DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: _JS on September 22, 2008, 03:58:42 PM
-
The trillion-dollar questions
Given the scale of the crisis on Wall Street, America deserves answers. But it won't get any from George Bush
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/sep/22/uselections2008.wallstreet)
How many billions of dollars do you need to squander before someone has to hold a proper press conference in Washington DC?
I only ask, because after a week in which increasing amounts of taxpayers' money was pledged to prop up the US financial system, not one of the major actors in the US administration could drag themselves in front of a podium to fully answer questions on the subject. It hardly seems value for money, does it?
It's extraordinary: a blank cheque is being written, for perhaps $700bn or more, and no-one involved in writing that cheque has been prepared to go into a room full of journalists, stare into the TV cameras, and say: "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sure you've all got many questions to ask…."
One example was last Thursday, after the US government had bailed out the AIG insurance company through an $85bn loan, and word was circulating of a further huge rescue package being readied. President Bush, at that moment of national peril, stirred himself to read a statement of 260 words, lasting exactly two minutes – that's not an exaggeration, that is the length of time he spoke for: from 10.15am to 10.17am – of such banality that it doesn't bear repeating. (The highlight? "Our financial markets continue to deal with serious challenges.")
In those two minutes President Bush neither sought nor answered a single question, as the stock market see-sawed, and hundreds of billions of dollars were being thrust into the markets by the Federal Reserve. The following day, however, President Bush did speak to the press – alongside the championship-winning Boston Celtics basketball team, for whom he found time to say more than 1,200 words. (But even that simple task he managed to screw up, of course, when he at one point referred to the team as the Boston Red Sox.)
Hank Paulson, the Treasury secretary, did hold what was billed as a press conference last Friday, in which he read out a statement and took precisely three questions before stalking out. He avoided answering any of the three in any detail, other than this one:
Q: You said this seems to be of significant size. Are we talking hundreds of billions, a trillion dollars?
Secretary Paulson: No, we're talking hundreds of billions. This needs to be big enough to make a real difference and get at the heart of the problem.
One ancient US senator is alleged to have observed: "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." He obviously never met Hank Paulson, to whom talking hundreds of billions only merits a sentence or two.
To be fair, Secretary Paulson only had to explain the meltdown on Wall Street and justify why hundreds of billions worth of government funds were being exposed in this way. So three questions would probably cover everything.
By the end of the weekend Paulson had done the rounds of the Sunday morning TV talk shows, in which he managed to say very little indeed, and the hosts were content to look grave rather than ask questions on subjects they knew nothing about. None of this stage-managed journalism is a good substitute for actually holding an open-ended press conference.
No one should be surprised. This is the Bush administration we're talking about, upon whose tombstone history will write three place-names: Iraq, New Orleans, and now Wall Street. In each of these three events we can pick out the same pattern – initial incomprehension, a long period of stasis during which conditions got worse, an inability to adopt appropriate policies because of objections based on ideology, until finally, at vast expense, a resolution of some sort is stumbled upon. And in none of these instances has answering questions about the administration's conduct been a strong point.
Indeed, the combined Wall Street bailouts are now matching the treasure spent on the war in Iraq. As Iraq showed, Wall Street will eventual improve, since there are few problems in the world that can't be helped by throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at them. (New Orleans is still waiting, though.)
While George Bush doesn't want to hold any press conferences to discuss the crisis, plenty of other Republicans do. One senator, Jim Bunning, made a statement worth reading on several levels:
"Instead of celebrating the Fourth of July next year Americans will be celebrating Bastille Day; the free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America," said Bunning. "The action proposed today by the Treasury department will take away the free market and institute socialism in America. The American taxpayer has been mislead throughout this economic crisis. The government on all fronts has failed the American people miserably. My great-grandchildren will be saddled with the estimated $1 trillion debt left in the wake of this proposal. We have gotten to this point because nobody has been minding the store. Both Secretary Paulson and Chairmen [Ben] Bernanke should be held accountable for their inaction – and now because of that inaction – the American taxpayer is left with bill."
The last time he ran for re-election Bunning was forced to assure voters that he was mentally fit to hold office. But even so, let me make clear: Bunning is a Republican senator from Kentucky.
It can't be much fun being an incumbent Republican running in November. You have your president betraying your dearly-held free market beliefs, while your presidential candidate is roaming the country painting you as part of the corrupt swamp in Washington that caused the problem.
And if no one from the administration is willing to turn up for a once-in-a-lifetime market meltdown, then who can blame Sarah Palin for avoiding anything resembling a press conference – she's only running for vice president.
-
Do you believe the govt should let the market run its course or should they intervene?
-
Do you believe the govt should let the market run its course or should they intervene?
I believe that if the government chooses to intervene, the institutions in question should become public property. Clearly they cannot be run properly by the private sector.
-
I believe that if the government chooses to intervene, the institutions in question should become public property. Clearly they cannot be run properly by the private sector.
did you answer my question or did you add a conditional?
-
I thought it was a fair answer, you didn't address the article in any way.
I think the government should bail out the finance institutions if they seize the properties they are (for all practical purposes) purchasing. Otherwise, let the market run its course. Let the people experience unfettered capitalism. Why not? People claim to love it and preach the gospel of capitalism.
Enjoy it.
-
I thought it was a fair answer, you didn't address the article in any way.
At this point I am more interested in your opinin than that of some pundit from the Guardian.
I'm leaning towards let the companies fail, let the economy collapse, social darwinism at its finest.
But then there is apart of me that doesn't like to see people suffer needlessly.
So i'm torn.
-
I believe that if the government chooses to intervene, the institutions in question should become public property. Clearly they cannot be run properly by the private sector.
What's so terribly annoying about your inquiries, BT, is that you fail to make your preferences known. It is almost as if you want to know the loyal opposition's stances in order to be able to react in such a way that paints them in a negative light.
Or is it perhaps your intention to point out that the left is simply reacting to the current "administration's" reaction and perhaps may not know what they are talking about?
-
The post above yours states my unsolid position.
And i don't see how the timing of my questions is any different than what Obama is doing.
He and his surrogates are taking pot shots at McCain whilst claiming the dog ate his homework.
But I guess that is different, somehow, somewhere in to coin Mikey's phrase, BizarroWorld.
-
At this point I am more interested in your opinin than that of some pundit from the Guardian.
I'm leaning towards let the companies fail, let the economy collapse, social darwinism at its finest.
But then there is apart of me that doesn't like to see people suffer needlessly.
So i'm torn.
I did not see this post before I posted mine.
I think this is pretty much the stance of nearly everyone but extremists on the left and right.
-
<<But I guess that is different, somehow, somewhere in to coin Mikey's phrase, BizarroWorld.>>
Thanks, BT, but I believe the honour goes to the creators of the Superman comic.
-
It would seem to me that in exchange for saving so many butts, the government should take these companies over and run them until they bail themselves out.
-
It would seem to me that in exchange for saving so many butts, the government should take these companies over and run them until they bail themselves out.
They aren't buying companies. They are buying questionable assets.
-
They aren't buying companies. They are buying questionable assets.
Allow me to rephrase this, then
It would seem to me that in exchange for saving so many butts, the government should take these companies over, together with their questionable asssets, and run them until the companies bail themselves out and the questionable assets are all gone.
-
What the government is lending it will charge 11% intrest on , what they are buying they will sell again , to customers this will be as if nothing had happened , but the Government is assuming all the risk that loans will not be repaid and that properties will be sellable.
This is an unfortunate circumstance for the next president , the budget available to the next president will be at least $700,000,000,000 short of what it would have been without these bailouts.
-
This is an unfortunate circumstance for the next president , the budget available to the next president will be at least $700,000,000,000 short of what it would have been without these bailouts.
That's ok. We just won't give away the $845,000,000,000 to other countries that Obama is planning on adding, and we'll still be good.
-
This is an unfortunate circumstance for the next president , the budget available to the next president will be at least $700,000,000,000 short of what it would have been without these bailouts.
I know where they can make up about $120 billion of it.
-
This is an unfortunate circumstance for the next president , the budget available to the next president will be at least $700,000,000,000 short of what it would have been without these bailouts.
It is also another sign that Juniorbush & Cheney were as incompetent as any men who have ever run this country.
And there you are, planning to elect a rerun of the same.
-
I thought it was a fair answer, you didn't address the article in any way.
At this point I am more interested in your opinin than that of some pundit from the Guardian.
I'm leaning towards let the companies fail, let the economy collapse, social darwinism at its finest.
But then there is apart of me that doesn't like to see people suffer needlessly.
So i'm torn.
I wouldn't call it Social Darwinism. The Social Darwinists are at the White House talking the administration into lining their parachutes in platinum. They deserve it - don't ya know?
I don't want to see people suffer either. On the other hand, people have been fed neoliberal bullshit for so long that they accept it as gospel truth. Maybe they need to live the reality that capitalism isn't the brilliant miracle cure-all that they've been led to believe. Some people have to live it, before they stop accepting it.