Well, this may seem to be making too much light of a bad situation today, but if anything, this is a better idea, however facetious, than it was when I thought of it over the weekend:
Let’s not pass a bailout plan, but tell Wall Street we did.
IF we could pull it off — a big "if" in this world of modern communications — it would work like a charm. We the taxpayers would save ourselves $700 billion, and the traders in New York would all calm down and start extending credit and buy shares in endangered institutions the way they used to, and the economy would chug right along.
Because it’s all about how those jumpy, hyperemotional, crazies on Wall Street FEEL, isn’t it? If they think stocks have value, they have value. Industries keep churning, commerce keeps moving, and all our 401k’s are saved.
A pretend bailout is actually better than a real bailout because it can be all things to all people. With a real plan, there are pesky details that people can pick apart, and you know they will. With my approach, somebody on Wall Street asks, "Does it have this or that in it?" and you say, "You bet!" Everybody’s covered, everybody’s happy.
My plan at least deserves consideration, especially since Washington can’t seem to come up with anything better. Or anything at all…
Related Posts
And, if its a pretend bailout, the administration can have complete control without having to account to anyone. This would make them feel good, too!
“The administration?” You’re not giving my idea enough credit. It gives EVERYBODY a way out. Poor Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and others who are under just as much pressure as Bush on this (after all, THEY plan on staying in office). It helps McCain and Obama, too — as you may have noted in the debate the other night, neither of them wants to be held accountable for any actual DETAILS in an actual plan.
But EVERYBODY can be for my plan, cost-free.
The only thing wrong with my plan is making sure the Wall Street traders don’t catch on. They’re pretty dumb, and willing to believe pretty much anything (as long as the herd’s moving in that direction), but I haven’t quite figured out how to fool even them on this, given the Web and everything. Some of them actually know how to use the Internet. (Blast that Al Gore for inventing it!)
But don’t reject my idea on that basis. Mere details — isn’t that what Congress has those huge staffs for, to work out petty stuff like that? I’m an idea guy; I point the way. That’s what opinion leaders do….
why do I get the feeling that we’re in for a long, hard hike? Oh, I feel sure that congress will come up with something (I just hope it’s at least as substantial as your suggestion). But we have troops across the world that we aren’t paying for (China is), disabled troops here that we aren’t paying for (apparently nobody is), and a host of other problems that we probably shouldn’t worry about because we can’t afford to deal with them anyway. Let’s hope China doesn’t decide to call in its loans just yet (or should we hope it does before we get into deeper debt?).
If you think this is bad, just elect Obama and let him carry out his threat to to unleash $2.0 TRILLION in new spending his first term. He refused to back off any of it in the first debate – refused to name anything specific he would cut, just mumbled vaguely about “defense spending”.
Obama is threatening to raise taxes and double or triple the deficit spending during a slowdown in economic growth, which is still at +3.3%.
Lee, get a clue.
Totallynot true. Not even Rush can make up a total load like that. Do you think you’re the only person who watched the debate and that no one else would catch your delusional bull?
Getting back to Brad’s point, can I not pay my taxes and just say I did? It would make me feel a lot better.
You got it right, Brad. You’re making too much light of a bad situation.
This meltdown is costing thousands of not-really-well-to-do stockholders all over America more than they can afford to lose, and you’re making bad jokes about it.
Big banks aren’t owned just by CEOs and billionaires, you know. Lots of little people have shares.
And those little people have absolutely no say in which bank folds or which bank buys their stock for pennies on what used to be a dollar, the same stock that used to pay dividends on that dollar that rivaled the interest rate you could get in a savings acccount.
Sorry, but “Let them eat cake” wasn’t funny the first time somebody said it, and just because you said it doesn’t make it funny, either.
wtf apparently did not watch the debate last week.
Obama refused to name any spending cuts.
In fact, he specifically said he was intent on his agenda for education, healthcare, and infrastructure.
Here are his number from his website and earlier speeches:
* Education – wants a 50% increase on federal spending for K-12. $18 BILLION a year to start.
$4,000 college grants for every 100 hours of “community service”. That is $40 an hour for high school graduates.
$30 BILLION.
* Healthcare –
No reforms of Medicare, which had 31% stolen from it in 2007, and adding on another $200 BILLION
* Infrastructure
$1.2 TRILLION over 10 years
Never mind that he will be lucky to serve 4 years, that’s his goal.
I don’t think I need to keep going with his stupid spending spree.
So, Lee, what you’re saying is we can have great healthcare and education and infrastructure for the same price as the Bush tax cuts (love that economy) and the war in Iraq (mission accomplished!). Ok, why is this bad then?
…he will be lucky to serve 4 years…
What do you mean?
Not wanting to put words in Lee’s mouth, Norm, but certainly he must mean lucky to be elected once, much less twice or, like a monarch, permanently.
The small Bush tax cuts are what pulled us out of the Clinton Recession of 2000.
The new tax revenues from the economic growth were enough to prosecute the war on terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq, without running a deficit.
The entire deficit is due to excess social spending on new education programs, new Medicare drug benefit, Medicare waste and fraud (31% of expenditures), ethanol subsidies, mortgage subsidies for high-risk borrowers, and foreign aid.
The sad thing is that the Democrats tried to DOUBLE the deficits.
A rollback of social spending to 2000 levels would produce a surplus each year.
Right, p.m.
I also mean that, if elected, Obama will be lucky to not be impeached for trying to implement his socialist, anti-American agenda.
… if elected, Obama will be lucky to not be impeached for trying to implement his socialist, anti-American agenda.
-Lee
Well that about sums it up doesn’t it? Obama gets elected, almost certainly with a Democratic Congress. That same congress passes “socialist” legislation (whatever that means). And now congress impeaches Obama. Lee, if you even have half a brain think about how utterly absurd that statement is. Why would congress impeach a president for “implementing” legislation it passes. I’m trying to think up some really clever analogy to illustrate how utterly stupid that comment is but offhand nothing any stupider comes to mind. But keep it up. Your ridiculous rants do provide some comic relief during these difficult financial times.
Well, so far, this hard-core socialist hasn’t provided proof of his American citizenship status, his actual place of birth, and the status of his Indonesian citizenhip that he declared as a student.
It don’t think it will take Obama, with his terrorist friends and Muslim background, to commit an act of treason, as Senator or President.