreet enough to say it within earshot of a journalist.

    (He didn’t mean to, of course, but I obtained the call-in number and listened to a recording.)

    “Twenty-five billion dollars is obviously going to help the folks who are struggling more than Chase,” he began. “What we do think it will help us do is perhaps be a little bit more active on the acquisition side or opportunistic side for some banks who are still struggling. And I would not assume that we are done on the acquisition side just because of the Washington Mutual and Bear Stearns mergers. I think there are going to be some great opportunities for us to grow in this environment, and I think we have an opportunity to use that $25 billion in that way and obviously depending on whether recession turns into depression or what happens in the future, you know, we have that as a backstop.”

    My problem with the bailout is not the amount of money involved so much as it is that they didn’t attached enough strings. Jesus, they have more strings attached to a $300 welfare check to some poor fucker in Missouri, don’t they? In their haste to pass this bill I think it was poorly crafted for political expediency so everyone could get back to campaigning. The Democrats better fix this quickly or they will have a revolution on their hands. Even by government standards $700 billion isn’t chump change.

  18. 18.

    JGabriel

    October 30, 2008 at 9:04 am

    WaPo (as quoted by John Cole at top):

    The government said it was giving banks more money so they could make more loans. Dollars paid to shareholders don’t serve that purpose, but Treasury officials say that suspending quarterly dividend payments would have deterred banks from participating in the voluntary program.

    This is really infuriating. Who gives a flying fuck whether the banks participate if they DON’T USE THE MONEY FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE?

    Fucking assholes. This is the continuing result of the oxymoronic "self-regulation" fantasy – let the banks decide how to spend their bailout money, no strings attached! They wouldn’t possibly decide to make the same decisions to go for short-term profits that got them into this mess.

    .

  19. 19.

    Punchy

    October 30, 2008 at 9:06 am

    How long before AIG is back for more money, and how much will they need. And will they get it?

    2 weeks, $200 billion more, of course. SATSQ.

    BTW, you missed this. LSS, the gov’t is going to reward those fuckers who bought $500K homes on an elementary school teacher’s budget by reworking their mortgage, while everyone who used common sense and made their payments and didnt buy 3 SUVs and a boat get nothing.

    Peeps at CR were HOT over this, and I cannot blame them.

  20. 20.

    Sour Kraut

    October 30, 2008 at 9:10 am

    Why don’t they just leave the doors of the Treasury unlocked and let these guys back up the trucks?

    Because then they’ll find out the only thing left in the treasury is a giant Post-it that reads:

    "Dear U.S.A.–

    I.O.U. $10 Trillion

    Love,
    D. Cheney & Friends"

    Oh, and "irregular accounting"? I remember the good old days, when they just called it "fraud."

  21. 21.

    Dennis - SGMM

    October 30, 2008 at 9:14 am

    …while everyone who used common sense and made their payments and didnt buy 3 SUVs and a boat get nothing.

    We get the bill. Speaking as someone who didn’t re-fi, whose cars are 9 and 16 years old, and who has kept up with my payments I am furious.
    I heard someone on NPR this morning say, "Well, if their payments were lower these people would be able to stay in their homes." If the payments were lower I’d have a fucking Maserati and a ski boat.

  22. 22.

    D. Mason

    October 30, 2008 at 9:17 am

    The problem is that so many of the people running things are ideologically driven, the free market is always the answer, you never want to interfere with the private sector, etc.

    I’m sorry that’s simply not true. That’s the ideology they espouse but I haven’t seen a single example of them actually putting these policies in place. They practice crony capitalism, privilege for their friends. De-regulation when it makes it easier to horde money, benefit from a monopoly and rip off the tax-payers but not for the sake of a free market. They toil diligently to keep the market working on behalf of a few super-wealthy elite constituents. That’s basically the opposite of a free market.

  23. 23.

    NonyNony

    October 30, 2008 at 9:18 am

    This is really infuriating. Who gives a flying fuck whether the banks participate if they DON’T USE THE MONEY FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE?

    It was painlfully clear to me (and a lot of other people) that Paulson’s whole plan amounted to:

    1) Make it look like the government was doing something
    2) Don’t actually do anything

    (1) was there to "restore confidence in the credit market". The government jumping into the fray was supposed to project an image that everything was going to be okay because the US government was going to step in to make sure that things didn’t fail.

    (2) is ideologically driven. They still refused to admit that sometimes government does things better than the market. They still refused to admit that the market can fail.

    Congress pushed some things into the plan to make (2) less bad than what Paulson wanted, but with the current administration basically responsible for running the show, and with the Republicans and Blue Dogs in Congress being who they are, there wasn’t going to be a whole lot they could do to force the issue. They put the hooks in, but it still requires an active partner in the administration to make the hooks work.

    I think Paulson is finally realizing that the market has failed. Greenspan going on the teevee and having his public "there is no Libertarian Jesus" moment should have forced that realization if nothing else has. But that hasn’t translated to him actually doing anything about (2) – probably mostly because his entire model of how the world works has crumbled right before his eyes and he has no idea how to rebuild it from scratch.

  24. 24.

    J.

    October 30, 2008 at 9:22 am

    I hope you have access to or are a near a toilet people, because what I am about to tell you will make you throw up.

    Earlier this week I had lunch with "a friend," whose spouse works at AIG on the investment side. She was hired, I believe, this summer or else late spring. I asked my friend if she was still employed. Without waiting a second he stated, "She has a guaranteed contract!" I asked him, "What does that mean?" He said, it meant she had a guaranteed salary AND a guaranteed (are you sitting down?) $400,000 BONUS, to be paid March 2009, in full.

    I care about this person and his family (they have three young kids) deeply, but I couldn’t keep my outrage hidden. We had a "spirited" discussion, with him saying, "hey, we still have to pay our bills" and "she wouldn’t have gone to work there unless they offered her X, Y, and Z" (i.e., the big bucks).

    Now multiply this story/contract by, oh, 1,000, probably more, and you can see where our tax dollars/the government’s money will be going.

    Makes me ill.

    Btw, don’t forget to cast your vote for the scariest candidate/politician!

  25. 25.

    Mr Furious

    October 30, 2008 at 9:24 am

    Yup. Most of the sensible economist-based alternative plans I recall reading about had a dividend-freeze included.

    The SHOULD BE a dis-incentive to participate in the plan. If the comany is healthy enough to pay dividends then it doesn’t need a bailout.

    If it DOES participate in the bailout, the taxpayers should get paid back FIRST.

  26. 26.

    Dennis - SGMM

    October 30, 2008 at 9:24 am

    It gets better. I heard a conservative commentator on one of the talk shows say that the danger is that we’ll over-regulate the financial sector and prevent them from coming up with "creative new financial instruments."
    That would be almost as bad as forbidding holdup men the use of bazookas and Claymore mines.

  27. 27.

    Sour Kraut

    October 30, 2008 at 9:24 am

    Why don’t they just leave the doors of the Treasury unlocked and let these guys back up the trucks?

    Because then they’ll find out the only thing left in the treasury is a giant Post-it that reads:

    "Dear U.S.A.–

    I.O.U. $10 Trillion

    Love,
    D. Cheney & Friends"

    Oh, and "irregular accounting"? I remember the good old days, when they just called it "fraud."

  28. 28.

    jeff

    October 30, 2008 at 9:25 am

    The rich have established a welfare system for themselves where they come first. Everyone else gets good old fashion capitalism.

  29. 29.

    Dennis - SGMM

    October 30, 2008 at 9:27 am

    The rich have established a welfare system for themselves where they come first. Everyone else gets good old fashion capitalism.

    They get the capital, we get the myth of Horatio Alger.

  30. 30.

    Sour Kraut

    October 30, 2008 at 9:29 am

    Why don’t they just leave the doors of the Treasury unlocked and let these guys back up the trucks?

    Because then they’ll find out the only thing left in the treasury is a giant Post-it that reads:

    "Dear USA–

    I.O.U. $10 Trillion

    Love,
    D. Cheney & Friends"

    Oh, and "irregular accounting"? I remember the good old days, when they just called it "fraud."

  31. 31.

    Brian J

    October 30, 2008 at 9:39 am

    Even if the bailout was necessary in done cases wasn’t there more that could be done to prevent people from abusing it?

  32. 32.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    October 30, 2008 at 9:44 am

    I guess ol’ Jerry Reed was right in one sense: the corporate criminals got our money and we got the shaft. Any chance we can get them to issue a tube of lube for each taxpayer in the next Big Corporate Fix?

  33. 33.

    The Grand Panjandrum

    October 30, 2008 at 9:47 am

    Looks like Sour Kraut didn’t read this post, eh?

  34. 34.

    JGabriel

    October 30, 2008 at 9:49 am

    Dennis – SGMM:

    Speaking as someone who didn’t re-fi, whose cars are 9 and 16 years old, and who has kept up with my payments I am furious.

    Understandable, but don’t get distracted by the wrong target. At least some of the people who took those loans were simply taking an opportunity to improve their lives, while they could.

    They aren’t the proper target for your anger. The Bush administration, and the Republican Congress that wrote the deregulation laws that enabled this activity, and the costs of it that we all now bear, are the guys who deserve your wrath.

    .

  35. 35.

    Mr Furious

    October 30, 2008 at 9:58 am

    JGabriel,

    Only true to a degree…

    Even last night while watching the Obama infomercial, I was struck by the fact that the first family featured was gassing up a brand-new (or late model) Ford Explorer.

    Sell. Your. Fucking. $30K. SUV.

  36. 36.

    Jason

    October 30, 2008 at 10:13 am

    We get the bill. Speaking as someone who didn’t re-fi, whose cars are 9 and 16 years old, and who has kept up with my payments I am furious.
    I heard someone on NPR this morning say, "Well, if their payments were lower these people would be able to stay in their homes." If the payments were lower I’d have a fucking Maserati and a ski boat.

    The people who knowingly borrowed too much, and counted on "price appreciation" to pay for it can burn in hell.

    The people who were told, "Hey, this sub-prime ARM is a GREAT deal for you", THOSE people I can sympathize with.

    But, however much I want to give a flying "fuck you" to the morons, I also have to look at other consequences (foreclosures lowering neighborhood value, and thus property tax revenue)…sadly, it looks like its a better deal to bail them out. (Although I’m not a fan of a "no-consequences" bailout, there should be some way to help them keep their house without losing too much money)

  37. 37.

    Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill

    October 30, 2008 at 10:25 am

    Sell. Your. Fucking. $30K. SUV.

    Who’s going to buy it, with gas prices the way they are?

  38. 38.

    Rick Taylor

    October 30, 2008 at 10:26 am

    It gets better. I heard a conservative commentator on one of the talk shows say that the danger is that we’ll over-regulate the financial sector and prevent them from coming up with "creative new financial instruments."

    Not surprising. I’ve heard conservative commentators opine the real tragedy of Iraq is it’s going to make it harder to convince Americans to be aggressive with Iran.

  39. 39.

    tavella

    October 30, 2008 at 10:29 am

    Congress pushed some things into the plan to make (2) less bad than what Paulson wanted, but with the current administration basically responsible for running the show, and with the Republicans and Blue Dogs in Congress being who they are, there wasn’t going to be a whole lot they could do to force the issue. They put the hooks in, but it still requires an active partner in the administration to make the hooks work.

    That’s precisely it, and why I wanted my senators and congresswoman to vote against it. The bill was a whole lot of "I wish you would do that and I wish you would do this", and simply hoping that a _Bush administration appointee_ would do the right thing is lunatic.

    Kevin Drum was simply unreadable on the subject — all his blabbering about how Paulson was a right hard man and would obviously drive a hard deal. Paulson’s main concern is that his dear friends on Wall Street not suffer any inconvenience; he could give a shit about the taxpayer.

  40. 40.

    DecidedFenceSitter

    October 30, 2008 at 10:31 am

    And as the NPR article this morning noted – there’s a difference between what is fair and what is needed. The problem is that the people who bought responsibly aren’t the problem, the problem is the people who didn’t. So the question is, do we fix the problem or not?

    The not would be doing nothing, or lowering payments of people who can already afford their lifestyle, and not fix the problem. This actually may fix the problem, as non-palatable I find it with my nice conservative and easy to pay mortgage.

    And that is the joys of moral hazard. Except I don’t see a solution at this stage that will work.

  41. 41.

    Mr Furious

    October 30, 2008 at 10:36 am

    @Woodrow “asim” Jarvis Hill: Who’s going to buy it, with gas prices the way they are?

    Not my problem. I also understand it is probably only worth half that, but still…

    Keeping someone from losing their house is one thing. Keeping people in new cars is another.

    If they sell for $15K, they can buy a decent car with better mileage and still put $5-7K towards everything else.

    If they are leasing the car, they are probably paying $400 or more a month.

  42. 42.

    Comrade Stuck

    October 30, 2008 at 10:41 am

    How long before AIG is back for more money, and how much will they need. And will they get it?

    Soon.Lots.Affirmative.

    The nations Golden Parachute Factories must remain productive or else your all gonna die!

  43. 43.

    Dennis - SGMM

    October 30, 2008 at 10:45 am

    @Jason:
    I know. Something has to be done. It’s probably too much to ask that the something is structured in a way that gets the Treasury some of the money back as things improve and those bailed out homes appreciate.

  44. 44.

    Marshall

    October 30, 2008 at 11:01 am

    “You don’t just suddenly lose $120 billion overnight,” said Donn Vickrey of Gradient Analytics

    Tell you what – give me $ 120 billion, and I promise not to lose it. I feel certain I could keep my hands on it for at least a couple of months, which clearly makes me more deserving than AIG.

  45. 45.

    JR

    October 30, 2008 at 11:23 am

    This is class war by attrition, just beginning. The wealthy just guaranteed their own survival with money stolen from the working class’ future. And this is a very long-term plan.

    The important thing right now for Wealth is to keep the "little people" fighting with each other. It is important that the lower classes spend their dying energies on hating each other, not NOT uniting and saving themselves.

    It is important to make sure commoners are angry with their neighboring sheep, focused on their paltry SUV’s and silly countertops, while the seditious wolves finish sharpening their knives.

    The Upper has now tied the Lower to the train tracks, and will work to make sure they bite and kick each other as the train comes. Divide, and conquer.

  46. 46.

    Michael D.

    October 30, 2008 at 11:31 am

    How long before AIG is back for more money, and how much will they need. And will they get it?

    Soon.
    Lots.
    Yes.

    Respectively.

  47. 47.

    liberal

    October 30, 2008 at 12:09 pm

    @Punchy:

    LSS, the gov’t is going to reward those fuckers who bought $500K homes on an elementary school teacher’s budget by reworking their mortgage, while everyone who used common sense and made their payments and didnt buy 3 SUVs and a boat get nothing.

    Damn, I’m pissed about this, too.(*)

    While there are a few folks who I would genuinely consider victims—some older black guy featured in the Washington Post about a year ago, who refi-ed into a risky mortgage only because some prick broker badgered the shit out of him—most of them are not.

    Unfortunately, a lot of Dems seem to think we need to bail out these folks, "do something about home prices," etc. While extremely liberal in general, this just seems crazy to me. Bottom line—people who bought homes are not the truly poor, by and large. Moreover, chances are they put nothing down, so how are they losing much if they get foreclosed?

    Dean Baker, who has a blog over at Prospect, and who predicted both the tech bubble and the housing bubble years in advance, is extremely liberal (especially on economics issues), but doesn’t think we should be bailing out homeowners either. He does advocate a plan that basically keeps people in their homes as renters, which is fine with me.

    ((*) Usual proviso: no, I don’t feel sorry for the idiots at the banks, or their shareholders and bondholders, either.)

  48. 48.

    comrade rawshark

    October 30, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    Sell. Your. Fucking. $30K. SUV.

    To. Whom? Try trading in a SUV and see how that goes.

  49. 49.

    Brian J

    October 31, 2008 at 12:19 am

    JGabriel,

    Only true to a degree…

    Even last night while watching the Obama infomercial, I was struck by the fact that the first family featured was gassing up a brand-new (or late model) Ford Explorer.

    Sell. Your. Fucking. $30K. SUV.

    I’m not going to pretend to know why they had this sort of car, but selling the car isn’t always the answer, if it’s even possible. We also don’t know how it’s affecting their financial situation.

  50. 50.

    Brian J

    October 31, 2008 at 12:27 am

    Unfortunately, a lot of Dems seem to think we need to bail out these folks, "do something about home prices," etc. While extremely liberal in general, this just seems crazy to me. Bottom line—-people who bought homes are not the truly poor, by and large. Moreover, chances are they put nothing down, so how are they losing much if they get foreclosed?

    Dean Baker, who has a blog over at Prospect, and who predicted both the tech bubble and the housing bubble years in advance, is extremely liberal (especially on economics issues), but doesn’t think we should be bailing out homeowners either. He does advocate a plan that basically keeps people in their homes as renters, which is fine with me.

    I think a lot of Democrats are concerned that there may have been some predatory lending and/or see any sort of bailout as a way to prevent a bad situation from getting worse. I don’t know if it makes sense economically to think that helping people who need a breather on the mortgages in some way–a reduced interest rate, for instance–would help the situation at all, but if it does, I’m open to the idea of some help for homeowners. I can understand the sort of frustration that people who did a better job of managing their expenses might feel at the thought of others getting a bailout, but perhaps there’s a way to throw them a bone and/or punish those who were risky or stupid in some way.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

On The Road - Winter Wren - North of Quebec City (part 2 of 3) - Cap Tourmente and on the way to Tadoussac 2
Image by Winter Wren (5/13/25)

Recent Comments

  • The Audacity of Krope on Tuesday Evening Open Thread (May 13, 2025 @ 7:30pm)
  • scav on Tuesday Evening Open Thread (May 13, 2025 @ 7:30pm)
  • Harrison Wesley on Tuesday Evening Open Thread (May 13, 2025 @ 7:29pm)
  • Gretchen on Tuesday Evening Open Thread (May 13, 2025 @ 7:27pm)
  • Suburban Mom on Tuesday Evening Open Thread (May 13, 2025 @ 7:26pm)

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
War in Ukraine
Donate to Razom for Ukraine

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Meetups

Upcoming Ohio Meetup May 17
5/11 Post about the May 17 Ohio Meetup

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)
Fix Nyms with Apostrophes

Hands Off! – Denver, San Diego & Austin

Social Media

Balloon Juice
WaterGirl
TaMara
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
DougJ NYT Pitchbot
mistermix

Keeping Track

Legal Challenges (Lawfare)
Republicans Fleeing Town Halls (TPM)
21 Letters (to Borrow or Steal)
Search Donations from a Brand

PA Supreme Court At Risk

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2025 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!