Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Financial Bailout... Or Not?  
User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1991 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1990 times:

I won't purport to know exactly how our nation got into this mess. Partisan gladiators will blame the other party. Clearly, too many people took loans they couldn't handle if their home prices didn't continue to climb (alowing refinancing or selling). Clearly, expendatures in Iraq have not helped.

We are where we are.

The question is, should there be a bailout? If so, should it be of the scale proposed (~$700,000,000,000)? Should there be pay limits on affected wall street companies? Should it include something for the common citizen?

Today, House Republicans derailed the bailout proposed by the administration.

I'm not sure exactly what to think. I hate to throw that money at gluttonous Wall Street, but what is our fate if we do not? When more banks fail, how will people respond? I will admit to being fairly stressed over the situation. I generally have no problem finding work, but if the economy erodes to the point of depression, it will be a different story. My 401K (my emergency fund of last resort) is much smaller than a few weeks ago. My savings is not unlimited.

Is everyone feeling this stress?

Is the fact that people don't like the idea of "bailing out Wall Street" reason enough to choose certain recession and possible depression? A bailout may not prevent it, but... perhaps?

On a more partisan note...

I have an uneasy feeling that Republicans will "come together" and agree on a plan after (allegedly) McCain "unites" them. I really hope that if an agreement is reached, nobody even murmers his name when mentioning it as it's simply not a believable scenario and would reek of the worst kind of manipulative grandstanding I can imagine.

42 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineScrubbsYWG From Canada, joined Mar 2007, 1495 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1990 times:

i think this is basically being discussed in this 100+ reply thread....



http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ms/non_aviation/read.main/1978008/


User currently offlineStuckInCA From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1991 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1978 times:

I guess so. Despite my partisan rant at the end, I was hoping for a more candid discussion on how people feel about things and what they personally think should happen. Maybe less finger pointing and accusation.

User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8218 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1969 times:

Well it's certainly making for interesting drama, whatever *it* is.

Too bad they're not listening to the economists who have been right about the situation all along. Forget this bailout nonsense - the House Republicans' alternative plan is actually more similar to the solution proposed by Nouriel Roubini of the Stern School:

http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-mo...me_home_owners_mortgage_enterprise



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8913 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1965 times:



Quoting StuckInCA (Thread starter):
I hate to throw that money at gluttonous Wall Street, but what is our fate if we do not?

Strictly speaking, if we did nothing at all, there will be a huge amount of pain and suffering for perhaps 3-6 months, before the market reorganizes and pulls itself together again.

As a conservative, that is my natural response. It's like pulling out a bad tooth. Yeah, it hurts, but it's quickly over.

My only moral reason for supporting a government bailout is the fact that government created this whole mess to begin with. Blaming the mortgage industry is like blaming the real estate agents - you're just blaming the middle man. Federal mandates created a market for sub-prime loans in the FM Twins, and without that market, those bad loans never would have been made.

Quoting StuckInCA (Thread starter):
When more banks fail, how will people respond?

That's the scary bit. People are lemmings, for the most part, and have a tendency to rush to liquidate their assets if they see others do it. All you need is maybe 100 thousand people rush to the bank to withdraw their savings, and millions will follow.

Quoting StuckInCA (Thread starter):
My 401K (my emergency fund of last resort) is much smaller than a few weeks ago.

I see from your profile that you are around 30. Don't worry about it. Your stock portfolio (assuming it's fairly diversified) might suffer a hickup, but if you try to mess with it, you'll probably make matters worse, and you have another 30 years or so to make it up. On average, a stock portfolio makes perhaps 10% per year, but it can be volatile, making +30% one year and -20% the next. This is why a good financial advisor will tell you to go 100% in stocks up until age 35, then 30% bonds until 45, then 60% until 55, then 90% bonds when you retire.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8218 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1960 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
This is why a good financial advisor will tell you to go 100% in stocks up until age 35, then 30% bonds until 45, then 60% until 55, then 90% bonds when you retire.

A better advisor will tell you to get your investments out of mature markets like the US and diversified into solid emerging markets like Vietnam, India, and certain Eastern European and Middle Eastern states. The commercial real estate development trust I've been into since 2005 in India has returned 72% over three years.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineAlias1024 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1933 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
Strictly speaking, if we did nothing at all, there will be a huge amount of pain and suffering for perhaps 3-6 months, before the market reorganizes and pulls itself together again.

Or it could be Japan in the 90s and be a decade of pain, suffering, and stagnation.



It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 1924 times:

So far, I'm leaning against the bailout. This problem started 10 years ago, with President Clinton, and the then Republican Congress. Now, a do nothing Democrat Congress plans to fix it, with help from Republicans?  cloudnine 

God help us.  pray 

Essentially the same politicians that started us down this road are still in Congress, and now they are going to "fix" it?  chat 

I don't believe the problem is as big as Paulson says it is. So let some banks and brokerage houses fail. Giving a blank check to the Treasury, allowing them to decide who gets money and who doesn't? Oh, that will fix everything.  sarcastic 

When this scheme fails, watch all the politicians start pointing fingers at each other as the "problem".  banghead 

Perhaps I'm too hard on the 110th Congress by calling them do nothings? After all they did finally do something, the 110th Congress designated September as "Tortilla Month".
 rotfl   rotfl   rotfl 

Now that will help me gain confidence in this Congress being able to handle this problem with mortagages, investments, loans, and the economy.  Angry


User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11760 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1889 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
This problem started 10 years ago, with President Clinton, and the then Republican Congress.

Ah, yes. We all remember the horrible depression, bread lines, bloated government and massive homelessness during the Clinton administration.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
Now, a do nothing Democrat Congress plans to fix it,

Ah, yes. Because the Republicans never filibustered anything and the Republican president never vetoed anything.

What bothers me the most is the Republicans think they can throw Main Street $300 every 6 to 8 years and tell us to be grateful for it but keep spending on pet projects and throwing money at anything that comes along. All these Wall Street people that charged millions on things like fast cars, luxury trips, multiple houses because they were being rewarded by giving out mortgages and loans are now going to be given even more money. WTF? What about those of us that actually move the economy? Remember us? The cashiers? The bank tellers? The bus drivers? The truckers? The ones that are actually forced to pay $3.50 a gallon for gas, $5 a gallon for milk, $600 or more for rent and our health care is prayer all on $1000 a month? What kind of bail out do we get?

Also, I do not want to hear how Palin will keep taxes low if she is elected. There is no way in Gods green Earth that any canididate can keep taxes low when this administration has run the national debt into the ground like this.

[Edited 2008-09-26 08:25:23]


Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1866 times:



Quoting StuckInCA (Thread starter):
Partisan gladiators will blame the other party.

Nope , President Bush is dead wrong on this ... and his credibility with me is shot in the arse.

I am beginning to believe O'Riley's idea that foreign investors are really pulling the string on the President. Of course I immediately consider the possibility that GULF state investors especially could be calling . Could this derail the Sunni cooperation in Iraq ? Could it get that bad ? Something is going on here for President Bush to be demanding TAX payers bail the market out .... what a shame.

Against the free money bail out. I like Newts plan ... open the Fed window @ a lower interest rate and make them borrow and pay it back. The plan includes a request and a substantiation of the debt that they need to cover . Seems reasonable to me ....



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineArrow From Canada, joined Jun 2002, 2676 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1860 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
Strictly speaking, if we did nothing at all, there will be a huge amount of pain and suffering for perhaps 3-6 months, before the market reorganizes and pulls itself together again.

You've hit on the fundamental problem I see in the bailout vs. no bailout argument. There is nothing anyone can do that will stop months and probably years of slow growth, no growth, and recession. You think it will be over in 3-6 months if there is no bailout, but I don't think it will be over for years with or without a bailout.

All we're talking about here is damage control, and which course of action is likely to offer the softest landing. In crude terms, we're looking at the difference between leaping off a 1000 foot high cliff versus leaping off a 500-foot cliff. The only difference is a shorter ride to the bottom.

Yet the discussion is around a rescue. There is no rescue. It has taken ten years of gross financial mismanagement and raw greed to get to this juncture, and it won't be "fixed" for another ten years. In the process, we are going to see a fundamental shift in global financial power and influence away from New York and towards somewhere else. That's the elephant in the room, and while it is being freely discussed in financial capitals in other parts of the world, I don't hear much mention of it in either Washington or New York. Their heads have been in the sand for a few years now, and my sense is everyone is looking for a way to get their heads back in the sand so they don't have to think about it any more.

Compounding the problem, of course, is that this all exploded at the end of a presidential election campaign -- and just look at how the two parties are far more interested in covering their political asses than in finding consensus on a direction. It doesn't help that the incumbent president isn't just a lame duck, he's a dead duck with zero political capital -- "trust me" isn't going to work this time.

I think a bailout of some sort is inevitable, and they will get their heads around it today -- if for no other reason than neither political party wants to be in the "blame" position if the course of action they finally choose doesn't work (which is indeed possible).

I would not want to be the next president of the US -- it will be a very unhappy tenure for whoever wins because he will have to manage the inevitable loss of global power and influence that this credit crisis entails.



Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 1860 times:



Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
My only moral reason for supporting a government bailout is the fact that government created this whole mess to begin with. Blaming the mortgage industry is like blaming the real estate agents - you're just blaming the middle man. Federal mandates created a market for sub-prime loans in the FM Twins, and without that market, those bad loans never would have been made.

All correct yet I still don't support the bail out. Let the markets work. Getting the government involved is worse than asking a mafia loan shark for help.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 4):
All you need is maybe 100 thousand people rush to the bank to withdraw their savings, and millions will follow.

Or Senator Chuckie to open his big mouth.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8971 posts, RR: 39
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1829 times:



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 9):
I am beginning to believe O'Riley's idea that foreign investors are really pulling the string on the President.

Funny you mention that. I don't watch fox, but I was just thinking the same the other day, but mostly in regards to Fannie and Freddie and their implicit government guarantee. Had they gone bankrupt, it would be almost/kind of like government defaulting on its debt. That can't happen if Washington DC plans on continuing to borrow money from governments abroad.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8218 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1790 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 11):

Or Senator Chuckie to open his big mouth.

Or the sitting lame duck President.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1785 times:



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 12):
I don't watch fox

You should , it wont hurt you to see the "other side" hey if I watch Olberman you guys should be able to watch O'Riley .

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 13):
lame duck President.

For a lame duck he sure can still woop up on Harry , Barny and the white flag's . He gets what he wants from them and seems to just push them around whenever he wants. Remember , the Dems are busy doing just what the president wants ... think about it ? Hello Mr. President .. is 700 BILLION enough for you sir ? - Love Harry . The Dems appear to be at the beckon call of the President when it comes to this issue.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8218 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1781 times:



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 14):

For a lame duck he sure can still woop up on Harry , Barny and the white flag's . He gets what he wants from them and seems to just push them around whenever he wants.

A couple problems with that - he said himself he doesn't really want this solution but feels forced into it. None of this was his call - this is all Paulson and Bernanke, who are clearly not impartial with the situation. I have no reason to believe he was being disingenuous. Another is that a bailout this size merely provides funding for Democrats and a potential Obama presidency to go nuts on other forms of spending, so actually they are getting what they want.

Anyway you can ignore all of the above and go on believing whatever you want devoid of fact, if that's what floats your boat.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1774 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 13):
Or the sitting lame duck President.

True, they should all just let the markets operate. The President called for reform for several years and it got no traction in Congress so now he should just step back and tell them, you all felt there was no need to intervene back then, so lets not intervene now.


User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 17, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1763 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 15):
he said himself he doesn't really want this solution but feels forced into it.

A leader with courage will not get forced into anything. Dont get me wrong I am not on the presidents side on this. But if you believe that Harry Reid is apposed to billions going to bail out the FM's then you can go one believing whatever you want.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8218 posts, RR: 26
Reply 18, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 1751 times:



Quoting AGM100 (Reply 17):
But if you believe that Harry Reid is apposed to billions going to bail out the FM's then you can go one believing whatever you want.

What were you reading?? I said the Democrats clearly want this to go through.

In any case your first sentence is just funny. Bush is clearly not "the decider" where this crisis is concerned. He has obviously rolled over to whatever Paulson and Bernanke have in mind and will not counter their so-called "experience".



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 19, posted (6 years 1 month 4 weeks ago) and read 1737 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 18):
whatever Paulson and Bernanke have in mind

Or other more International players ... so to speak. My President seems to be a little panicked on this and I am not sure why. Does he know something ?

Paulson is not a stupid man , he is a big time international finance figure. I cant believe he is expecting a 700 billion hand out just like that ! Maybe he knows of the threat and just assumed everyone would push it on through. When you think about it its just staggering .... and the Dems wanted 120 billion for ACORN alone ? Its craziness..



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12171 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1685 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 8):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
This problem started 10 years ago, with President Clinton, and the then Republican Congress.

Ah, yes. We all remember the horrible depression, bread lines, bloated government and massive homelessness during the Clinton administration.

The Clinton Administration, and the then Republican Congress changed the mortgage lending rules with Fannie and Freddie, allowing people with low credit ratings, those who did not have down payments (100% mortgages), or closing costs buy homes they should not have bought. Then the re-fi and equity loans of the early 2000s compounded the problem. Finally, some speculators got into the market to buy up homes and try to flip these homes for quick profits. This caused the housing market to sky-rocket until the bubble burst last year, causing home values to drop. Now, the companies that held these paper mortgages, and Fannie and Freddie, were stuck with mortgages higher than the new values of the homes. When people finally reached a point where they could no longer pay these high mortgage payments (due to whatever reason), foreclousers began to happen.

In other words, this crisis did not begin with the home value bubble burst in late 2006 and 2007, it began 10 years ago, and took time to build up.

So, who caused today's problems? The government did, with their policies of increasing home ownership to as many people as possible, without considering their future ability to pay for those homes.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 8):
What bothers me the most is the Republicans think they can throw Main Street $300 every 6 to 8 years and tell us to be grateful for it but keep spending on pet projects and throwing money at anything that comes along. All these Wall Street people that charged millions on things like fast cars, luxury trips, multiple houses because they were being rewarded by giving out mortgages and loans are now going to be given even more money. WTF? What about those of us that actually move the economy? Remember us? The cashiers? The bank tellers? The bus drivers? The truckers? The ones that are actually forced to pay $3.50 a gallon for gas, $5 a gallon for milk, $600 or more for rent and our health care is prayer all on $1000 a month? What kind of bail out do we get?

If you think you will get a better deal under the Democrats, go ahead and vote for them. Democrats are just as curpute as Republicans, so you, my friend are screwed.

Next, beleive it or not, the government owes you nothing outside of the US Constitution, nor does it owe Wall Street anything. The politicians, Rs and Ds, will give your money to Wall Street, no matter what you say. Why? Because it is Wall Street money that keeps these crooks in office, not your one measly vote.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 8):
Also, I do not want to hear how Palin will keep taxes low if she is elected. There is no way in Gods green Earth that any canididate can keep taxes low when this administration has run the national debt into the ground like this.

First, check your history books. The national debt has been building with every Congress and President since President Andrew Jackson (the 8th POTUS 1829-1837). He was the first, last, and only President to ever not have a national debt, having paid off all our debt in FY 1835 and FY 1836. He also abolished the 2nd Bank of the United States, by recinding its federal charter by vetoing the re-charter from Congress, then withdrawing all US funds from the 2BUS. He did all this and reduced taxes, too. A much more recent example was President Reagan as well as President Bush. If spending is controlled, lower taxes will reduce the deficet and the debt.

BTW, the POTUS really has nothing to do with the debt, as it is Congress who writes all the checks. So, it is Congress responsible for the deficit and debt.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 19):
and the Dems wanted 120 billion for ACORN alone ? Its craziness..

That's because ACORN is involved in all the Dems like, embezzlement, voter fraud, false voter registration.............. ACORN has almost as many members in jail as Congress does.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8218 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1661 times:

Well the bailout has been passed, bloated and incomprehensible as ever. We have now officially become Hypocrisy Nation. What can I say? This is nothing for any American to be proud of.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineSeb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 11760 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1641 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
allowing people with low credit ratings, those who did not have down payments (100% mortgages), or closing costs buy homes

IIRC, under Clinton, wages were keeping up with inflation. People actually had more money at the end of the month. Bush II had control of Congress for SIX YEARS to avoid this melt down. Now, all of a sudden, Bush II has found hundreds of billions of dollars to save banks and corporations but in SIX YEARS could not find a single dime for low income families and individuals that never held preditory mortgages to spend on things like health care, lowering energy costs, lowering food costs. Let's save the corporations that send jobs overseas! Yeah!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
Because it is Wall Street money that keeps these crooks in office, not your one measly vote.

No. Not one vote. But, 3 million votes....

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
If spending is controlled, lower taxes will reduce the deficet and the debt.

How has Bush II controlled spending? No Child Left Behind, Iraq war, TSA, Homeland Security, domestic spying, black sites. How much has the government gotten for the no-bid contracts from companies like Blackwater and KBR? Bush II has made this one of the most bloated government ever.



Life in the wall is a drag.
User currently offlineAGM100 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 5407 posts, RR: 17
Reply 23, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1633 times:



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 22):
How has Bush II controlled spending?

He has not . And McCain needs to seize upon this issue and seperate himself from the president. The problem is he voted for the Bush budgets .. which of course was always was held hostage by troop funding issues..no budget ..no troop funding.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20):
That's because ACORN is involved in all the Dems like, embezzlement, voter fraud, false voter registration.............. ACORN has almost as many members in jail as Congress does.

Amazing , buying off voters with cheap mortgages. And to add threatening banks with discrimination law suits if they did not give them up for minority applicants in select districts of course.



You dig the hole .. I fill the hole . 100% employment !
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8971 posts, RR: 39
Reply 24, posted (6 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 1627 times:

I have second feelings about posting the following videos because it is made for pro-John McCain politics, I do not support him for various reasons, including his stance on what to do with the economy right now, but with that said:



I don't think the CRA is the only thing at play into this crisis, but as others brought it up before, at least part of it. The Fed's credit expansion is really what added to the debt burden, which needs to be liquidated, but politics won't let it be.



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
25 MadameConcorde : They MUST get this signed today (Sunday) before all HELL breaks loose in the MONDAY markets. I think they had a 6pm deadline due to the possible colla
26 Flighty : It's amazing a little PR and mumbo jumbo and the Americans won't notice they have been raped. As for Dems vs Reps... I think there is a little magic i
27 Flighty : The 1 thing that determines that is legal environment. We and Tokyo and London still have the best brains in finance. How can you open a new investme
28 Post contains links Allstarflyer : Bailout Plan Revealed . . . -The $700 billion would be disbursed in stages, with $250 billion made available immediately for the Treasury's use. -Curb
29 GOwithCO332 : Now, I will not get into this as I ramble too much and I just don't want to talk about something already talked about with people for hours today... b
30 Post contains links AirframeAS : Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. According to this article, it says that the vote will occur on Monday in the House and the Senate later o
31 ADXMatt : This email has been floating around.... i know it will never happen but it makes you think about the size of the numbers talking about.... Just increa
32 AirframeAS : I'd give it right back to the government and say 'No thanks, but thanks anyway." because I don't want to pay the taxes on it.
33 Phoenix9 : What does this mean for the US dollar? Since the funds do not seem to be backed up by any gold reserves...what will happen when you inject close to 1
34 StuckInCA : Double check that math dude. First off, it's divide $85 billion ($85,000,000,000) divided by 200 million (200,000,000). That equals $425. Big differe
35 WunalaYann : Did they use the song because it is by "Dire Straits" or because it is called "Money for Nothing"? By all accounts, I hate to see the great Dire Stra
36 Post contains links and images PPVRA : Both are equally fitting    In related news: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...601109&sid=afxCLBycUdbc&refer=home[Edited 2008-09-28 19:58:39]
37 PPVRA : Yeah, the Repubs had both congress and the white house to make the changes, so you wonder what they were doing all this time. Gay sex in airport bath
38 Aaron747 : No fucking shit. The whole idea behind this is to keep the business model of modern day i-banking afloat even though it has been shown that under its
39 KC135TopBoom : Actually, no. Under Clinton inflation was higher than it has been under Bush. Please get your facts straight. President Bush first brought the issues
40 Flighty : The people still voted for it.... Wall St was greedy, but so was Main St.[Edited 2008-09-28 21:39:34]
41 WunalaYann : Did you mean the Deutsche Bank? Not quite the same thing... As for the alleged lack of, well, size of European banks, I have two questions: 1) by wha
42 Post contains links and images MadameConcorde : Rescue bill released Lawmakers unveil plan to enact historic bailout of nation's financial system. http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/28/news...ay_talks_bai
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Hotel: To Refund Or Not To Refund posted Wed Jan 9 2008 20:42:44 by Lincoln
See Nicole Kidman Or Not To? posted Mon Dec 17 2007 20:30:17 by ThreeFourThree
Careless Driving Or Not posted Mon Dec 10 2007 15:56:48 by VC10
To Taser Or Not To Taser posted Fri Nov 30 2007 05:59:15 by Airfoilsguy
To Tivo Or Not To Tivo? posted Thu Aug 30 2007 05:39:41 by Lgbga
To Matrix Or Not To Matrix...? posted Mon Jun 11 2007 13:58:48 by Francoflier
Asteroid Apophis (Danger Or Not?) posted Sun Jun 3 2007 03:25:14 by Blackbird
Allison Stokke....hot Or Not posted Thu May 17 2007 07:58:57 by Copaair737
Single Or Not? posted Wed Apr 18 2007 04:33:21 by AF773
VBH. Hot Or Not? posted Mon Dec 18 2006 21:08:16 by Cosec59