Interview Question in Conventional Current


 

Interview Question :: Is this why the bailout needs to be stopped - not ;negotiated;


""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.

In liberty,

Ron Paul"
Answers to "Is this why the bailout needs to be stopped - not ;negotiated;"
RE: Is this why the bailout needs to be stopped - not ;negotiated;?

"it will be a hard ride with or without the bailout but the bailout will make it a bad decade, not a bad year"



Our state department gave similar advice to the provinces of the former Soviet Union after their break up regarding the transition to democracy. They said that it was best to ride out the hard times for the first few years and to avoid the temptation for the government to step in. With the time to look back on that advice now would they agree that these test markets are better off than if they had tried to make a slow transition? Same here we will be better off if we decide to face the storm head on.



Here is another shocker things really are not that bad. Some sectors are having trouble and in a downturn, the market has tightened and poor managers are being exposed and their enterprises are in trouble. However, those who haven't squandered what they made during good times and saved and reinvested in their businesses are still able to make a profit.



Unemployment is higher than many would like but it is not at a crises level. Same with interest rates they are not at the record lows we have seen over the past two decades but they are still low. No where near a level that requires government to take the extraordinary steps they are wanting to undertake. Some businesses are failing but this is in large part due to weak leaders who are unable to face adversity. They expect that someone should step in and stop the fight at the first sign of blood. It is best to get rid of the wimps and failures and allow a new generation with drive and vision to step up and take their place. Why save jobs and accounts with companies which are doomed to repeat their mistakes? Why not let allow American workers to get a fresh start with a company that is positioned for growth rather than one that keeps downsizing?



Bailouts are nothing new. Bailouts over the past 40 have set a bad precedent. They have given the message that it is more important to just be big than to be profitable. We need to take a tough and say that for the good of this nation as a whole we are going to allow those who have helped bleed the working class and turn off the cash flow.



This also means voting out any elected official who has approved of any of the bailouts over the past few months.
 
Vote for this answer ::  
RE: Is this why the bailout needs to be stopped - not ;negotiated;?

Ron Paul is very much the voice of reason in this day and age. He stood up to his party before the Iraq invasion and no one listened to him. Now look where we are.



People on here think that voting for Ron Paul would be a wasted-but if you think that and I think that...and she thinks that and he thinks that-no one ends up voting for him at all!



People like you and I need to get out there and tell the people like Ron Paul told us "You don't have to choose between the lesser of two evils."



There is still some hope left, if my fellow moderates can get past their apathy and fear that is.
 
Vote for this answer ::  
RE: Is this why the bailout needs to be stopped - not ;negotiated;?

http://cangetu.put.lv

you can get much information in this website,If you will check anyone link in website




 
Vote for this answer ::  
Update Alert Setting
Advertisement2