More Bailouts on the Horizon
The New York Times reports:
One bailout was not enough for Citigroup. And it may not be enough for other big banks.
. . . .
With the red ink deepening, other banks may eventually turn to the government to soak up some of their losses. Taxpayers could end up guaranteeing hundreds of billions of dollars of banks’ toxic assets. Indeed, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. is expected to announce a new plan on Tuesday to bolster the consumer-finance market.
I thought that’s what the old plan was supposed to do. But I guess one bailout package is not enough for the financial industry.
Over at The Jury Talks Back, Scott Jacobs bemoans all this:
Seriously, double-yew tee eff, mate?
. . . .
I wonder what it would take get get myself classified as “too big to fail”?
I’ve wondered the same about myself. I’m thinking of changing the tag line for this blog from “Harangues That Just Make Sense” to “Patterico: Too Big to Fail.”
I don’t know how all these bailouts are supposed to bolster consumer confidence. It makes me want to convert all my US currency to Swiss Franks with the expectaion that it will be worthless after Obama prints a quadrillion dollars worth of bailouts for failed non productive losers. Bush is creating the template for Obama to make it easier for him.
jcurtis (afbc97) — 11/25/2008 @ 7:32 amThe AIG spa spend-a-spree should have been a huuuuge redflag to Paulson et al…you’d figure they’d have seen the fire they’re playing with.
What will happen when you truncate the market’s natural tendency to punish foolishness and wrongdoing?
Of course, the downside to that comment is that this time around, the market is “punishing” many innocents, so what do I know.
Rich Bordner (ab3562) — 11/25/2008 @ 7:35 amThe United States is in the process of redefining the term “crony capitalism”.
George W. Bush’s photo will hang in the pantheon along with Imelda Marcos, Suharto,
Another Drew (5dfa66) — 11/25/2008 @ 8:02 amand others too disgusting to remember.
Do it, Patrick, change the motto at least for awhile.
SPQR (72771e) — 11/25/2008 @ 8:43 amAny business which is “too big to fail” should be broken up into smaller companies. Time to put some teeth into the anti-trust laws.
Subotai (f89f9f) — 11/25/2008 @ 9:01 amActually, your comment is quite prescient, due to the widespread reports that as a condition of the latest Citi bailout, the firm is going to be forced to divest itself of many of it’s non – core businesses. But of course, the company has become so enormous, and who determines just what among its assets are “core,” and what should be jettissoned?
Dmac (e30284) — 11/25/2008 @ 9:20 amso much for Juggy sharing the wealth after his coronation……
instead it’s going to be like the old Russian proverb, “the shortages will be distributed amongst the peasants.”, which should still be leftest enough for him. %-)
redc1c4 (27fd3e) — 11/25/2008 @ 9:24 am1. you’d be crazy to consider swiss francs. the swiss banking system is in the toilet with money flowing out. The IRS accomplished what Hitler could not- swiss banking secrecy is now kaput with banks releasing depositors’ names to US govt. Also I believe Swiss banks are in really big trouble with loans.
I see the credit card thieves are lining up for relief now. Their usurious consumer rates weren’t high enough plus the tons of dough they make on late fees and such?
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 11/25/2008 @ 9:39 amComment by Dmac — 11/25/2008 @ 9:20 am
Scheduling divestiture used to be a function of the Bankruptcy Court.
Another Drew (5dfa66) — 11/25/2008 @ 9:43 amIt should be again;
and that is where Citi should be –
but, of course, that would cost Robert Rubin and his cronies a bunch of money,
and we couldn’t have that now,
could we?
8
jcurtis (afbc97) — 11/25/2008 @ 9:58 amWhat would be a safe currency to convert my soon-to-be worthless dollars to?
I agree with comment #2.
In addition, the government really doesn’t seem to be encouraging much of a change in the way business is done. For the average person, you make lifestyle changes when your costs outweigh your income. For businesses the government deems too big to fail, they just keep doing what they’re doing and wait on their “bailout.” What does this fix?
Justin (3a8fcb) — 11/25/2008 @ 10:19 am9
Rubin and Bush are thick as thieves. Then gov Bush was the one out there, the only Republican out there, promoting Rubin’s peso bailout scheme with the same great depression scare tactics he’s using now if we didn’t bailout Rubin’s Goldman Sachs clients who held the Mexican junkbonds. You can bet that the mexicentric Bush family was well invested in this and gained the most from the bailout.
jcurtis (afbc97) — 11/25/2008 @ 10:25 amhmmmmm……. perhaps it’s time to dig out those dusty old anti trust laws, to ensure that a few companies do not become “To big to fall”.
Oiram (983921) — 11/25/2008 @ 10:34 amIt may be enough simply to wait a few weeks. I expect “too big to fail” to get quite a lot smaller by the time this is all done.
tim maguire (72f509) — 11/25/2008 @ 10:36 amA big part of the problem is that we live in a de-facto one party state. There’s not a dimes worth of difference between Bush/McCain and Obama/Clinton on any of the Big Issues facing the country.
Just saw over at NRO that the cost of the current bail-out is the single biggest government expenditure in US history, exceeding the cost of WWII. And all that money has been spent with basically zero debate or Congressional action. We’re a wealthier Russia or China, for the time being.
Subotai (f89f9f) — 11/25/2008 @ 10:41 amMonth-after-month, I stupidly keep paying my mortgage to Citibank.
Perfect Sense (9d1b08) — 11/25/2008 @ 10:47 amWhere is my bail out bro?
Subotai is right on the money.
Too big to fail = Monopoly/Trust
EdWood (c2268a) — 11/25/2008 @ 10:51 ambut, of course, that would cost Robert Rubin and his cronies a bunch of money,
and we couldn’t have that now,
could we?
Bingo – crony capitalism at its finest. And when one looks at all the Clinton cronies being invited back to the big table, expect more of the same after Obama takes the oath. Second verse, same as the first.
Dmac (e30284) — 11/25/2008 @ 11:01 am10-
No guarantees that I can see. We may have more deflation before inflation really takes hold. You’d think all those dollars being pumped into system would eventually lead to what the Germans went through, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe or Argentina.
Wall St. guru Jim Rogers is big on commodities and has a fund comprising a basket of things, including swiss francs, I think. Some say rare coins in silver or gold would be wise, but govt. could make that illegal, seize them and give you IOU’s from the treasury.
I’m thinking China investments may be big deal…a fund like FXI. Or investing in what Obama pumps money into or forces us to pay much higher prices for, such as energy-related stuff. Obama says Canadian oil shale production is too polluting,as is coal, which he intends to bankrupt. But Canada is delighted to send their oil from shale production to Red Chinese. I’ve heard good things about HW and OPTT vis a vis Obama’s BS.
Personally I have my doubts about most physical assets. I did very poorly holding silver in the early 80s. I’m hoping some people will dump collectibles such as classic cars before prices soar in an inflationary environment and I can acquire a gem from my youth.
Can anyone show us that Obama has a clue or the sense to navigate us successfully through the morass? Or are we guaranteed a repeat of FDR poor policy prescriptions, if not at least Jimmy Carter redux? You’d think the assholes would learn something from history or things that failed repeatedly. Big Brother is not the Rx for American exceptionalism. Bush seems content to turn us into a Euro adjunct.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 11/25/2008 @ 11:04 amWhat really bothers me is that the management of these banks hasn’t been taken out and shot, or at least barred by the SEC from ever working in the field again. When the stockholders are all wiped out, why should the management continue? The stockholders should at least get one last vote.
Instead the worst these crooks get is “Bad banker, no bonus!”
(Yes, others were at fault, too, such as Fannie/Freddie and Congress. Same rant.)
Kevin Murphy (0b2493) — 11/25/2008 @ 11:11 am“Bad banker, no bonus”
Surely you jest? My understanding is that billions from bailout WILL be going for bonuses. So what about the people and companies who acted responsibly in the fiduciary relationships? Or the people who paid their mortgages and other bills in a timely fashion? Yes, we see huge salaries and bonuses and very golden parachutes for the so-called “leaders”. Even school administrators seem to make out like bandits, although many schools indeed do rot. Pennsylvania is baling out Boscov’s dept. stores with HUD monies. Let them all just go bankruot, seize the ginormous assets of the jerks who helped facilitate the losses. Take away Franks and Dodd’s lucrative fed retirement parachutes. Yes, I know it will never happen, but you can lose your public pension for all sorts of reasons if you’re a mere peon. Bah humbug.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 11/25/2008 @ 11:27 amWhat would be a safe currency to convert my soon-to-be worthless dollars to?
Comment by jcurtis
Gold but you’re too late. It’s gone. My investment letter issue today (I’ve been reading it since 1977) says this is a huge bear market and will go to 5000 or below. Essentially, all the stock value since 1980 will go. What is worse is the wild printing of money that will go on to try to stop the bear. There will be a real possibility that dollars may be in trouble by the time this is over.
Everything I read says that this is the result of the housing bubble and low interest rates. The first is the Democrats’ contribution, the second is Bush and Greenspan’s. There is an interesting article in the WSJ yesterday suggesting some of these bear raids were really predatory, using false rumors and such, so there is some hanging that needs to be done, too.
Mike K (0cde87) — 11/25/2008 @ 11:30 amHere’s a dictum to remember:
Rich Bordner (ab3562) — 11/25/2008 @ 11:30 amPeople will continue to do what you reward them to do.
I remember when I thought that $700,000,000,000 was way too much. How many trillons do the Dems plan on spending?
JD (5f0e11) — 11/25/2008 @ 11:51 amDoesn’t really matter, JD.
In the eyes of the American public minus dittoheads, this is a Republican crisis/solution.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/25/2008 @ 11:53 amComparisons between the amounts spent on previous events, even supposedly “inflation adjusted” are not that meaningful.
The United States’ economy is quite a bit more immense, in terms both of GDP and assets, than those many decades back. We can spend immense amounts more, and we have much larger sized markets to influence.
SPQR (72771e) — 11/25/2008 @ 11:56 amHey, JD!
So you’re out of the anesthesia? How did it go? Are they still hanging?
nk (5fa892) — 11/25/2008 @ 11:59 amIn the eyes of the American public minus dittoheads, this is a Republican crisis/solution.
People like parsnip are the problem here. The country will go down the tubes taking them with it, but their only interest is in trying to blame “the other guys”. Never mind that both parties are owned and operated by the same people.
Subotai (f89f9f) — 11/25/2008 @ 11:59 amThe United States’ economy is quite a bit more immense, in terms both of GDP and assets, than those many decades back.
As a percentage of GDP, the bailout so far rivals WWII. And we ain’t done yet.
Subotai (f89f9f) — 11/25/2008 @ 12:01 pmWhere is the percentage of GDP number you are talking about, Subotai?
SPQR (72771e) — 11/25/2008 @ 12:20 pmDoing good, nk. Thanks.
My gut tells me that parsnip has posted here under different names. It has a similar feel to sniffles/alphie. I would be willing to bet that it is one of our sock puppet Leftists.
JD (5f0e11) — 11/25/2008 @ 12:31 pmCelery – The first $700 billion is on Bush/Paulson. Everything after that is owned by Baracky/SanFranNan/Reid etal.
JD (5f0e11) — 11/25/2008 @ 12:40 pm#31 JD:
And here I thought the whole point of your hospital furlough was to make sure yer gut don’t have the stones to say squat …
😉
EW1(SG) (da07da) — 11/25/2008 @ 12:44 pmA safe currency…
Another Drew (5dfa66) — 11/25/2008 @ 12:48 pmOne of my clients, an attorney who has just had a large (a modest term) settlement in his favor,
has said that his current investment strategy is Gold & Guns.
I love selling guns!
Sounds like a fair split, JD.
When does someone go to jail over this?
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/25/2008 @ 12:52 pmOh, it’s more than a possibility.
Right now, everyone pretty much wants the US Dollar. Within the next couple of years (6 at the outside, really), our 355%-of-GDP debt will cause other countries to STOP wanting it, as they will have quite enough, thank you.
When that happens the notes they hold will get called on. Instead of asking for our assets, they will take the OTHER option.
Our production.
You know that “Trade Surplus” we’ve been praying for for, lordy, 20 years? Well, we’ll get it, good and hard. Everyone will have a blue collar job (without the union being able to muscle in, because there will be MORE than enough people willing to cross the picket line), and goods will be quite expensive, as they will be few goods coming in, and most of the domestic stuff will be out-going. This will lower the standard of living noticably.
There’s little we can do about it, at this point. Congress will spend money like they have it, tax us like we enjoy it, and we’ll just be screwed.
Scott Jacobs (89480a) — 11/25/2008 @ 1:03 pmWhen they back a republican over the Supreme Party, would be my guess.
Scott Jacobs (89480a) — 11/25/2008 @ 1:04 pmWhere is the percentage of GDP number you are talking about, Subotai?
As with anything involving statistics, the answer is “it depends”.
If the current bail-out is 4.5 trillion, thats about 33% of one years GDP.
If you look at military expenditures during WWII and divide them into the total GDP for the years 1941-45, it comes out to about the same percentage. Now, some will argue about the method used there. I think it’s at least plausible though.
Subotai (09ad21) — 11/25/2008 @ 1:11 pmSpreading one event’s cost through one year of GDP and another event’s cost through multiple years is more than a bit arguable.
SPQR (72771e) — 11/25/2008 @ 1:15 pmIt makes considerable sense to spread the cost of WWII over the years WWII actually occurred. I mean, that’s what people actually did at the time. It makes no sense to compare the cost of the entire war to one years (which years?) GDP.
Subotai (09ad21) — 11/25/2008 @ 1:21 pmIn the eyes of the American public minus dittoheads, this is a Republican crisis/solution.
Not anymore – this one has Obama’s fingerprints all over it, and he’s been talking about his massive spending bill for weeks now. He owns it from now on – lock, stock and barrel. Can’t campaign on how terrible BushCo’s handling of the economy was, get elected on your petard, then keep blaming same after you’ve started governing (which he already has). He has no effective opposition, and the public sees that already. No one will accept excuses for past actions when they’re three feet below water.
Dmac (e30284) — 11/25/2008 @ 1:24 pmPardon my previous error – they won’t be three feet below water, since the ocean levels will stop rising immediately.
Dmac (e30284) — 11/25/2008 @ 1:25 pmIn the peak year for defense spending in WWII, 1945, the war took 38% of GDP.
Assuming that this year will be the worst year for the current crisis, it’s peaking at about 33% of GDP. I think satisfies my statement above that the current bailout rivals WWII.
I’ve seen some projections that we’ll end up pouring another five trillion or so into this next year.
Subotai (09ad21) — 11/25/2008 @ 1:30 pmDon’t be part of the problem, Dmac.
Group hug!
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/25/2008 @ 1:32 pm#41
Hey Dmac……… isn’t it great that gas prices have finally come down?
Duhhh….. I think Obama’s fingerprints must be all over that………..
Duhh……. he has already begun governing even though we are still in November ’08.
Duhh…… that’s how it works right? Anything that goes wrong blame the other party, anything that goes right blame your own party.
That’s how ridiculous you sound Dmac.
Oiram (983921) — 11/25/2008 @ 2:03 pmmario is still demonstrating his outstanding grasp of economics.
Another Drew (5dfa66) — 11/25/2008 @ 2:28 pmBarack Hussein Obama is rubbing his socialist hands with glee with all these bailouts and “stimulus packages.” They are playing right into his plans to destroy our economy. This guy is bad news. He has only one goal which is to destroy our free enterprise system and reduce us to the U.S.S.A., the United Socialist States of America. When I consider this man’s genetic heritage (google “Obama’s Mama” and read Jerome Corsi’s “An Obama Nation”) and couple that with his past associations with some of the most despicable humans ever to exist, I find it quite impossible to trust him as far as I can spit upwind in a hurricane. He is arrogant, egomaniacal, devious, driven and dangerous to the Republic.
I hate being right and hope I am wrong.
jadavison.wordpress.com
John A. Davison (90231f) — 11/25/2008 @ 2:34 pmDuhhh….. I think Obama’s fingerprints must be all over that………..
Yet another trenchant analysis from the mongoloid who believes the following:
– that because one radio personality is paid millions of dollars per annum, that means that the MSM is evenly split between Liberals and Conservatives;
– gross revenues = net profits.
Mongo, it would appear that your fingerprints are currently residing in your trousers – but do be careful, as too firm a grip will result in haphazard cognitive responses. Whoops, too late.
Dmac (e30284) — 11/25/2008 @ 2:43 pmmario is still demonstrating his outstanding grasp of economics.
His outstanding grasp is – well, you know.
Dmac (e30284) — 11/25/2008 @ 2:45 pm47 at least we will have racial harmony and blacks are free at last. Personally I can’t help thinking about how baracky needs and wants a second term to really go to town and emulate Herr Schickelgrubber. As if his ginormous civilian security force with a budget rivaling the Pentagon won’t have elements of the Brownshirts/gestapo. Oh yeah, libtards know that the neophyte arrogant prick who failed with Chitown housing, the Annenberg Challenge, voting “present” and having friends who resemble a very toxic version of the Star Wars’ cantina scene of motley assclowns. But of course, Soros and Daley know what is best for Amerikkkka and Pelosi/Reid will assist in the endeavor, 9% approval rating or not.
madmax333 (0c6cfc) — 11/25/2008 @ 2:57 pmYet another trenchant analysis from the mongoloid who believes the following:
Trig Palin is a “mongoloid” Dmac.
You might want to ease up on your filth a little.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/25/2008 @ 2:58 pm#48 Dmac, your partially right anyways, I don’t have a great grasp of economics. But I do have a grasp of politics and in general when a president elect could start governing.
Now I’m not as stupid as you think, I know what your saying…… your mimicking Rush and Hanity’s talking points “Obama’s Recession”.
We’ve been in a recession for quite some time now, you and your talking point mentors are only talking about it now so that you could blame the other team… Obama.
Sorry, not buying it.
And just for the record Duh.. Duh… Dmac.
I never said MSM was evenly split between Liberals and Conservatives, what I said was that Republicans conveniently omit radio when referring to MSM.
It’s above my pay grade to make a one sided determination on which way MSM swings……. as it is yours.
But hey, I know your not listening to me.
Oiram (983921) — 11/25/2008 @ 3:10 pmPresident-Elects do not get to “govern” – that is the prerogative of the “President”.
Another Drew (5dfa66) — 11/25/2008 @ 3:31 pmThe One will just have to wait until Jan 20th, upon his inauguration.
You might want to ease up on your filth a little.
The “Mongo” name in question is one I took from Mel Brook’s classic film Blazing Saddles. Maybe you missed the reference – and perhaps you could ease up on your moralistic judgements from on high.
Dmac (e30284) — 11/25/2008 @ 3:35 pmAnd just for the record Duh.. Duh… Dmac.
Mongo speaks.
Dmac (e30284) — 11/25/2008 @ 3:35 pmparsnip – We will start with your folks. SanFranNan and Reid, along with Rep. Franks and Sen. Dodd championed the efforts on Capitol Hill. That would make a good start.
No matter how many times people explain this to you, you intentionally do not get it.
The caring empathetic Left shows its face again …
JD (bda7e2) — 11/25/2008 @ 3:48 pmOiram, that’s amusing given how much the Democrats tried to convince people that the 2001 recession was George Bush’s recession.
SPQR (72771e) — 11/25/2008 @ 3:53 pmOiram states …
It should be quite easy for you to demonstrate this. Hint, it helps to actually no the definition of a recession before claiming that one has been going on for quite some time.
It is not “convenient” nor do we “omit” talk radio when talking about the MSM because talk radio is not considered part of the MSM. This is mendoucheous trollery on your part.
You have a grasp of regurgitating Leftist talking points and playing stupid, but maybe that counts as a Leftist having a grasp of politics.
As to the second clause – He starts governing AFTER he takes office.
JD (bda7e2) — 11/25/2008 @ 3:54 pmJust because Pelosi claims it doesn’t actually make it true, bubba.
The Economy has to shrink for two consecutive quarters before it’s a recession.
That’s negative growth.
Hasn’t happened yet.
Scott Jacobs (2899a7) — 11/25/2008 @ 3:57 pmScott – Mario and its ilk are impervious to actual facts. Those pesky little facts get in the way of Teh Narrative.
JD (bda7e2) — 11/25/2008 @ 4:03 pmJD…
Another Drew (5dfa66) — 11/25/2008 @ 4:04 pmYou sound pretty lucid this afternoon…
How did everything go?
#56 JD, I don’t think Obama has anything to do with gas prices coming down, if that is what you were referring to when you said:
“No matter how many times people explain this to you, you intentionally do not get it.”
That is the point I was trying to make to Dmac and anyone who thinks Obama has something to do with the current economic mess we’re in.
Dmac actually thinks Obama is already governing…. sorry again, not buying it.
JD, your smarter than that even without your gallbladder (hope your feeling well).
This mess started long before Obama was even close to winning the election.
Do us all a favor Dmac, criticize Obama’s staff picks all you want, but just know that you look ridiculous if you criticize the way he’s currently running the country.
Oh wait you look like Rush and Hannity………
Oiram (983921) — 11/25/2008 @ 4:11 pmNever Mind “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”
The caring empathetic Left shows its face again …
No doubt parsnip was first in line to denounce the MSM when they flooded Anchorage with their reporters, in their desperate attempt to smear Palin and her husband’s “questionable parentage” regarding their child.
BTW, hope your surgery came out OK.
Dmac (e30284) — 11/25/2008 @ 4:14 pm“I don’t know how all these bailouts are supposed to bolster consumer confidence.”
TED spreads have gone down from crisis levels, so its doing something.
“hmmmmm……. perhaps it’s time to dig out those dusty old anti trust laws, to ensure that a few companies do not become “To big to fall”.”
but. but…free markets!
imdw (cd4b7a) — 11/25/2008 @ 4:22 pmWe’ve been in a recession for quite some time now
And we’ve had a Democratic Congress and Republican President for quite some time now. Is there a point to this nonsense? While Democrats and Republicans play their silly games, the country is being stolen from both of them.
Subotai (09ad21) — 11/25/2008 @ 4:24 pmJD, Correct me falsely all you want…… I at least knew you had some intelligence in ya……
“As to the second clause – He starts governing AFTER he takes office.”
I assume your talking about Obama, please explain to your compadre Dmac your one piece of fact.
Oiram (983921) — 11/25/2008 @ 4:26 pmWhen the government constitutes over 50% of the GDP, either directly or through regulation,
there are no “free-markets”.
Restore the Republic!
Another Drew (5dfa66) — 11/25/2008 @ 4:27 pmThe lower America sinks before Obama takes office, the greater his triumphs will be, subtoi.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/25/2008 @ 4:33 pmObama is already a US Senator. As such he has to share a large part of the blame.
Subotai (09ad21) — 11/25/2008 @ 4:33 pmThe lower America sinks before Obama takes office
He’s already in office, you clown. He’s a blasted Senator.
the greater his triumphs will
And you will grovel at the feet of your Ceasar, no doubt, as he carries on exactly the same polices you’ve pretended to oppose until now.
Subotai (09ad21) — 11/25/2008 @ 4:37 pmSuch distinctions will be lost on American voters in 2012, subtoi.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/25/2008 @ 4:41 pmDo they still have those Roman columns from the convention?
Dmac (e30284) — 11/25/2008 @ 4:42 pmSubotai, former Sen. Obama has already resigned his position as Senator. While he was in office, he is not currently in office.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 11/25/2008 @ 4:50 pmDon’t forget:
• Factory ammo – while you still can, and to get high quality brass
• Reloading equipment for every caliber you own
• Reloading supplies – ditto
One gun that’s definitely in the sights of Carolyn McCarthy, et. al is the .50BMG. Certainly not inexpensive, but damn, it scares the crap out of the anti-gunners.
Alternatively, the 98Bravo in .338 Lapua Magnum.
As Billy Rosewood opined in Beverly Hills Cop 2 – “You can never have too much firepower.”
Horatio (55069c) — 11/25/2008 @ 6:05 pmSomeone up above mentioned which currencies are the safest now. Since they are all fiat, that becomes problematic. Remember trying to pick up mercury when you were a kid?…anyway, I’m not a currency trader, but I do check in everyday to a site called the Daily Pfennig written by Chuck Butler. He is pretty down to earth, makes complicated things about the currency market moves easier to grasp, and sometimes he can be funny, too. We’ll see if I got the html correct on this:
daily currency comments
allan (23726e) — 11/25/2008 @ 6:07 pmI have arrived at the opinion that if any business is too big to fail, then it is no longer a business but a government. I mean, we do not force the Army to Bankrupt, or the Parks Service or the Coast Guard.
So…if GM is too big to fail, than all assets are transferred to the government, and it goes through a Ch 11 bankruptcy after all management is fired. They can reapply for their old jobs, but they must make a convincing case as to why they should be allowed back into a company they destroyed.
Look, Studebaker wasn’t too big to fail. Nor was REO or Stutz. Get off the dime and take charge of your own destiny. Chapter 11 may be the only thing that saves you in the long run. Besides, dealer mechanics are just like assembly workers. Why can Jiffy Lube change my oil in 10 minutes and it take the dealer and hour AND an appointment to do so.
MunDane (6fe98c) — 11/25/2008 @ 6:24 pmSuch distinctions will be lost on American voters in 2012
Then you will be poor and oppressed along with the rest of us. Assuming you are American. But your heart will be full of joy because you will be poor under the rule of the man you love.
Masochism has no place in politics, IMO.
Subotai (5b439f) — 11/25/2008 @ 6:33 pmI’m not happy with this either but welfare is as seductive to corporations as it is to people, so it’s not surprising everyone wants a share.
We know the Democratic Congress was going to spend as much money as it could on its pet projects, so the only question is who we’re going to give it to. My glass-half-full theory is that I’d rather see the money go to banks who will be more likely to use the money to stimulate investment in businesses that will grow our economy.
DRJ (a50047) — 11/25/2008 @ 6:44 pmWhat the hell, subtoi?
Luck plays as big a role in politics as it does in everyday life.
The last president to have the bar set so low he couldn’t fail was Ronald Reagan.
Thems the breaks.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/25/2008 @ 6:54 pm“The last president to have the bar set so low he couldn’t fail was Ronald Reagan.”
parsnip – Really? That’s not the way I remember things.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/25/2008 @ 7:01 pm1984 electoral vote:
Reagan – 525
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/25/2008 @ 7:12 pmMondale – 13
So…if GM is too big to fail, than all assets are transferred to the government, and it goes through a Ch 11 bankruptcy after all management is fired. They can reapply for their old jobs, but they must make a convincing case as to why they should be allowed back into a company they destroyed.
It isn’t GM, its the Automotive Manufacturing sub-sector. And it isn’t so much as the Automotive sub-sector is too big. Its that the Manufacture Sector is too small to survive without the economy of scale the Automotive sub-sector provides.
Aside from being left with a country full of bankers, insurance sales men, and stock brokers, its a national security thing.
jpm100 (b48b29) — 11/25/2008 @ 7:39 pm1984 electoral vote:
parsnip – Knocking off an incumbent is a little tougher getting elected in the first place. 1980 would have been a better measure.
Why don’t you explain in your own words, if you ever write more than a sentence or two, why the electoral vote is an appropriate measure of setting a bar and why the American people had such low expectations of Reagan they elected him twice and believed nothing he could do would disappoint them.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/25/2008 @ 9:14 pmReagan followed Jimmy Carter, Daley.
Obama is following George W.
Two very easy acts to follow.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/25/2008 @ 9:58 pmparsnip – That does not explain your comment about Reagan entering office having “the bar set so low he couldn’t fail.”
Are you trying to say he couldn’t fail because Carter was so bad? That is a frame of reference but not necessarily a reason for people to have low expectations.
Are you also trying to suggest that the Messiah has set the bar of expectations very low? I would find that very unusual among his brainwashed supporters.
Do you know one of our former commenters by the name of Jharp who also wrote one line comments such as yours?
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/25/2008 @ 10:07 pmNo, I don’t know Jharp, and bad faith readings of comments like you do are also quite coomon.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/25/2008 @ 10:11 pmNah. Jharp was way less civil…
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 11/25/2008 @ 10:23 pm“bad faith readings of comments like you do are also quite coomon.”
parsnip – Unwillingness to explain gratuitous swipes at conservatives when pressed, such as yours at Ronald Reagan, are also quite common from your ilk.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/25/2008 @ 10:30 pmThis is probably purely coincidence or maybe a progressive talking point of the day. From Riehl World View:
“The bar has been set so low by George Bush that there is no way to go but up.
-snip-
Unlike Bush who was a failure at everything.
Posted by: jharp | Tuesday, November 25, 2008 at 04:08 PM “
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/25/2008 @ 10:42 pmMy swipe was at Jimmy Carter, daley.
And how cute is it that a Limbaugh conservative like yourself is trying to claim Reagan as one of your own?
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/25/2008 @ 10:48 pmJust stop talking now.
Reagan is viewed as nearly a GODHEAD to conservatives. Claiming he was NOT (or suggesting ignorantly that Reagan isn’t one of Limbaugh’s favorite presidents EVER) is just plain stupid.
Scott Jacobs (90ff96) — 11/25/2008 @ 11:11 pmIt’s the other way round, Scott.
Reagan would have found people like Limbaugh and his dittoheads embarrassments to the conservative movement.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:13 am“My swipe was at Jimmy Carter, daley.”
parsnip – My mistake, I hadn’t yet finished wading through your detailed explaination in comment #81 which interestingly enough dealt with the electoral college totals in 1984 not 1980.
When I’ve come not to expect honesty from someone like you or your ilk, I’m never disappointed when I don’t get it like in that pitiful explaination.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:13 amparsnip – Shortly after Clinton defeated Bush 1, Reagan sent Limbaugh the following note:
Dear Rush,
Thanks for all you’re doing to promote Republican and conservative principles. Now that I’ve retired from active politics, I don’t mind that you have become the Number One voice for conservatism in our Country.
I know the liberals call you “the most dangerous man in America,” but don’t worry about it, they used to say the same thing about me. Keep up the good work. America needs to hear the way things ought to be.”
Sincerely, Ron
As usual, your analysis of conservatives is flawed. As an actor, Reagan probably admired Limbaugh’s over the top schtick the liberals believe is serious.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:21 amparsnip – Don’t give up the meme. The laws of probability almost guarantee that sometime you are going to make a valid point.
daleyrocks (5d22c0) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:25 amQuoting anything Reagan did after he began suffering from Alzheimer’s is in rather poor taste, daley.
Which is to be expected, I suppose.
parsnip (1e884c) — 11/26/2008 @ 12:32 amI’ll say it again, Parsnip. Stop. Talking.
You are digging a hole, and I advise you stop soon.
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 11/26/2008 @ 5:27 amThe whole national security thing is nothing more than a boogeyman. Who, exactly, are we going to fight with our Chrysler K-Tanks (aka M1 Abrams) anyway? The Chinese? How would they get to America? In CONEX containers? America is not going to be invaded by amphibious landings. And those Honda/Nissan/Toyota plants in the US can be nationalized pretty quick if needed, just like we did with the industries in WWII.
We did away with numerous airplane manufacturers after WWII, and nothing happened because Wright/DeHavilland stopped making planes.
Furthermore, we do not need a Big Three if they can’t make it on their own. We can survive with a Big Two.
MunDane (6fe98c) — 11/26/2008 @ 10:45 amYeah, because we would never have to end up going to whoever attacked us by air (bombers or missles). Nope, never…
Oh, wait…
Scott Jacobs (a1c284) — 11/26/2008 @ 11:00 am