Comments on: Let's Stop The Bailouts, Already

Declan McCullagh Wonders When The Flurry Of Financial Lifelines Will End

[ubrew12]

declanm said: "federal tax revenue rose 15% in FY2005 and 12% in FY2006, while the budget deficit fell by $165 billion over two years. The Bush tax cuts didn''t add $5 trillion to the national debt -- it was out-of-control bipartisan spending... that did."

First, I appreciate your response. Second, I must insist that deficit spending on the ''free market'' doesn''t automatically constitute ''investment'' that will pay off in the long term. I have a deep suspicion of the ''free market'', perhaps unwarranted, that it tends toward investment in the ''lowest-common-denominator'' in preference to the highest. Not to put too fine a point on it, to the ''free market'': a Big Mac and fries is food, a Hummer is transportation, ''57-channels-and-nothin''s-on'' is entertainment, and Bernard Madoff is an astute investment.

In contrast, deficit spending on roads, electrical infrastructure, schools, energy-production-facilities, and bridges constitutes investments that pay off in the long term and then contribute ''free money'' to the economy for decades to come.

Some middle-ground must exist. Yes, the ''invisible hand'' is a better allocator of investment resources, generally. But, as mtee12 has indicated, Bush got the chance to ''break the bank'' on the free-market solution: and so far all it created is a mountain of unemployment. At the least, perhaps we ought to give the other side a chance at deficit spending on ''socialist solutions'', and so end up with a balanced solution.

[talkingham]

Just shows to go you what happens when a "free market" prex drops $1.25 trillion down the toilet of Iraq to "bail out" his failed war on weapons of mass destruction that did not exist just so he could be the war president.

great job. mission accomplished. u destroyed the American economy along with the billionaires who have sent our jobs over seas so that that hispanics and red necks can buy cheap stuff at Walmart.

Yeah, now that the greedy s o b s at the top have gotten theirs it''s time to shut things down right!

[declanm-2009]

jlpruitt: Good point. Without the government subsidizing farmers, how would they ever manage to grow food?

[bhrater-2009]

Welcome to bailout-land where all your problems can be solved by borrowing money that doesn''t exist, but will have to be paid back from everybody.
Banks, ok they have their bailout, but it has been handled with the same lack of oversight that got us into this mess. That needs to change!
The housing market needs to be stabilized, but that would not require a bailout, that would require asking the lenders to freeze interest or no interest for six months. This would give people a chance to catch up, working with home owners, increasing the loan duration to allow for easier monthly payments. This does not require a bailout!
A great way to jump start an economy would be infrastructure rebuilding. And boy do we need it, crumbling bridges, and freeways, schools, alternative energy. This would create jobs which would help, we would be getting something for our buck!
But I don''t believe this next and I hope final bailout should be used for any more businesses. Auto industry should be the last, if the country had not already been hit with the wall street blunders, I would have let the auto''s file for bankruptcy. But the country didn''t need to be kicked when it was already down.
Create jobs, no more bailouts; it worked for China, it can work here too!

[jlpruitt-2009]

I think saying that farmers cannot ask for assistance is stupid. How are we supposed to get food for ourselves? Are you going to take the time and effort to grow food, or watch and herd cattle, etc? No, that''s why we have farmers who are dedicated to helping this economy by providing goods for the American people. We need farmers. Not helping them would be drastic to an already unstable economy. Then there would be no money, no credit, and NO FOOD. Not a smart way to go.

[ozarkbard]

700 billion dollars is enough buy solar cell arrays to produce ONE THIRD of the US''s electricity FOR THE NEXT 25 YEARS!!!

Actually longer then that, 25 years is just the manufacturers warranty. AND that is at TODAY''s prices with current technology.

[luckygirl042]

Where can I apply for a bailout? I only need about $20,000 to put me on easy street! But I''ll take what they would give me--LOL

[declanm-2009]

Some replies to folks who posted in response to my column...

timonthyone: You didn''t say who you were referring to when writing, blissfully ignorant of the truth: "You are no more than a die-hard George Bush idiot cheerleader. I''ve read your nonsense Neocon garbage many times." Well, I only started this column in October, but I''ve been consistently critical of bailouts during that time. Also, if you think I''m a George Bush cheerleader, read my column that posted the day after the election that said in the first sentence "The Republicans deserved to lose":
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/05/politics/otherpeoplesmoney/main4575337.shtml

sly_64: One way to pull that off would be this rule of thumb: vote out all incumbents.

mtee12: "Now with Obama coming in, Republicans are all in a tizzy about deficit spending." Yep, there''s plenty of hypocrisy to go around. And I imagine the Democrats will become far less skeptical of broad assertions of executive power in a few weeks.

ubrew12: You say: "where was Declan McCullagh when Bush was cutting taxes on the rich? By doing so, Bush added $5 trillion to the national debt." In reality, federal tax revenue rose 15% in FY2005 and 12% in FY2006, while the budget deficit fell by $165 billion over two years. The Bush tax cuts didn''t add $5 trillion to the national debt -- it was out-of-control bipartisan spending (and an unnecessary war) that did.

[ubrew12]

I think the big question is:

where was Declan McCullagh when Bush was cutting taxes on the rich? By doing so, Bush added $5 trillion to the national debt. According to the Economist Magazine, 3/4th''s of the economic growth this created went to the richest 1% of Americans.

Was McCullagh out there prostletizing that this was irresponsible, to benefit just 1% of the country by taking us into unprecedented debt levels? I don''t recall so. Could we use $5 trillion right about now to bail out forces of our economy that actually build stuff? SURE. Bush bankrupted the economy, and McCullagh had nothing to say about it cuz it benefitted the rich. Now that Obama is trying to bail out the parts of the economy that actually help BUILD America (as opposed to PREYING upon it like the benefactors of the Bush tax cuts), well, NOW McCullagh has PLENTY to say.

Lets take a cue from Nancy Reagan, and JUST SAY NO, to McCullagh.

[usgeneral-2009]

The $700 Billion TARP has been a total failure - the money has gone principally to Wall Street pals of Paulson (aside from the inept d-crat congress, who couldn''t have seen that coming?) And the marxist drug-addict plans to waste another TRILLION on "public works" - most likely a narcissist''s dream: monuments to himself on every street corner. And, as if that were not bad enough, the marxist will proceed with his WEALTH RE-DISTRIBUTION PLAN (corrupting the tax code to take money from hard-working American citizens and give it to slugs and slackers) as one of his first horrific actions.

And, if you can''t figure out who will actually pay for all this, your head must also be up bailout fantasy-land.

What is the "bailout exit strategy"?

"Irrational exuberance" has been replaced by "bailout insanity".