I didn't read much of this thread (who has the time....oh, that's right, Sagarin does for sure), but here's my 2 cents:
Carnivore 69 wrote:
I am not a fan of what these Wall Street firms have done. In an earlier post, I mentioned that blame for this mess lay at the feet of consumers first (who can’t or won’t save and love spending 110% of their income) and Wall Street second...
Yup, blame the little guy first. Not surprising in the least that you would.
Carnivore 69 wrote:What the President, Treasury Secretary, and Fed Chairman probably will not tell you is that the bailout plan is not meant to bailout Wall Street. It is meant to bailout the entire country from financial catastrophe, potentially far worse than anything seen during the Great Depression.
This is a bizarre statement. OF COURSE they would plan on telling us that the plan is meant to bail-out the whole financial system, and that is exactly what they've said over and over. And of course they are playing up the scare tactics. Why would they sell it as a plan to bail out only the fat-cats?? And yeah, it is indeed a plan that is intended to ultimately help the whole economy, so why wouldn't they stress that angle? What a strange comment by you.
I am not saying I am against this plan, but it IS HILARIOUS to see conservatives like you and others on this board, not to mention Bernake, Paulson, and other Republicans, embrace it so strongly and say: GOVERNMENT....PLEASE SAVE US ALL. I thought the government was the root of all evil? C'mon, that is EXACTLY what you types have been saying for years! Less government = better government....isn't that your mantra? I thought the government's ONLY role was to fight wars and build roads. How come I never before heard you mention on that list "investment banks bailout" ? When Katrina struck you types bristled at the idea that the federal gov't should get ANY blame for not acting quicker to help people in need. People need to take care of themselves, and it's not the government's role to help them. Wasn't that your viewpoint?
And if people are down on their luck, and hungry, it's not the role of the government to give hand-outs and take from the rich and give to the poor. But now, it's all changed. THIS is different. Suddenly the whole system will fall apart, and now the government should step in. Interesting. I don't think it's because you care about the poor guy getting even poorer under such circumstances (though he would of course). No siree. You are deathly afraid though that the system would crash so hard that quite a few upper middle class people and rich people might suffer and become poor. And THAT is what you are afraid of. When the well off are in danger of truly suffering, THEN the gov't should act. Katrina?? Can't feed your family off of minimum wage?? Fend yourself bitches!
And what if tax rates were as low as you want them to be, and the government as weak as you want it to be?? They'd have no money and no power to make this bail-out happen, and you'd be shit out of luck.
Just admit this. This crisis is the death-blow to your ideology that the government is evil and should not be in the business of helping people and taxing people. Suddenly you've become exactly what you always claim to hate: someone who believes the gov't has a role in helping people, and that we are "all in this together as a country," ie, what you've always referred to as a SOCIALIST PIG. Welcome to the mud.