MLM Directory - Is the bailout plan not just 'foolish' but 'sinister' as Ron Paul considers it?

Is the bailout plan not just 'foolish' but 'sinister' as Ron Paul considers it?

Remembering that he was vilified as a kook for predicting this precise situation, is he worth listening to now? "The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress’ throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! “This is welfare for the rich,” he said. “This is socialism for the rich. It’s bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters.” That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we’re being told it’s unavoidable. The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess! • The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us. • Financial institutions are “designated as financial agents of the Government.” This is the New Deal to end all New Deals. • Then there’s this: “Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.“ Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process. There goes your country. Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this “sadly necessary.” Sad, yes. Necessary? Don’t make me laugh. Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we’re supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they’re not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really. Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we’ll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity. The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care? When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media? Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be. " If you are against this, are you emailing your reps? thanks, justagirl, but Ron Paul is the old fashioned sort of patriot who would prefer to save the country from the damage than be given personal power. Email your reps again, if you want to support this. Pfo his plan would be to live within our means. somehow I can't find a way to make that sound 'kooky'. intelex there will definitely be major bad consequences from the bailouts the fed already did with NO request to congress and the bubbles the fed created. the bailouts just are doing more of what we did to get into this problem to begin with, however. And even Bernanke and Paulson can't say this would even work.

Public Comments

I did so yesterday. And I completely agree with Ron Paul. If I thought he actually stood a chance, I'd vote for him.
With the government getting involved in Wall Street they'll be dipping into our 401K accounts before you know it! BE AFRAID!
It is absolutely sinister...and the dems and repugs are both in it together. The fact that Ron Paul was never a serious contender for President is a testimony to the failure of the American people to recognize politicians who actually speak to their material interests.
I agree with most of Ron Paul's assessment, but without a viable alternative plan, I cannot oppose the one that is being presented. I don't think that allowing these institutions to fail is wise or productive, and that doing so will bring another depression. And don't kid yourself, while Ron Paul is quite knowledgeable about economic matters, his proposals are certainly kook-worthy.
Of course it is sinister! They are grasping your country's assets in order to finance a military coup. If they think they are anywhere near losing power, they'll take it!!
If I thought that Ron Paul had a chance at winning the presidency, I would vote for him. He is the only person I have heard speaking truthfully about the situation we face right now and I would even go so far as to say that he is the only person with a clue when it comes to understanding how to fix the problem. I am 100% against these bail out and trust me when I say that my representatives are probably sick of hearing from me by now.
You beat me to it! Recalling that Ron Paul was labeled as a 'kook' I was just thinking about this yesterday but I was out working in my garden and forgot to post it. Thanks ! **edit I've called all three . . . Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein and Zoe Lofgren. Got pretty much the same answer, that they cannot answer these and other questions until legislation is passed but they will forward my comments.
Absolutely. Let it fail, let 30% of Americans become destitute for a decade, and then, maybe then, we'll realize the current Republican Party is the party the 1880's, not the 21st Century. They will go the way of the Wigs and members will combine with the DLC for form a conservative Democratic Party again. A new party will be created that will be ready to take the US into the 21st century.
yes, i am telling my representatives that if they vote for this, i will, and my friends will, vote against them to put them out on the street with the rest of destitute america. DAR, how strange it is these days. when i post a legitimate question here, answers removes it. when i have tried 3 times to post my earnest answer to this question, in agreement with ron paul that it will be a crime for the taxpayers to bail all these companies out of hot water, answers gives me the message "we are taking a breather." i therefore tell you, why bother asking relevant questions on this site? your IP address might be tracked. answers obviously does not want americans to have their own opinions, but whatever it deems are so stupid as to be vapid. this bailout should be blocked. it is a crime. (this is my fourth try at posting, but it will not allow me to post my content. this forum is run by fascists who want us americans to be little sheep). EDITED JUST AFTER THE ONE ABOVE POSTED!: ORIGINAL ANSWER: when i grew up and in grammar school in the 1950s and 1960s, we were told to budget our earnings this way: 1. 25% for housing; 2. 25% for utilities and transportation; 3. 25% for food; and 4. 25% for SAVINGS and discretionary spending. PERIOD. bill clinton set up this whole house of cards. he appointed a man named franklin raines to be the head honcho of FANNIE MAE. (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDA4YTY1N2ZhMDhmNjIwNTk4OTI2MDYxZWU4NDg1Y2Q). fannie mae was started by congress after the Great Depression in what was called the New Deal. it used to be that mortgages were not fully amortized over a long period of time (amort = "to kill" in french). there were no 30 year fixed rate mortgages before the new deal. you'd buy a house, put some money down, then pay it off in just a few years (yes, houses used to be cheap enough to do that). when the depression started as a result of people dropping their chunks of stocks, causing the stock market to fall apart, you might not then have any income from stock dividends to help you pay for your house, so it got foreclosed. people set up tenting areas and cooked their meager food on fires outside of the areas where they used to own a house. such a tent site has already been started here in the united states by those that have lost their homes because they were given loans that were far beyond their means. they took "ARM"s, adjustable rate mortgages with little or no money down that they were told by the mortgage bankers could adjust upwards to a point that their mortgage payments wouldn't be able to be paid, but they took them anyhow, thanks to clinton's insistence that everyone in the united states have a house. (or uh, a CONDO...). the ratios that are stable to use to compute what your mortgage amount should be are these very old fashioned ones: of your gross monthly mortgage (not your net take home pay), 1. 28% for the principal, [real estate] taxes, [homeowner's or association's] insurance and INTEREST (whatever the interest would be per month on the loan; 2. 33% of the GMI for long term debt (debt that would take more than 6 months to pay off, e.g., a car loan or student loan), and to INCLUDE the payment per month on the mortgage as no. 1 above. if you have an ARM, how can your PITI (no. 1 above) continue to be only 28% of your income? if you are living on two and not one income, then you can possibly sustain it, but if one loses his job, then that ratio goes into the cosmos of never-never land. well, i watched in horror for many years in the real estate business as these ratios climbed up higher and higher. eventually, you had a family paying out close to 50% of their gross monthly income just for housing. thanks to franklin raines, jim johnson, and one ms. gorlick (who did not stay on with fannie mae long enough to put her into prison, where the other two belong), families took on "sub prime" mortgage loans that were funded by fannie mae itself buying up debt as well as companies like leyman, bears stern, and the like. franklin raines, who happens to be an afro-american (not that that counts, or, should i say that maybe some reverse racism is at play in that he did not go to prison) paid himself and jim johnson and ms. gorlick tens of millions of dollars not in income, but in incentives, but in dollars, when the "stock" of fannie mae went from somewhere around $3.26 per share up to about $6.36/share and stayed there. how did the value jump up almost double? it did because no one was watching the ranch. more and more marginal americans bought houses that they could not afford, therefore, more and more mortgages were dolled out. at the time that fannie mae was investigated by an office of the federal government, enron's scandal was just creeping out, so the fannie mae scandal was put by the wayside. was that because the president was clinton, or bush, or was it because it was not politically correct to talk about the rampant stealing going on in the major mortgage player in the united states? do you remember how long ago the enron scandal happened? a long, long time ago. which means that raines, johnson and gorlick had the chance to clean up fannie mae but did not. fannie mae was selling mortgages to investors. the investors were the big companies that are now belly up and whose CEOs are praying that we are stupid enough to allow them to take our tax money with impunity so that they can jump on back into the tank to rip us off time and time again. well, what i say, DAR, is that nothing is so complex about this buyout and also, it is tantamount to the government acting as criminals in the misuse of our tax money when already we are running inside of a deficit so big that should you go near it, it will suck you down into its cold depths, to eat you alive. it is so bad that i cannot see how it can be balanced, do you? are only the wages of the CEOs of large corporations that buy up bad loans to go up? if so, how could their income taxes take us out of the deficit? do you see why i say that this idea is criminal? a CEO's job is to ensure that the company survives. if the company chooses to make investments with its profits, then the board of directors should be told how risky that can be. the CEO's job is to ensure that the stockholders' money is not wasted on bad investments. and so, why should we bail these companies out? i think that they should just declare bankruptcy and let their employees linger on soup kitchen lines along with the rest of us, don't you? yes, i have emailed and called my representatives in as much as i could considering what state i hail from (IL). i told them that i will ensure that all of my friends know that they are traitors worthy of being thrown out of office if they vote this criminal bailout in. why is it that the two popular candidates have no clue how to tackle this situation? why don't they tell the companies to go bankrupt? little kids that do bad things usually get a slap on the hand (or they used to, when your conduct made a difference in our society). that teaches them not to do these bad things. i do not see any morals in the way big companies expect that if they do things that are not prudent, i.e., not right, then when it all comes out in the wash they feel that the federal government, WHICH IS THE GOVERNMENT OF WE, THE PEOPLE, should hug them and give them candy money so that they will go out and do harmful things once again. i say, BLOCK THIS BAILOUT. and you all should say it too since it is your money, your children's money, and the money that should go to benefit YOU that will be used for it. it is a crime. SUPPORTING LINKS: http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NDA4YTY1N2ZhMDhmNjIwNTk4OTI2MDYxZWU4NDg1Y2Q and http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/JI23Dj06.html