CNN is saying people who dont want the bill dont understand economics

max said:
those who do "understand economics" are the ones who fucked it all up!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


You are right!! These CEOs were supposed to have advanced degrees and know all this. They've taken these companies down the toilet. That doesn't say much for their education!!!


FF
 
Yes, those who are taught economics , are taught that keynsian economics is superior and are taught nothing about who, and what the Fed Reserve really is.
 
They said the same thing about the people in Ireland who rejected the latest EU Treaty.
 
Jim Cramer and Suze Ormond have been pushing the bailout too. Almost all advertizing on those news programs are from investment companies. Phone, write or email them. Also a public boycott would be in order, even if they got a bailout, how would their stockholders react to efforts on the Main St side?
 
It's a complete psy op, they treat the bailout as a done deal even though the vast majority oppose it.

If they keep telling people that the bill is going to pass in some form, eventually people become numb and accept it.

Or maybe they will "greatly scale it down" to 500 billion to win over enough votes to pass, hopefully Congress will continue to take a stand on this.
 
Well, I don't think most of the people understand what really is going on with this crash..but they DO know they don't want their tax dollars used to bail anyone out. Evidently , they knew enough to blow up their representatives telephones and thankfully, most of the Republicans and some democrats listened to the people. It really is a great day for the democratic process.. Sometimes my faith is restored in the system. It works when WE work it! Tones
 
They will likely have to wait until AFTER the election, in order to pas their illegal bailout bill.

Once re-elected, they are safe to do as they please!!! :(

Not all states have recall procedures, but those that do will need to activate them. :)
 
This is the same guy who when Peter Schiff was saying the bailout is a bad thing, this guy said "so what you're saying is, this is a backstop and we need it."
 
They are all reading from the same approved script. How dare they insult thinking people!
 
lol, from cnn.com

By Jeffrey A. Miron
Special to CNN



Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.

Economist Jeffrey Miron says the bailout plan presented to Congress was the wrong solution to the crisis


CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.

Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.

Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.

If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.

The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.

Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.

So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.
 
Vote Waterman 2028 said:
ali velshi, probably his stage name, like that one chick, poppy harlow lol its all for ratings, and when they were discussing the bill the other night he didnt understand any of it, hes just a dumbass. hes not an economic specialist either, ...the economy for CNN. He is not a economist
Click to expand...

Just like the CNN Jack Off, Jeffery Toobin. He's your typical, NYC, Columbia U. clown, part of the Zionist/Elitist /Wealth Circle Attorney and they have him on the "AIPAC's Wolf Biltzer's CNN Big Financial Team"... Blah, Blah

He's the one that SLAMS/DISCREDITS, Ron Paul all the time... so you know exactly where he standsas far as tax dollars go... bailout the corporations and NYC/Wall street Wealth.

Here's the a pic:

Jeffreytoobinjpg_600a.jpg

jeffreytoobin.jpg
 
Original_Intent said:
It's a complete psy op, they treat the bailout as a done deal even though the vast majority oppose it.

If they keep telling people that the bill is going to pass in some form, eventually people become numb and accept it.

.
Click to expand...

yep...total pysch job by the media........it was so weird how the media spoke of this as inevitable when the votes were NEVER there
 
yoshimaroka said:
lol, from cnn.com

By Jeffrey A. Miron
Special to CNN



Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.

Economist Jeffrey Miron says the bailout plan presented to Congress was the wrong solution to the crisis


CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.

Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.

Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.

If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.

The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.

Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.

So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.
Click to expand...


wow, good article.
 
fr33domfightr said:
You are right!! These CEOs were supposed to have advanced degrees and know all this. They've taken these companies down the toilet. That doesn't say much for their education!!!


FF
Click to expand...

Mike Rogers from MIchigan voted No. I was so happy! I heard him on the radio, and I was really impressed with how much homework he had done and why he had voted No.

He had several suggestions about what could be done, like easing the mark to market rule (which I still disagree with but I prefer that to handing them $700 + billion), letting the banks do some debt swapping so the healthy banks could help the unhealthy banks get some liquidity, and one other thing that I can't remember right now.

During his interview, he said that he thinks Paulson and Bernacke have to go. He said that Paulson is nothing more than a day trader, and it's best not to believe he holds the key to the solution.

I LOL'd when I heard that.
 
angelatc said:
Mike Rogers from MIchigan voted No...During his interview, he said that he thinks Paulson and Bernacke have to go. He said that Paulson is nothing more than a day trader, and it's best not to believe he holds the key to the solution.
Click to expand...

Hah, that's great I just laughed reading that too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Anti Federalist
ABC Moderator Linsey Davis Admits: ‘Fact-checking’ Was Only Planned for Trump
Replies
4
Views
714
jmdrake
jmdrake
jmdrake
Joe Rogan : "You gotta get scared that people who are not criminals are being set to El Salvador prisons."
27 28 29
Replies
561
Views
3K
Anti Federalist
Anti Federalist
PAF
A Walk on the Supply Side
Replies
2
Views
1K
CaptUSA
CaptUSA
osan
What Is The Public Trust?
Replies
0
Views
275
osan
osan
PAF
The Best Investment You Can Make
Replies
2
Views
1K
CCTelander
C
Back
Top