?

Log in

No account? Create an account
DT: come reap
Posted on 2008.29.09 at 15:57
where am I: Americay
How I feel about it all: a little freaked out
Soundtrack: the economy crashing around my ears
Tags: , ,
Okay, so NOW WHAT?!

Comments:


tx_cronopio
tx_cronopio at 2008-09-29 20:05 (UTC) ()
I don't have a clue, so I'm not worrying about it. If they don't pass something today, they'll pass something tomorrow or the next day.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2008-09-29 22:02 (UTC) ()
Hopefully so. And hopefully whatever they come up with won't make things worse.

At this point the candidates can promise anything they want and it won't matter because there will be no money to pay for whatever they're promising.
tx_cronopio
tx_cronopio at 2008-09-29 22:05 (UTC) ()
If there were ever a good time to be unemployed and broke, I guess this is it...I can't fall much farther ;)
alexisyael at 2008-09-29 20:16 (UTC) ()
I am freaking out now, too.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2008-09-29 22:03 (UTC) ()
*moves to Australia*

Hey, I know people there. I can crash on littlealex's couch. ;)

Isis
isiscolo at 2008-09-29 20:20 (UTC) ()
So much for being well-off. I'm thinking of staking my claim on this nice cardboard box before anyone else gets it.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2008-09-29 22:00 (UTC) ()
I'm not well-off, and I'm even kind of out of the loop because my job isn't going anywhere. This is one case where it pays NOT to have wealth. But still, the world is falling all around me, and I have to live in the world.
linguisticator at 2008-09-29 20:22 (UTC) ()
Can you find out how your representatives voted? (If so, how?)
peacey at 2008-09-29 20:58 (UTC) ()
Go here and sign up to be notified by weekly email of the key votes by your two Senators and one Representative, get links to send e-mail to your members of Congress using pre-addressed forms, and upcoming votes for your review and a chance to offer e-mail input before they vote.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2008-09-29 21:46 (UTC) ()
I didn't know about this! A world of yay. Although they might not let linguisticator vote, him being Canadian and all (and in the middle of an election as well). ;)

Edited at 2008-09-30 00:03 (UTC)
peacey at 2008-09-29 20:49 (UTC) ()
What is, is, though I gotta tell ya, there's a part of me (the socialism-loathing part) that's glad it went down in flames. If private industry companies make bad decisions that lead to their failure, neither you or I should be on the hook for it. Yes, it's waaay more complicated than that (I can proudly say that I saw the sub-prime mortgage mess coming on years ago), and yes, in this case those companies were nudged into making some of those decisions by insane Bush economic policies/practices, but nudged with a fingertip. I want to say let the financials fail. Let the market crash (and yes, I have stocks in there). If that's what it takes to get back to sane economic practices, bring it. But of course it can't happen that way. I can't really say those things because too many people would feel the hurt too deeply. As the web spins out, too many guiltless businesses and industries would be adversely affected. My only hope is that whatever measures are taken, they do not stink of socialism.
the day you left was just my beginning
patchfire at 2008-09-29 21:02 (UTC) ()
As someone who would be described best as a "socialist libertarian," but generally votes liberal, I have to admit, I agree with this in a lot of ways. The companies hung themselves...
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2008-09-29 21:54 (UTC) ()
And a lot of it started during the Clinton administration, although I'm sure Reaganomics had a lot to do with it. In my limited knowledge of the whole thing, that is.
the day you left was just my beginning
patchfire at 2008-09-29 22:34 (UTC) ()
As much as I want to blame W or Bush I or Reagan, and as much as they want to blame Clinton, the impression I keep getting is that it was more at a Congressional level... some kind of act in 1999 that Gramm sponsored was a big part of it, maybe? I dunno.
peacey at 2008-09-29 22:47 (UTC) ()
The sub-prime debacle started at the tail-end of the Clinton administration, as was recently pointed out by the NYT in this article dated September 30, 1999.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

That about says it all. Irresponsibility and greed.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2008-09-29 22:56 (UTC) ()
There's got to be a way to help low and moderate income people buy a house (I'm in the 'moderate income' category, I think) without bankrupting the country.

Here's an idea: take everyone who ever made a decision on this (and if they're dead, dig 'em up), knock their heads together and ship them off-world. Then hire someone competent who also has actual integrity to run things. If such a creature even exists.

Edited at 2008-09-29 22:57 (UTC)
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2008-09-29 21:58 (UTC) ()
If private industry companies make bad decisions that lead to their failure, neither you or I should be on the hook for it.

I'm pretty sure I agree with you, there. And it seems like both ends of the spectrum are at fault, going way back, especially the greedy corporate CEOs. AND the government. It seems fashionable to blame one or the other, but it's really both (and yeah, more complicated).

I don't own stocks (except whatever's invested from an IRA--see how ignorant I am?), and I'm pretty happy about that right now. I'm also happy I have a job that's not going to disappear any time soon.

I'm all for serious transparency in whatever is decided on. Because allowing a government takeover with no accountability? That's not socialism, that's suicide.
peacey at 2008-09-29 22:15 (UTC) ()
Absolutely it's government - both parties, several different policies - and greedy execs at fault. ALSO, a passel of private citizens bear a significant burden of responsibility for taking out loans and mortgages they knew (or should have known) they could not afford once the sub-prime period expired. Bottom line: irresponsibility and greed have come home to roost. As was absolutely inevitable.

I was utterly freaking out after I read the text of the very first Paulson plan. It gave one man control of $700 billion dollars. And that man's actions and decisions were not reviewable by Congress or the courts. Say it with me, kids: unconstitutional.

In truth, I actually think any kind of government bailout of private industry is unconstitutional.

I'm trying not to freak out. In the past 16 months, my husband's 401k stocks/mutual funds have lost 38% of their value, and mine have lost 21%. And that's before today's tanking. I keep telling myself that we still have the same number of shares, they're just not worth what they were - but they'll go back up. Someday. In fact, I'm trying to see this as a buying opportunity. I actually increased my hubby's 401k contribution %.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2008-09-29 22:31 (UTC) ()
Absolutely it's government - both parties, several different policies - and greedy execs at fault. ALSO, a passel of private citizens bear a significant burden of responsibility for taking out loans and mortgages they knew (or should have known) they could not afford once the sub-prime period expired. Bottom line: irresponsibility and greed have come home to roost. As was absolutely inevitable.

Yes, yes, and damn, yes.

I was utterly freaking out after I read the text of the very first Paulson plan. It gave one man control of $700 billion dollars. And that man's actions and decisions were not reviewable by Congress or the courts. Say it with me, kids: unconstitutional.

The scariest part of all is that the Constitution is being IGNORED. *clutches tattered shreds of Bill of Rights* I mean, the Constitution is...whatever the secular word for 'sacred' is.
newleaf31
newleaf31 at 2008-09-29 21:26 (UTC) ()
I have another friend who is just about apoplectic over this; I'm actually afraid he might implode at any second. I myself am too scared to learn enough about the subject to let myself become apoplectic, because I totally would.

It HAS to get solved. Seriously. I mean, we're not playing here. The hell with politics and shit. DO. SOMETHING. TO. FIX. IT. NOW. What is wrong with them (= Congress)???
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2008-09-29 21:52 (UTC) ()
I completely agree. And I'm not even sure what's right or wrong about the bill because I fail at economics bigtime.

Still, I'm petty enough that while it's happening I'll be making a tiny fist-in-the-air gesture at the fact that the Republicans finally had the guts to turn against one of their own (one of their own who isn't Lincoln Chafee, that is).
peacey at 2008-09-29 22:29 (UTC) ()
True Republicans (not the free-spending Bush repubs) turned against a government-sponsored bailout of private industry. It was the principle that galled them (as it did me). Such intervention goes against the very fiber of what it is to be an economically conservative Republican; that is, small government, low tax, and as little intervention in a free market society as possible. Big government, and a more interposing ideology is more typically the world of the Democrat.
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2008-09-29 22:34 (UTC) ()
Such intervention goes against the very fiber of what it is to be an economically conservative Republican; that is, small government, low tax, and as little intervention in a free market society as possible

I don't hold to a lot of their views on a lot of things, but damn, I was PROUD of them. I might not agree with them, but they're holding to their principles and don't seem to be playing politics. Of course, I'm a big fat idealist and my view could be totally rose-coloured. It's interesting that a lot of people on the Left are against the bill, also. This whole clusterfuck goes way beyond party lines.
Nevvererdovit
the_antichris at 2008-09-30 00:43 (UTC) ()
OMG, if the Republicans didn't vote for such an important bill because Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings... they're exactly the petty little assholes we know them to be. /o\
peacey at 2008-09-30 01:23 (UTC) ()
A few did, most did not. Most voted on principal, on the fact that it was just a bad bill (which it was), and/or to save their asses from their constituents' wrath. Your assessment of those that did is exactly on target (I'd go even farther and call them damn near criminally negligent of their duty to their constituents), but in this debate (as in all of them), there is plenty of pettiness on both sides of the aisle. It's neither productive nor intelligent to so broadly categorize an entire group of people with either positive or negative personal traits based on political affiliation. It smacks of blind prejudice.

Just one example of why the bill was bad: it gave oversight of how the Secretary of the Treasury used that $700 billion to a newly formed Board of Review. Sitting on that board? The Secretary of the Treasury.
Nevvererdovit
the_antichris at 2008-09-30 01:27 (UTC) ()
Fair cop, I only skimmed the article. But that spokesperson blaming the defeat on Pelosi? Petty.

It was a bad bill, but its original incarnation was much worse.
peacey at 2008-09-30 00:57 (UTC) ()
Just call me Susie Sunshine: as of 8:54pm, Dow futures are up 20 points, suggesting a positive opening tomorrow.

*nails yard sale sign on Wall Street post, hopes lotsa lotsa people come buy the bargains*
try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
primroseburrows at 2008-09-30 18:29 (UTC) ()
Dunno what's going to happen now (haven't looked at news sites yet), but I do love your icon. :)

(LJ is another thing entirely. I've tried to post this comment three times already)
Previous Entry  Next Entry