[urbanrealtor]

I think you made a pretty compelling argument.

I would like to see a better argument both for and against the bailout package.

Specifically, I am sure that leading policy-makers have a counter suggestion or see a flaw to your version but to date I have not seen one.

I really think transparency and open source of policy is important here and I am not seeing any of it.

For example if the issue of banks failing will have catastrophic effects, what exactly to the policy makers see those effects as being?

What will the dramatic increase in debt ceiling mean as far as service to the debt or as far as credit rating?

What does this do to our national cash flow?
Will we have to raise taxes dramatically?

I would like to see a model of projected outcomes.
Maybe something like those weird hurricane projections the news has before storms.

Sort of “If we do nothing, here are the likely or possible results.”

Again, I find the big guys’ consensus compelling and interesting but I really feel that the communication to the public has been poor and unhelpful.

Good post dude.

[urbanrealtor]

I think you made a pretty compelling argument.

I would like to see a better argument both for and against the bailout package.

Specifically, I am sure that leading policy-makers have a counter suggestion or see a flaw to your version but to date I have not seen one.

I really think transparency and open source of policy is important here and I am not seeing any of it.

For example if the issue of banks failing will have catastrophic effects, what exactly to the policy makers see those effects as being?

What will the dramatic increase in debt ceiling mean as far as service to the debt or as far as credit rating?

What does this do to our national cash flow?
Will we have to raise taxes dramatically?

I would like to see a model of projected outcomes.
Maybe something like those weird hurricane projections the news has before storms.

Sort of “If we do nothing, here are the likely or possible results.”

Again, I find the big guys’ consensus compelling and interesting but I really feel that the communication to the public has been poor and unhelpful.

Good post dude.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=paramount]Since when does the “will of the public” matter?[/quote]
It matters if you are running for re-election in 5 weeks.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=paramount]Since when does the “will of the public” matter?[/quote]
It matters if you are running for re-election in 5 weeks.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=paramount]Since when does the “will of the public” matter?[/quote]
It matters if you are running for re-election in 5 weeks.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=paramount]Since when does the “will of the public” matter?[/quote]
It matters if you are running for re-election in 5 weeks.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=paramount]Since when does the “will of the public” matter?[/quote]
It matters if you are running for re-election in 5 weeks.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=BGinRB]Ah, urbanrealtor’s eloquent straw men and ad hominems. My favorite. [/quote]
What of what I said was either a straw man or an ad hominem?
I think my remarks have been pretty much confined to the topic. I don’t think I have attacked anyone personally. I don’t think I have presented anyone’s view as a straw man.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=BGinRB]Ah, urbanrealtor’s eloquent straw men and ad hominems. My favorite. [/quote]
What of what I said was either a straw man or an ad hominem?
I think my remarks have been pretty much confined to the topic. I don’t think I have attacked anyone personally. I don’t think I have presented anyone’s view as a straw man.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=BGinRB]Ah, urbanrealtor’s eloquent straw men and ad hominems. My favorite. [/quote]
What of what I said was either a straw man or an ad hominem?
I think my remarks have been pretty much confined to the topic. I don’t think I have attacked anyone personally. I don’t think I have presented anyone’s view as a straw man.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=BGinRB]Ah, urbanrealtor’s eloquent straw men and ad hominems. My favorite. [/quote]
What of what I said was either a straw man or an ad hominem?
I think my remarks have been pretty much confined to the topic. I don’t think I have attacked anyone personally. I don’t think I have presented anyone’s view as a straw man.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=BGinRB]Ah, urbanrealtor’s eloquent straw men and ad hominems. My favorite. [/quote]
What of what I said was either a straw man or an ad hominem?
I think my remarks have been pretty much confined to the topic. I don’t think I have attacked anyone personally. I don’t think I have presented anyone’s view as a straw man.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=urbanrealtor]

While I agree that the patriot act was planned, I am not sure how the bailout benefits anyone.

I mean the patriot act brought US public safety standards to something closer to the rest of the world. I (and many others) disagree with it because most of the governments of the world are too intrusive and controlling. But the point was that there was a large powerful lobby that always wanted the measures of the patriot act adopted.

I don’t see that same kind of lobby for this measure. Its more like the “surge” in Iraq. It might be very successful and improve stability but it is really just dressed up damage control. I do think that the parts of our economy that led us here DID have a huge lobby (deregulation, loose money, loose securitization rules).

Hopefully the remedy will garner a huge lobby and address the causes as well. We’ll see.[/quote]

My god you are naive. No lobby for $700 billion? Your buddies at NAR have been begging for a bailout for months. PIMCO’s Bill Gross can’t wait to get his hands on that taxpayer money. There are tons of other bagholders out there who can’t wait to unload crappy mortgages on the taxpayer.

Who do you think is writing this bill? Congresspeople? Not a chance. This bill is most assuredly being written by lobbyists.

Do you live in a bubble or something? I don’t see how else you could believe that lobbyists wouldn’t be involved when $700 billion is at stake.

[/quote]
Again, I don’t think that making personal attacks strengthens your case.
You may note that I did not say lobbyists.
I said a lobby and not a group of professional lobbyists.
A pro lobbyist is like Jack Abramoff who takes legislators out to lunch or buys them a boat.
I was referring to an interested group who want to sway an outcome (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lobby). Specifically, the will of the public. I think that the public opinion polls tend to support my thesis (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news/economy/easton_backlash.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008092810).

I don’t think that NAR (with whom I do not generally agree on anything) or PIMCO were the prime movers behind this bill. They just don’t have that much juice. Some parts of this may suit their interests but I don’t recall them asking for this particular type of securities purchase before. Do you know of such a request? Again I do not see a lobby other than a few of the most senior consulting economists.

Whom do you see being a interested party pushing for this? Who is really going to get rich off of this bailout?
I really would be happy to be proven wrong on this.
If you have data that matches your assertions, I will listen.

Insults make arguments weak. If you want me to take your assertions seriously, you should present them seriously. I am not immune to being convinced by good reasoning.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=urbanrealtor]

While I agree that the patriot act was planned, I am not sure how the bailout benefits anyone.

I mean the patriot act brought US public safety standards to something closer to the rest of the world. I (and many others) disagree with it because most of the governments of the world are too intrusive and controlling. But the point was that there was a large powerful lobby that always wanted the measures of the patriot act adopted.

I don’t see that same kind of lobby for this measure. Its more like the “surge” in Iraq. It might be very successful and improve stability but it is really just dressed up damage control. I do think that the parts of our economy that led us here DID have a huge lobby (deregulation, loose money, loose securitization rules).

Hopefully the remedy will garner a huge lobby and address the causes as well. We’ll see.[/quote]

My god you are naive. No lobby for $700 billion? Your buddies at NAR have been begging for a bailout for months. PIMCO’s Bill Gross can’t wait to get his hands on that taxpayer money. There are tons of other bagholders out there who can’t wait to unload crappy mortgages on the taxpayer.

Who do you think is writing this bill? Congresspeople? Not a chance. This bill is most assuredly being written by lobbyists.

Do you live in a bubble or something? I don’t see how else you could believe that lobbyists wouldn’t be involved when $700 billion is at stake.

[/quote]
Again, I don’t think that making personal attacks strengthens your case.
You may note that I did not say lobbyists.
I said a lobby and not a group of professional lobbyists.
A pro lobbyist is like Jack Abramoff who takes legislators out to lunch or buys them a boat.
I was referring to an interested group who want to sway an outcome (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lobby). Specifically, the will of the public. I think that the public opinion polls tend to support my thesis (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news/economy/easton_backlash.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008092810).

I don’t think that NAR (with whom I do not generally agree on anything) or PIMCO were the prime movers behind this bill. They just don’t have that much juice. Some parts of this may suit their interests but I don’t recall them asking for this particular type of securities purchase before. Do you know of such a request? Again I do not see a lobby other than a few of the most senior consulting economists.

Whom do you see being a interested party pushing for this? Who is really going to get rich off of this bailout?
I really would be happy to be proven wrong on this.
If you have data that matches your assertions, I will listen.

Insults make arguments weak. If you want me to take your assertions seriously, you should present them seriously. I am not immune to being convinced by good reasoning.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=TheBreeze][quote=urbanrealtor]

While I agree that the patriot act was planned, I am not sure how the bailout benefits anyone.

I mean the patriot act brought US public safety standards to something closer to the rest of the world. I (and many others) disagree with it because most of the governments of the world are too intrusive and controlling. But the point was that there was a large powerful lobby that always wanted the measures of the patriot act adopted.

I don’t see that same kind of lobby for this measure. Its more like the “surge” in Iraq. It might be very successful and improve stability but it is really just dressed up damage control. I do think that the parts of our economy that led us here DID have a huge lobby (deregulation, loose money, loose securitization rules).

Hopefully the remedy will garner a huge lobby and address the causes as well. We’ll see.[/quote]

My god you are naive. No lobby for $700 billion? Your buddies at NAR have been begging for a bailout for months. PIMCO’s Bill Gross can’t wait to get his hands on that taxpayer money. There are tons of other bagholders out there who can’t wait to unload crappy mortgages on the taxpayer.

Who do you think is writing this bill? Congresspeople? Not a chance. This bill is most assuredly being written by lobbyists.

Do you live in a bubble or something? I don’t see how else you could believe that lobbyists wouldn’t be involved when $700 billion is at stake.

[/quote]
Again, I don’t think that making personal attacks strengthens your case.
You may note that I did not say lobbyists.
I said a lobby and not a group of professional lobbyists.
A pro lobbyist is like Jack Abramoff who takes legislators out to lunch or buys them a boat.
I was referring to an interested group who want to sway an outcome (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/lobby). Specifically, the will of the public. I think that the public opinion polls tend to support my thesis (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news/economy/easton_backlash.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008092810).

I don’t think that NAR (with whom I do not generally agree on anything) or PIMCO were the prime movers behind this bill. They just don’t have that much juice. Some parts of this may suit their interests but I don’t recall them asking for this particular type of securities purchase before. Do you know of such a request? Again I do not see a lobby other than a few of the most senior consulting economists.

Whom do you see being a interested party pushing for this? Who is really going to get rich off of this bailout?
I really would be happy to be proven wrong on this.
If you have data that matches your assertions, I will listen.

Insults make arguments weak. If you want me to take your assertions seriously, you should present them seriously. I am not immune to being convinced by good reasoning.

[Author]

Posts