Friday, October 3, 2008

Cartoon for October 4

$700 billion? Where on earth could the United States ever find money like that?

Posted by at
Labels: ,

9 comments:

  1. AnonymousOctober 4, 2008 at 6:51 AM

    Yeah, huh?? Dorme bene....

    ReplyDelete
  2. ellwortOctober 4, 2008 at 8:04 AM

    Just digging for the rest of the loot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Aggie DudeOctober 4, 2008 at 8:30 AM

    Not one of your best, Ted.

    ReplyDelete
  4. iceland's banking sector lolOctober 4, 2008 at 3:14 PM

    Isn't it magical? In order to be accepted as an American politician, you have to show off a big gleaming hardon for the free market. Only problem is, these ballbags don't believe in it any more than they do communism, hence their recent (successful) efforts to remove the element of risk from inflating a fucking bubble. At least the Soviet Union, Iran, and North Korea are/were ideologically consistent.

    REALTALK "The Economist" is good for pictures and graphs, but anyone who buys this invisible hand shit is a sucker. Absolut realtalk.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousOctober 4, 2008 at 6:29 PM

    Good one Ted eL-Busho even has his line laid out on the table to kill his suffering after once again sticking it to the tax payers! One thing I did'nt hear during all this talk about "the bail out" was how we are going to pay for it? Still think the repubes want to win this erection? Can you speak Mandrin?

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousOctober 5, 2008 at 3:52 AM

    I find it interesting that Bush is now saying repeatedly that the impact won't be felt for a while. January 21st seems a likely date to me.

    Seriously, I wonder if this whole exercise wasn't aimed at shielding some important friends on both sides of the aisle from the interest rate increase that MUST HAPPEN, regardless of who is elected.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Aggie DudeOctober 5, 2008 at 8:20 AM

    "At least the Soviet Union, Iran, and North Korea are/were ideologically consistent."

    I'm not sure I agree at all that these three countries are ideologically consistent. However, that's not really the point.

    Why would we want to be ideologically consistent? In fact, a strength of American political discourse has historically been its pluralism and pragmatism. The idea that we should choose an ideological framework and stick to it regardless of reality would be moronic.

    Yes yes, the ends don't justify the means, but nor do the means justify the ends. What you're looking for is a moral and ethical system and in place of the arduous task of coming to each specific conclusion we opt for blanket positions. It is a demonstration in intellectual sloppiness to be ideologically pure and I'm glad the US isn't. The only problem is that the Repugs claim to be.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousOctober 7, 2008 at 9:31 AM

    Yes, and good thing that extra $150B of "sweeteners" (ie., pork) were added. I mean, how could America survive without a $200m+ tax incentive for friggin' NASCAR? Nothin' but a money-grubbing redneck left-turn fest in antiquated billboards...and they only took in nearly $400m in revenues last quarter. Thanks, NASCAR for being such a 'family-friendly' sport. Since I footed the bill, do I get free admission to the track? Yeah, right...f$%@ off.

    A Middle Class Motorsports Fan

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousOctober 7, 2008 at 5:43 PM

    Aggie Dude,

    We should be ideologically consistent when dealing with failed investment banks. These bankers cried for lower taxes and less regulation when times where good. They got their wish. Now that times are bad, they're all for bailouts and regulation.

    In fact, one can argue that their risk taking in good times was predicated on the expectation of a bailout in bad times. Conservatives were right about the moral hazard created by welfare, but incorrect in believing that it encourages risk taking in teenage mothers as opposed to CFOs.

    We have to have a consistent set of rules. Otherwise its just privatized profits and socialized liabilities. Wall Streeters will use market forces to protect themselves from the law and the law to protect themselves from market forces as convenient.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)