StuckInCA
Topic Author
Posts: 1618
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:45 am

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.
 
scrubbsywg
Posts: 1095
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:35 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 2:49 am

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



http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...ms/non_aviation/read.main/1978008/
 
StuckInCA
Topic Author
Posts: 1618
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:01 am

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 avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:04 am

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 avatar
Dreadnought
Posts: 9841
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:11 am



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.
Forget dogs and cats - Spay and neuter your liberals.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:21 am



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
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2234
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:21 am



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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 6:40 am

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
 
seb146
Posts: 14061
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 3:24 pm

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]
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:20 pm



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 !
 
Arrow
Posts: 2325
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:44 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:27 pm



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.
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:30 pm



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.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 5:52 pm



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 avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:58 pm



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
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:06 pm



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 avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:12 pm



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
 
RJdxer
Posts: 3523
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:15 pm



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.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, and a road that goes forever. I'm going to Texas!
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:59 pm



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 avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:13 pm



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
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Fri Sep 26, 2008 11:54 pm



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 avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:05 am



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 avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:45 am

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
 
seb146
Posts: 14061
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:09 pm



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.
Patriotic and Proud Liberal
 
AGM100
Posts: 5077
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 2:16 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Sun Sep 28, 2008 4:36 pm



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 !
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Sun Sep 28, 2008 5:35 pm

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
 
MadameConcorde
Posts: 9201
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:08 pm

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:29 pm

They MUST get this signed today (Sunday) before all HELL breaks loose in the MONDAY markets.  Angry
I think they had a 6pm deadline due to the possible collapse of the Chinese markets.
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
 
Flighty
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:46 pm

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 in both of their glitter bottles that made this party happen. Bush wholly endorsed this process in every way. Everybody believed it was good. It was democracy itself that caused this to happen. It would not have happened if we had a really smart dictator who told us what to do. Yet, I am not sure I prefer that.

So what's more important is, what is to be done. The remarkable Bush-Democrat Rescue Plan is obviously very scary and likely a complete abomicable clusterf***. Yet it may work. Smart people will think of a much less risky way this could have been fixed -- simpler, smaller, cheaper -- about 90 days from now. Oops. It will be too late by then. But maybe this legislation can be revised in 90 days.

Let's not turn this into a business plan going forward. One aspect I refer to is the screw-the-system land-mine financial product that blows us all to hell. Financial WMD. This phenomenon needs to be examined carefully. The govt needs to get smarter, that is the lesson of this crisis. Otherwise things get expensive.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Sun Sep 28, 2008 7:52 pm



Quoting Arrow (Reply 10):
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.

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 investment-banking hub without the raw talent that NYC has... it would take 75 years.

The things that can kill new york city finance are new taxes (just retarded), some ill-born regulations and a perceived poor financial environment. Our government can just throw in the towel and say we surrender, we can't do banking, it is too hard for us to undertake. I hope our govt does not do that. We are still a banking capital and probably will always be. It all depends on regulations, and whether our govt can be intelligent about this.

Rejecting USA native banking outright (by essentially outlawing it) would be silly.
 
allstarflyer
Posts: 3264
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Sun Sep 28, 2008 8:35 pm

Bailout Plan Revealed . . .

-The $700 billion would be disbursed in stages, with $250 billion made available immediately for the Treasury's use.
-Curbs will be placed on the compensation of executives at companies that sell mortgage assets to Treasury. Among them, the bill would limit golden parachutes to executives at companies that participate; they will not be able to deduct the salary they pay to executives above $500,000.
-An oversight board will be created. The board will include the Federal Reserve chairman, the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, the Federal Home Finance Agency director and the Housing and Urban Development secretary.
-Allow for the Treasury to receive the option to take ownership stakes in participating companies under certain circumstances.
-Treasury may establish an insurance program - with risk-based premiums paid by the industry - to guarantee companies' troubled assets, including mortgage-backed securities, purchased before March 18, 2008.
Living the American Dream
 
GOwithCO332
Posts: 38
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 5:19 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Sun Sep 28, 2008 9:58 pm

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...

but, why is there all of this gloom? Now granted, I could write a book about all of the things that I really don't like about the United States, but those sort of pertain to my life and in terms of hard facts, the United States does very well.

I know many on this site who are very patriotic and believe this is the best place in the world and good for them. But, why is there still this America superior attitude when these same Americans yak and yak about how bad everything is?

I might yak and yak about how uncomfortable I am here too, but like said on the Daily Show, we could be fighting for road kill like how a number of people do in places like Somalia and Burma. A few banks have gone out and I am sure an advertising agency, a restaurant and a pencil distributer have gone too. It happens like in most free market economies.

I hear these people go on and on and on and we have the 6th or 7th highest GDP per capita. Now, that does not reflect quality of life in all aspects but monetarily speaking, it shows that things are happening here. Just because the news acts like Villa Miserias are going to sprout up and consume all of us, does not mean that that is exactly what goes on. We are in a financial crisis no doubt about it, but this false view of a trickle down does not hold much water. I look on my desk right now and a number of people are working to produce every object that I see this very moment!

Everybody leads a different life and it is not fair to let CNN make it seem like nobody is going to make money anymore. Everything comes from somewhere and Tchad where the only supply and demmand there is how many women get rapped.
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:06 pm



Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 25):
They MUST get this signed today (Sunday) before all HELL breaks loose in the MONDAY markets. Angry
I think they had a 6pm deadline due to the possible collapse of the Chinese markets.

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 on in the week....

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...008195054_apfinancialmeltdown.html
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
ADXMatt
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 4:07 pm

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:43 pm

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 increase them for this new crisis....



Subject: The Birk Economic Recovery Plan

I'm against the $85,000,000, 000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000, 000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bona fide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child.

So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000, 000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college - it'll be there
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car - create jobs
Invest in the market - capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG - liquidate it.
Sell off its parts.
Let American General go back to being American General.
Sell off the real estate.
Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
We Deserve a Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC .

And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

Kindest personal regards,

Birk

T. J. Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic
PS: Even if the number is 250 million adults, the share is $340,000 gross each!!! ($238,000 net after that estimated 30% federal tax rate)
 
AirframeAS
Posts: 9811
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 3:56 pm

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:49 pm



Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 31):
What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

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.
A Safe Flight Begins With Quality Maintenance On The Ground.
 
Phoenix9
Posts: 2042
Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2007 8:25 pm

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Sun Sep 28, 2008 10:50 pm

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 trillion dollars ?


Lets hope the markets hold well until the final approval!
Life only makes sense when you look at it backwards.
 
StuckInCA
Topic Author
Posts: 1618
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2005 12:55 pm

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:34 pm



Quoting ADXMatt (Reply 31):
So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000.00.

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 difference.

The bailout on the other hand.... That'd be $3500 if it's 700 billion and the same 200 million people.
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Mon Sep 29, 2008 12:47 am



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 24):
but with that said:

Did they use the song because it is by "Dire Straits" or because it is called "Money for Nothing"?  Wink

By all accounts, I hate to see the great Dire Straits associated with anything political...  Sad
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:47 am

Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 35):

Did they use the song because it is by "Dire Straits" or because it is called "Money for Nothing"?

Both are equally fitting   



In related news:

Quote:
Paulson Plan Aimed at Helping 'Poorly Run' Banks, Allison Says

By David Mildenberg

Sept. 25 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's proposed $700 billion bank rescue aims to help ''poorly run'' companies and the primary beneficiaries would be Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, said BB&T Corp. Chief Executive Officer John Allison in a critique of the plan.

Treasury ''is totally dominated by Wall Street investment bankers'' and ''cannot be relied on to objectively assess'' the impact of government policy on the financial industry, Allison wrote in a Sept. 23 letter to Congress. The letter was verified by Bob Denham, a spokesman for BB&T, North Carolina's third- largest bank.

Allison, 60, said Congress should ''hear from well-run financial institutions'' as lawmakers consider the plan, which seeks to ease the credit crunch by buying troubled mortgage- related assets. Under Allison, Winston-Salem, North Carolina- based BB&T avoided the subprime mortgage market, whose collapse led to the credit crisis. BB&T has risen 26 percent this year, the best showing in the 24-company KBW Bank Index.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...601109&sid=afxCLBycUdbc&refer=home

[Edited 2008-09-28 19:58:39]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7878
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Mon Sep 29, 2008 3:27 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 26):
As for Dems vs Reps... I think there is a little magic in both of their glitter bottles that made this party happen. Bush wholly endorsed this process in every way. Everybody believed it was good. It was democracy itself that caused this to happen.

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 bathrooms I guess. Kinda like Al Qaeda slipping past during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:05 am



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 22):
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!

Actually, no. Under Clinton inflation was higher than it has been under Bush. Please get your facts straight. President Bush first brought the issues with fannie and Freddie to Congress in 2003. Barney Frank, D, Massachusetts, said that was not true that both were making big time money. Bush tried again in 2005, 2006, and 2007, again he was told there was nothing wrong with the mortgage sytem. McCain also began sounding the same alarm in 2006, only to be called a kook looking for headlines by Harry Reid, D, Nevada. In January 2007, Reid and Pelosi took over Congress, had heard the warnings from Bush, McCain, and others, then ignored them. If Pelosi had begun working on the problem then, there would not be a problem today.

This is not Bush's problem, it is Congress who failed.

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 22):
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.

No Child left behind was put into bill form by its sponser Senator Ted Kennedy. Name some "black sites", oops there aren't any, except the black hole between Pelosi's and Reid's ears. The war, TSA, and Congressionally approved no bid contracts are all a results of 9/11.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 23):
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.

You are right, Bush has not controlled spending. Yes, McCain voted to approve his budgets, and so did Obama.

Quoting AGM100 (Reply 23):
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.

 checkmark 

Quoting Flighty (Reply 26):
It was democracy itself that caused this to happen.

No, it wasn't. It was greed and stupid policies that caused this crisis.

Quoting Phoenix9 (Reply 33):
What does this mean for the US dollar?

I expect the US$ to decline in value for the near term, while the Euro gains some value. The Pound Sterling will also decline, as the UK is having banking problems, too. The biggest problem is the Euro over the long term. Europe will take longer to sink deep into the banking crisis (some European banks have already failed, most are small, except for the Dutch Bank), but when it finally does, it will fall deeper than the US, and take longer to dig itself out, due to the social programs already eating away European tax money. Then the Europeans will expect what they always expect, for the US to bail them out.
 bomb 
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:07 am



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 36):
Treasury ''is totally dominated by Wall Street investment bankers'' and ''cannot be relied on to objectively assess'' the impact of government policy on the financial industry, Allison wrote in a Sept. 23 letter to Congress. The letter was verified by Bob Denham, a spokesman for BB&T, North Carolina's third- largest bank.

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 latest stewardship that the basic model of the 1980s is nowhere to be seen and the 'create products that maximize short term gain out of thin air' mentality of now is an abject failure.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
Flighty
Posts: 7721
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:17 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
No, it wasn't. It was greed and stupid policies that caused this crisis.


The people still voted for it.... Wall St was greedy, but so was Main St.

[Edited 2008-09-28 21:39:34]
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:01 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 39):
(some European banks have already failed, most are small, except for the Dutch Bank)

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 what metric do you define "small" as opposed to "not small"? Assets managed (non-toxic ones, that is)? Volumes of deposits? Profits? Turnover? Payroll?
2) Would you rather have shares from a "small", healthy business or ones from a large, failing one?

 Smile
 
MadameConcorde
Posts: 9201
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:08 pm

RE: Financial Bailout... Or Not?

Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:53 am

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_bailout/index.htm?cnn=yes

It hasn't passed yet. They still got to vote on it.                 

106 page draft of the Bailout plan pdf file. READ IT.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/28/news/pdf/index.htm

SEPTEMBER 28, 2008
110TH CONGRESS
2D SESSION H. R. ll
To provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase certain types
of troubled assets for the purposes of providing stability to and preventing
disruption in the economy and financial system and protecting
taxpayers, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ml. llllll introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on llllllllllllll
A BILL
To provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase
certain types of troubled assets for the purposes of providing
stability to and preventing disruption in the economy
and financial system and protecting taxpayers, and
for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION

[Edited 2008-09-29 03:20:54]
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, balair863, Hillis, petertenthije, TheF15Ace and 10 guests