historycat: Move your money to a CU, then only those stupid enough to not care about their money will lose it,

This.
Checking fees? None.
Debit card fees? Nada
Minimum account balances? Absent
Super hot chick working the counter at the branch near me? HELL YEAH!

If the market were free the money wouldn't be fiat. The whole *point* of fiat money is to lock down the market under centralized control.

FTA: Left leaning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman writes: "...Hank Paulson set out to make Lehman an example; two days later he was staring into the abyss."

What Krugman doesn't (and probably never will) realize is that bailouts don't eliminate staring into the abyss, they just postpone it.

On the one hand, you've got the liberals, who tend to favor almost anything that can reasonably be called regulation. WHARBGARBL.

On the other hand, you've got the conservatives. They tend to look at every regulation as an interference with the free market. WHARBGARBL.

Then, on the other hand, you have our politicians, who will have their hands out expecting campaign donations if they vote for another bailout.

Fark 'em. Let them all burn. (Yes, the politicians, too.)

On the one hand, you've got the liberals, who tend to favor almost anything that can reasonably be called regulation.

"What do you mean there's no more money? There's always more money, that's what MORE means!"

On the other hand, you've got the conservatives. They tend to look at every regulation as an interference with the free market

"Stop messing with my money, there's barely enough for me!"

/two extremes that taste great together

the question is not if TARP Take Two would be supported by the sitting president in 2013. Obama certainly would, as would Romney.

the question is could it pass Congress in time to be helpful. that answer is no, even if it could be passed at all.

/the next bank bailout will be by executive order

historycat: You know how you solve "too big to fail"?

Move your money to a CU...

Except these CUs are selling all of their mortgages to banks. The last time I checked on my loan I was told that only ARM loans are held by the CU.

If we're supposed to be too broke to afford Social Security & Medicare, then we should be too broke to shovel another trillion taxpayer dollars into the annual bonus checks of CEOs.

Sadly, this is Fark, and there's sure to be some goons for the rich here who will support another bailout.

or eliminate fractional reserve lending, and not give assholes the chance to fark the economy again

ovnothing: or eliminate fractional reserve lending, and not give assholes the chance to fark the economy again

BWAH????

"set sane reserve limits for fractional reserve lending" is reasonable. what you said is farking retarded.

aaronx:

The economy would pretty much grind to a halt.
sorry chicken little, but no.

Um, fractional reserve lending is what makes banks, er, banks.
also, no. banks can make loans without creating new money, its called having the money that you actually loan out. not only is fractional reserve lending fraud, but the multiplier effect it creates allows bubbles to be inflated to such a degree that we get crashes like we just experienced.

fiat money has value because the quantity is regulated. fractional reserve lending puts the control of that quantity into the hands of bankers.

DrPainMD: What Krugman doesn't (and probably never will) realize is that bailouts don't eliminate staring into the abyss, they just postpone it.

Giving you time to solve the problem in a more permanent fashion, instead of at the height of crisis...

i shouldnt have to spell out where it goes from there.

National Bank Transfer Day is coming... but avoid the rush! Dump your bank today!

aaronx: FTA: "Believe it or not, it is extremely difficult to convince many liberals that the unintended costs of a regulation may far outweigh the benefits."

Yup, he's got that right. 'Cause it ain't true is why.

Really? You can't think of a single situation where a regulation might do more harm than good?

I haven't used a for-profit bank is 15 years.

EnderWiggnz:
"set sane reserve limits for fractional reserve lending" is reasonable.

Give me a T, give me an H, and an IS on the end too.

Well of course they're going back to the well. What did you think they were going to do when you let them drink their fill out of the public treasury?

Oh hell no!

Let those bastards take the whole thing down this time and take their stupid shareholders with them. Then put them in jail.

DrPainMD: FTA: Left leaning New York Times columnist Paul Krugman writes: "...Hank Paulson set out to make Lehman an example; two days later he was staring into the abyss."

What Krugman doesn't (and probably never will) realize is that bailouts don't eliminate staring into the abyss, they just postpone it.

^^^truth

Krugman is what he is, nothing can be done about that. I just feel sorry for people with nary a sense of economics that consume and believe his garbage.

Worst.Fark handle. ever.: If we're supposed to be too broke to afford Social Security & Medicare, then we should be too broke to shovel another trillion taxpayer dollars into the annual bonus checks of CEOs.

I was unaware that our govt shoveled a trillion dollars to CEO's. I'm also unaware of how this became a discussion about CEO's, Social Security, and Medicare. I do find your insinuation that there is sustainability latter two to be outright hilarious though.

Worst.Fark handle. ever.: Sadly, this is Fark, and there's sure to be some goons for the rich here who will support another bailout.

I don't support a bailout, but I do support the bashing of idiot trolls such as yourself.

wolvernova: I was unaware that our govt shoveled a trillion dollars to CEO's. I'm also unaware of how this became a discussion about CEO's, Social Security, and Medicare.

1. Because our so-called representatives keep saying "we're broke" as an excuse to slash Social Security/Medicare (if we didn't bail out the "Too Big to Be Held Accountable" banksters, we wouldn't be "broke", would we??

2. " I'm also unaware of how this became a discussion about CEO's"

You're quite the thick one, aren't you?

Worst.Fark handle. ever.: Because our so-called representatives keep saying "we're broke"

It's basic math. When they say we're broke, they mean that we can't afford what we're paying for right now. If you want to look at projected entitlement spending, we're not just broke, but we have absolutely no way of ever becoming solvent and our economy will collapse.

Worst.Fark handle. ever.: as an excuse to slash Social Security/Medicare (if we didn't bail out the "Too Big to Be Held Accountable" banksters, we wouldn't be "broke", would we??

TARP was a loan, you idiot. I was 100% against it (not that it matters), but it didn't "cost" us anything except the moral hazard of shielding dumb banks from the risks they create for themselves, which I am certain will come back to bite us down the road. Just where do you get your information from? You sound like one of those people out there protesting the bank bailouts which happened three years ago.

Wars, tax cuts, stimulus, and this new health care plan are just recent examples of how our govt is pounding the nails into the coffin of this country. SS and MC need to be drastically revised, something Obama and his people have long since concluded.

qorkfiend: DrPainMD: What Krugman doesn't (and probably never will) realize is that bailouts don't eliminate staring into the abyss, they just postpone it.

Giving you time to solve the problem in a more permanent fashion, instead of at the height of crisis...

Ha ha! That's a good one.