Posted on 09/25/2008 12:25:31 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free
Human suffering became a reality for millions of Americans as the depression continued. Many died of disease resulting from malnutrition. Thousands lost their home because they could not pay the mortgage. In 1932,at least 25,000 families,and more than 200,000 young people wandered through the country seeking food,clothing,shelter,and a job.
Many of the young people traveled in freight trains,and lived near train yards called hobo jungles. The homeless,jobless travelers obtained food from welfare agencies,or religious missions in town along the way. Most of their meals consisted of soup,beans,or stew and had very little nourishment. The travelers begged for food,or stole it if they could not get something to eat. They even ate scraps of food from garbage cans.
The ragged travelers found clothing even harder to obtain than food. Missions gave most of the clothing they had to the needy local people. Many of the travelers became very ill because they did not have food,or proper clothing. Even the sick wanderers had trouble getting help because the hospitals aided local residents first.
Quix, thanks.
Ping to post #61.
So then, there is really no risk of a systemic national and world financial collapse? They are just making that up? Or are you saying we are screwed anyway so just take the hit and not let these guys throw money at their buddies first?
I’m saying that panic will cause the financial system to collapse. I’m saying we should stabilize the system over the next couple of years and then find the political will to change legislation to prevent these kinds of crimes and bubbles, if that is even possible. We need to overcome this “too big to fail” policy that encourages risky behavior. I don’t know how to accomplish that.
But I would hope we could avoid creating a sudden financial panic when people and institutions drain money market accounts and lending compelely freezes up. A nice depression would certainly clean house among the weak companies, but painfully. I would hope we could restore confidence in the financial
system, stabilize it and only then start reforming this problem through legislation and by aggressively prosecuting the criminals at every level, from CEOs to brokers to lenders to raters appraisers.
There is a risk. But there are other alternatives to the Paulson plan which would do just as much (or more) to deter a possible collapse, while at the same time not carrying anything like the amount of corruption baggage.
omg, i read that book. i read it in two sittings because i couldn’t put it down.
“I’m saying that panic will cause the financial system to collapse. “
I would argue not, and that, of course, is simply our two differing opinions. I believe the markets want to profit and will adapt. There will be major losses as someone has to adjust for all that virtual money out there there never existed in the first place. I believe that will come from people simply having paper losses. My only hope is that people learn to pay strict attention to who has their money and how secure it is, but unfortunately I also think we will see some retirees lose their life savings. That is an issue that should be addressed.
I hated Bill Clinton but I did not oppose everything he did. He co-opted plenty of Republican legislation like Welfare reform that I was in favor of.
You can think me totally as biased and knee-jerk as most people here, but I defer to Colonel Jeff Metcalf, the radio talk show host, who’s byline is, “It is not who is right or wrong, but WHAT is right or wrong.”
I think we are on the edge of a financial panic leading to with a risk of1929 style depression. If I thought this would just be a long, deep recession, I would be against the bailout. I think recessions are good and clean house. I can’t say depressions are bad, they too clean house. But my father went through the Great Depression and I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy, and I don’t want to go through it myself. So sorry for being a weenie, but I’ll try this bailout before risking a depression.
So yes, if I thought we were on the edge of abyss, and Clinton’s spending proposal would avert depression, I would be for it. You don’t believe me, and that’s just fine too.
And who says this collapse isn’t occuring on Democrat watch. Who do you think owns the House and Senate?
Please illustrate the other options that can be mustered in time to prevent the financial panic we saw begin last Thursday?
I too am very suspicious and fearful of the potential for corruption. That is why I made the post I made reaming the plan for giving Paulson absolute power with no Congressional or Judicial review or oversight. That is intolerable. I don’t want Emperor Hank I. I am for the bailout but not for the Dictatorial power Emperor Hank I asked for in his initial request.
That said, what alternatives can be instituted next week to prevent market panic and remove the fear among the lending institutions that has stymied liquidity?
I read it, you make great points.
Enjoy hyperinflation after this passes.
Admit my point, this is happening on the Democrats watch. They own the Legislature that is crafting this bailout bill. This is under a Republican administration, but this is very much happening under Democrat watch, so how can you say I wouldn’t approve this bailout if it was happening under Democrat watch. It is!
Democrats control congress. Republicans control the WH and appoint the fed.
That's my thinking too. That and possibly 40% or higher of my gross being pulled for taxes. And I am not wealthy.
Good post!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.