>On Sat, 04 Oct 2008 16:59:13 -0400, shag <shag at cleandraws.com> wrote:
>
> > what were some other arguments?
>
>Hi Shag, for me there is no question of "support" as the USGov in no-way
>needs our support for their actions, unless there are some billionaires I
>am not aware reading this list to inform their campaign contributions.
>
>My question has been: what is the reason people believe that this bailout
>will do anything other than (temporarily) support financial industry
>profits? The hostility and cognitive dissonance my simple questions have
>caused is quite telling.
> Since you managed to ignore these arguments the
>first time I made them, you probably will simply do so again, but since you
>are asking, I'll bite anyway.
i ignored you because, as i already mentioned, i'm not disagreeing about your general points. i argued with your assertion that most home owners made purchases out of a greedy desire to make money. as a consequence, you made assumptions about my position which were wrong -- essentially i don't give a shit about the anti- arguments or pro-arguments.
both are a waste of my time.
the immediate discussions in which i'm involved are at a much more basic level. e.g., the sentiment that it was regulation that caused the bailout. that's what people in the u.s. are discussing.
so let me get this straight. you would prefer that there was no bailout because you believe that, without a bailout, housing prices will sink to a more affordable level. the goal is to create a situation that will force u.s.ers to live more sustainable lives.
yes? no?
http://cleandraws.com Wear Clean Draws ('coz there's 5 million ways to kill a CEO)