Bailout and Other Stuff

I guess $700 billion doesn't go as far as it used to. Congress passes a $700 billion bailout to stabilize the stock market. The stock market plummets. I wonder how that could happen. Oh, right. The government came up with a plan to fix a problem that began with government meddling in the economy. No reason for that to cause a confidence crisis. For years, the government has pushed the mortgage industry into approving non-credit worthy people for loans so they came up with subprime loans which worked as long as housing prices kept going up. What could go wrong with that? Well, mortgages get bundled into securities and sold or used as collateral. This do fine unless there is a high default rate (relative since we're only talking about 4% of loans defaulting). So, if housing prices fall, you get more defaults which leads to the securities becoming toxic. That means no one knows how many defaulted loans are in the securities so they lose all value and become "illiquid" (companies holding them can't do crap with them). Now, the government's idea isn't a straight up bailout (cash payment) or even a Chrysler/AIG bailout (loans to be repaid. The idea is that the government buys those securities at an auction (at a discounted rate most likely). That injects "liquidity" back into the credit markets. The government then pores over the securities to find what the "value" should be and sells them back to the market. Since they can buy them cheap, the idea that the government might make money off the deal isn't completely out of the realm of possibility (although I wouldn't bet on it). Simplistic explanation and probably not completely accurate (it's a complicated issue).

So, why isn't it working? Who knows. I didn't think it was a good idea. To begin with, there's philosophy. It isn't the government's responsibility to make sure you buy a house you can't afford. Nor is it to make sure everyone "wins". If you take the risks out of the system, it becomes stagnant. Also, Congress was trying to load all kinds of crap in it like allowing the government to take equity in the banks or investment firms if the securities couldn't be resold for a profit. Not to mention an assload of pork. Trust me, having the federal government (the people who make laws and regulations) owning stock in the people they make laws and regulations over could lead to conflicts of interest since they won't own stock in all of them. Another problem is whether or not you believe some minor government bureaucrat will do a better job valuing these securities over someone paid a lot to do it. I don't. But I also don't believe banks will suddenly stop loaning money if the bailout doesn't happen. They may start looking at credit scores (which they should have been doing all along), but banks don't make money if they don't loan money. Now, the biggest problem I had with it was seeing the same people who for years covered for the semi-government organizations (Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac) and pushed for bad loans were now the ones "leading the way" to fix the problem. Especially when one was buggering a Fannie Mae exec while covering for them.

That would be like the chairman of the Ways & Means Committee (they write tax laws) not knowing the tax laws governing himself. Oh, wait......... Although, maybe Charlie Rangel can help AIG pay back their government loans since he got $10 million from AIG for his little narcissistic vanity project, a "center for public service" named after him which should be closed due to fraud.

But Rangel is safe. He's in New York. That's the city where the thought of Sarah Palin has led to general insanity, freakouts, murderous psychosis and possibly yeast infections in city women. Yet, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (who is President of a country that kills women for adultery, gays for ......gayness, and in his dreams Jews for Jewishness) gets a warm welcome there.

Speaking of government stupidity, here's another example of why Johnny Can't Read. A fourth grader was suspended for two days for having a razor blade. Mainly the miniature razor blade that is part of a kiddie pencil sharpener. His pencil sharpener was broken so he used the little piece of metal to sharpen his pencil. The school called the police and then did the suspension. Great quote from someone with the district, "we're always going to do something to make sure the child understands the seriousness of having something that could potentially harm another student, but we're going to be reasonable." Reasonable? Are you completely retarded? Calling the cops and suspending a 10 year old for a little shard of metal is reasonable? A pencil is more dangerous than that piece of metal. Get out of the education field, moron, because you are too stupid to be any help at all.

How did I miss this?

Paul McCartney recently played a concert in Israel. It made news because they were banned from playing back in 1965. My assumption was a fear by the Israelis that they would have to listen to the inane lyrics of I Want To Hold Your Hand, but it may have been something else. Oh, it was also news because a Muslim wackjob threatened to have McCartney killed if he played the show (although I suspect it's out of anger that he didn't bring the rest of Wings with him).

In a related story, the Muslim wackjob has a daughter in London. She's a stripper. Probably not a very good one since she's also on the public dole.

Must be something in the water in London. Two Swedish sisters (yeah, that's why I clicked the link) kept running into traffic on a British highway. And laughably inept traffic cops couldn't seem to stop them. Don't they have tasers in England? If not for the damage they'd do to the cars' front end, I say let them have at it.

At least it'd be better than what this pervert was up to. He was arrested for having sex with a car. And in such a strange way. I would have assumed going for the tailpipe, but he seem enamored with the grill which may say something about what he was packing. They feel the need to point out he was drunk. You know, I've been drunk a few times myself. I don't remember trying to stick my wang into a some part of a car.

Some European Union women's rights committee with too much time on their hand wants to ban any advertising that might reinforce gender stereotypes. Does that mean they shouldn't use women in lipstick commercials because it might lead people to think women are the main buyers of lipstick? Some Swedish prude (my guess is she's the only ugly Swede) is making a big deal. My response? Get a life, bitch.

There are certain things that even I would never consider doing. I think stealing the puppy of a 10 year old with cancer is one of them. The fact that the thieves might have known he had cancer is probably a one way ticket to Hell.

Playboy is laying off staff due to not having any money. The article blames it on the "global economic turmoil". BS. You can find hardcore pornography on the internet. Do you really need to spend your money on a bunch of lame articles mixed in with airbrushed pictures? I read somewhere else (I'm too lazy to look it up) that most of the revenue for the company comes from merchandising rather than magazine. I'm sure they got something from Girls Next Door which probably won't do too well with all his women leaving. Well, I'm sure he can find some more girls with low self-esteem who are willing to suffer a drooling geriatric's egomania to trade their dignity for a chance at long lasting fame that isn't likely to happen.

A new trend seems to be women trying to sell their virginity for big bucks. I realize a legal age virgin is a rarity, but is it really worth that much money? The latest is an Italian model who wants to use the money for acting lessons. If she can convince someone that she's really a virgin but is willing to sell it, she doesn't need acting lessons. I like how her brother defends such a ridiculous story by saying his sister is a "devout Catholic". That's funny. I just assumed she was a whore.