Get real…

Like I’ve said before because he’s unpopular and the bailout is unpopular. I guess he might as well be the one to do it. What does he have to lose?

terryannonline on December 17, 2008 at 5:14 PM

Nah, I’d have left it all for Hopenchange & Co. to deal with. It would’ve been a lot better than weird Ben Tre Paradoxes.

If he’s such a free market guy, maybe he should have actually tried some free market fixes, like eliminating the “mark to market” rule, lowering corporate taxes. You know, stuff that isn’t socialism.

Fair enough. The people wanted Change, so give them Change a month early. Bush is going to bail out the Big Three anyway. Why take the hit when he doesn’t have to?

Like I’ve said before because he’s unpopular and the bailout is unpopular. I guess he might as well be the one to do it. What does he have to lose?

I’m reading Hot Air to cure my procrastination.

kirkill on December 17, 2008 at 3:03 PM

ROFL. I’m doing the same thing. But it’s not working. At all.

Had there been a program in place to raze foreclosed properties and put them back on the market as building lots instead of flooding the market with cheap houses, the problems could have been nipped in the bud.

FDR tried the same thing with the AAA – reduce production/supply to increase (or keep from decreasing) prices. It didn’t work then, and it wouldn’t work now. It’s a transparently bad idea. Falling prices, when that’s the result of free market forces, is one way in which malinvestments are resolved.

Jeff Perren

Let GM and Chrysler die. There’s no point in saving a job working at a failing company. There’s Ford, and Honda and Toyota and other local auto manufacturers, who are or can be profitable. Don’t prop up GM and Chrysler!

Paul-Cincy on December 17, 2008 at 1:36 PM

Survival of the fittest. Let the one who falls be cannibalized by those who still stand.
As for the pensions, well, they invested poorly.

For some reason that statement is getting way to familiar.

Instead of re-selling the homes, they should raze them.

crosspatch on December 17, 2008 at 2:29 PM

That absurd. You want to destroy perfectly good homes to preserve astronomical housing bubble prices?

To Bush’s legacy, add Insolvency; along with Incompetence, Iraq and Illegals.

Something wrong there…

Rather than bailing out lenders and homeowners and placing homes back on the market at fire sale prices that depress regional values and actually make the problem worse, they could have approached things from a different angle.

Instead of re-selling the homes, they should raze them. This does several things: First of all, the resulting sale of a building lot at fire sale prices does not get marked as a home sale and does not impact the median home price. Secondly, it reduces the inventory of available homes acting as an additional support for the value of existing homes. Third, it provides business for the construction industry who might otherwise be idle while new home starts plummet. Fourth, it sows the seeds for additional home construction when the market turns around.

The net result would be a stabilization of home prices resulting in a stabilization of mortgage values and home equity. When faced with an over supply that causes market prices to plummet, you can either throw money at people to make up for the loss in price or you an remove the excess supply.

Had there been a program in place to raze foreclosed properties and put them back on the market as building lots instead of flooding the market with cheap houses, the problems could have been nipped in the bud.

This is like saying you’ve abandoned the prohibitions on Murder to end crime. It’s stupid. It boggles the imagination. Only a Jackass without any equal would consider offering this argument. I abandoned the free market, to save the free market. There won’t be a free market to save. President Bush is the President, and I respect him, and his office. I’ll give him credit for what he did right, but this is beyond insane.

Perhaps the lefties are right, and we need to get Obama in right away. Perhaps this way, we can stop the bleeding of Conservative Principals from our party.

His concern was losing American companies that build that and have to rely on China and Japan to make it for us(hopefully).

jp on December 17, 2008 at 1:38 PM

Even if the big 3 fail they can restructure and survive through bankruptcy. Even if they don’t, and we find ourselves in a war for our survival, if Japan refuses to build vehicles for us we can nationalize their US facilities and use them for ourselves.

Let’s face it, the big 3 aren’t efficient companies, that’s why they’re failing, and if manufacturing vehicles is critical to our survival then efficiency will be a factor in our success.

I’ve long felt that America needs to maintain the capabilities to provide for it’s basic needs and defense in an emergency, but subsidizing failure isn’t a viable means to accomplish this; efficient companies are. So it’s in our national interest to let them fail so they can fix themselves.