Continued from <a href = "http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/540508-economy-part-5-now-new-improved-bailout.html">here.</a>

Current happenings: Senate will vote tonight on the bailout bill. They'll add a raise to FDIC limits and will extend some business tax cuts and "fix the AMT".

I'm reposting this from the previous thread, because I want to see if anyone smarter than me can tell me why it makes or doesn't make sense:

I can't believe I'm about to type this, but I think Thomas Friedman had a good idea in his column from today. If the lack of capital is causing credit markets to freeze, he suggested a temporary government loan program to extend credit. Banks that made bad investments would fail, but the credit program would keep it contained.

I admit I'm way in over my head with all this stuff, but it made sense to me.

I think the fed has already done that, haven't they? The Fed keeps pumping more and more money in the form of loans to loosen up the credit

Originally Posted by mbs

With large sums of money (~$100,000), you can get quite high APYs (comparable to online savings) while having instant access to the money (unlike online savings). And there is always time to move the money out before any collapse (which is what I did this week with my Key account). But maybe I have no common sense.


I was scared off before you from Key. Plus, there are some good alternative right now. Why did you wait so long?

And your username always amuses me in this thread.

Another repost from previous thread:

Another $65B or so of liquidity pumped into the markets overnight.

With the global recession, (perhaps sans America), looming, when will the dollar intervention take place?

Will the coordinated cuts be 50?

Are they really raising the FDIC limits? Does anyone know to what?

I think the fed has already done that, haven't they? The Fed keeps pumping more and more money in the form of loans to loosen up the credit

The idea was not to extend loans to banks, it was to extend lines of credit to businesses.

I was scared off before you from Key. Plus, there are some good alternative right now. Why did you wait so long?


I liked Key Bank a lot. They were my hometown bank from years ago and my local branch was giving me great rates (4.25% APY) for a money market account. I was a little concerned in June when they cut their dividend, but didn't get terribly concerned about their health until recently. I have some small money in online accounts, but I hate the long float times (non-instant access).

And your username always amuses me in this thread.

It's my initials, but yes, given what MBSs have done to our economy, quite fitting.

I liked Key Bank a lot. They were my hometown bank from years ago and my local branch was giving me great rates (4.25% APY) for a money market account. I was a little concerned in June when they cut their divident, but didn't get terribly concerned about their health until recently. I have some small money in online accounts, but I hate the long float times (non-instant access).



...


Many of the same reasons why I was there. I just bailed out about a month or so ago.

i think the bailout as originally proposed is dead and the congress will waste some time until everyone forgets it.

i have a conspiracy theory about but will probably take a few more weeks of reading the news to see if it's true.

And I wouldn't be surprised if rates are cut in the near future

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.
The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.
This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.

Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.
Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.
If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.

The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.

Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.

So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.
The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.

Editor's note: Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.

It's my initials, but yes, given what MBSs have done to our economy, quite fitting.Let's get him!

Jeffrey Miron (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/8971672-post430.html) is certainly popular here. ;)

Bad data today.

LIBOR fell, that's good, right?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amb7quDeeWd0&refer=home

LIBOR fell, that's good, right?

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amb7quDeeWd0&refer=home

The overnight isn't that critical. The one month, and especially the three month are what matter. The three month was up another 10 points.

I just heard that part of the new bailout plan forces mental diseases to be covered by health insurance. That fixes everything!

I just heard that part of the new bailout plan forces mental diseases to be covered by health insurance. That fixes everything!
Ugh, Congress is just shameless. I read in the other thread that the bill grew to over 400 pages. Paulson's plan was only 3 pages!

Ugh, Congress is just shameless. I read in the other thread that the bill grew to over 400 pages. Paulson's plan was only 3 pages!

they need to make it seem like they are doing something.

I'm reposting this from the previous thread, because I want to see if anyone smarter than me can tell me why it makes or doesn't make sense:

I can't believe I'm about to type this, but I think Thomas Friedman had a good idea in his column from today. If the lack of capital is causing credit markets to freeze, he suggested a temporary government loan program to extend credit. Banks that made bad investments would fail, but the credit program would keep it contained.

I admit I'm way in over my head with all this stuff, but it made sense to me.

That is what I was advocating as well, but I never heard why that wasn't a good thing. I think the reality is that you can't have the biggest bailout in history without also having the biggest payout and payback.

I read in the other thread that the bill grew to over 400 pages. Paulson's plan was only 3 pages!

Yeah, 405 pages according to an NPR report this morning. And they will not be making it public pre-vote, apparently.

Yeah, 405 pages according to an NPR report this morning. And they will not be making it public pre-vote, apparently.

I hope there is a provision in there to save Stargate Atlantis and freeze the price of ground chuck at $1.00/lb.

Another repost from previous thread:

Another $65B or so of liquidity pumped into the markets overnight.

With the global recession, (perhaps sans America), looming, when will the dollar intervention take place?

Will the coordinated cuts be 50?

I am too dumb to follow. How was $65B pumped into the markets? Where did it go, etc? Is it having any affect on liquidity? What is it doing?

I just heard that part of the new bailout plan forces mental diseases to be covered by health insurance. That fixes everything!And you guys thought Sarah Palin was full of it when she said this bailout was about health care. -ohbfrank-

I am too dumb to follow. How was $65B pumped into the markets? Where did it go, etc? Is it having any affect on liquidity? What is it doing?

want to read up on it during lunch, but i think what happens is that the Federal Reserve lends treasuries to it's primary dealer banks who then sell them for cash to operate.

this is why a national debt is so important. no national debt means central banks have very little power

And you guys thought Sarah Palin was full of it when she said this bailout was about health care. -ohbfrank-

rotfl

And you guys thought Sarah Palin was full of it when she said this bailout was about health care. -ohbfrank-Damn. You got to it before me. :)

All these stupid F'n add ons are making me more against the bailout... they didn't rework the plan to be better, just threw in bribes to get votes. WTF does mental health insurance and hurricane relief have to do with getting the economy back on track ??! And people have no balls.....everyone that was against the bailout is now crying for it cause they felt a ding to their finances...
The lawmakers just want to get this passed so they can get back home and campaign, don't think their interested in doing what's right/best or even attempting to find it.
This is how we got in this crap in the first place !

I am too dumb to follow. How was $65B pumped into the markets? Where did it go, etc? Is it having any affect on liquidity? What is it doing?

First a point of clarification. the $65B was put into European markets by European central banks.


Actual cash can be supplied, such as a mid September infusion of $100B from the Fed's reserves. Usually though it is in a sense a one day loan, cash is supplied for an asset. Europe has been using one-day repos. Occasionally the terms are longer, such as a 28-day auction. There are also swap lines to get the proper currency to where it belongs. (Dollars are near non-existent right now). The cash winds up in money markets.

It provides necessary short term liquidity.

That is what I was advocating as well, but I never heard why that wasn't a good thing. I think the reality is that you can't have the biggest bailout in history without also having the biggest payout and payback.

I agree. If the government is going to do something, I'd rather it act as a bank for a year or two and then get paid back rather than take out loans to buy up a bunch of bad debt to keep the banks in business. The economy wouldn't freeze up and it would be cutting out the middleman.

wasn't the Bank of the United STates deemed unconstitutional?

wasn't the Bank of the United STates deemed unconstitutional?

Like that matters anymore :lol:

wasn't the Bank of the United STates deemed unconstitutional?I do not think that a ruling passed on its unconstitutionality. :shrug:

Both First (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States) and Second (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States) Banks of the United States ceased to be when their charters expired.

Current happenings: Senate will vote tonight on the bailout bill. They'll add a raise to FDIC limits and will extend some business tax cuts and "fix the AMT".

Constitution schmonstitution...

Massive bailout coming in Europe?

Constitution schmonstitution...


10th amendment makes everything constitutional and half the founding fathers supported government intervention in the economy

Massive bailout coming in Europe?

Refuted, for now.

Michael Gerson's op-ed in today's WP was a real load of crap. The premise is that because the bailout failed to pass, it means that the legislative branch of goverment is broken. Gee I didn't know that for Congress to function properly, they needed to be in a panic and say yes without pause to every piece of business that comes up.

And also that it's a bad thing that America's political elites have lost the ability to quickly respond to a national challenge by imposing their collective will. Yeah, that's a real shame right there. -rolleyes-

Finally, we apparently are teetering on the edge of a political crisis - like under the Articles of Confederation -- "a weak government populated by small men." This is a weak government?!!! Are you fucking kidding me?

It's been some time since I've read such a load of claptrap in the WP.

half the founding fathers supported government intervention in the economy

The bill needs to start in the House, not the Senate. I don't think it counts if the House votes it down...

Here is an email I just received. I, for one, would love to see the money given to the citizens and allow them to pay off debt rather than handing it to the corporate fat cats.




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+!

The bill needs to start in the House, not the Senate. I don't think it counts if the House votes it down...

obviously you haven't seen what the senate is voting on today

Here is an email I just received. I, for one, would love to see the money given to the citizens and allow them to pay off debt rather than handing it to the corporate fat cats.




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+!

AIG is paying 11% interest on this loan, are you in favor of paying interest on your "check" and returning it?

obviously you haven't seen what the senate is voting on today

I have, hence my comment.

it's HR something, forgot the number

they took an existing piece of legislation that is in limbo, rewrote it and are voting on it. then the house is going to vote and a conference committee will have to make a deal and then another revote

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".


Seriously? Why the fuck are these people so bad at math?

85 billion divided by 200 million is $425 (it's the same math as $85,000/200). If America is truly this stupid (cannot do basic math), maybe this country deserves to crumble...

AIG is paying 11% interest on this loan, are you in favor of paying interest on your "check" and returning it?

I was simply showing an email I received. I think there has to be a better solution than handing over the $700B.

Seriously? Why the fuck are these people so bad at math?

85 billion divided by 200 million is $425. I'm seriously getting sick of idiots (those who cannot do math, such as the author of that e-mail (not achau9598)) yelping on about this. If America is truly this stupid, maybe this country deserves to crumble...

You are right .. I didn't even look at the numbers when I posted it ...

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.1424:

I was simply showing an email I received. I think there has to be a better solution than handing over the $700B.

i've read enough pro and con to not pay any attention to any of it. but there is a lot of historical precedent for this going back hundreds of years and one of the reasons Alexander Hamilton pushed for a central bank is to be like England and it's Bank of England that bailed people out in 1720.

Here is an email I just received. I, for one, would love to see the money given to the citizens and allow them to pay off debt rather than handing it to the corporate fat cats.




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+!

let's not give money to people who can't do simple math.

85*10^9/200*10^6 = 425

let's not give money to people who can't do simple math.

85*10^9/200*10^6 = 425

I responded to the email's sender with that numeric "error" :)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:H.R.1424:

And you don't think that attaching the bailout to that resolution violates the spirit of the Constitution?

I was simply showing an email I received. I think there has to be a better solution than handing over the $700B.

And what good would giving every taxpayer $3,500 ($700B/200M) be? We've already seen that a stimulus package (and essentially one of the same magnitude) to the masses does nothing.

I thought the best part of that was not the math error, but the fact ("of course") that citizens would have to pay taxes on their payout. From the government.

And what good would giving every taxpayer $3,500 ($700B/200M) be? We've already seen that a stimulus package (and essentially one of the same magnitude) to the masses does nothing.It didn't do nothing. It just didn't do what it was supposed to do. Americans paid off debt instead of spending it.

Michael Gerson's op-ed in today's WP was a real load of crap. The premise is that because the bailout failed to pass, it means that the legislative branch of goverment is broken. Gee I didn't know that for Congress to function properly, they needed to be in a panic and say yes without pause to every piece of business that comes up.

And also that it's a bad thing that America's political elites have lost the ability to quickly respond to a national challenge by imposing their collective will. Yeah, that's a real shame right there. -rolleyes-

Finally, we apparently are teetering on the edge of a political crisis - like under the Articles of Confederation -- "a weak government populated by small men." This is a weak government?!!! Are you fucking kidding me?

It's been some time since I've read such a load of claptrap in the WP.


This has been driving me crazy as well. All of the news outlets seem to be reporting the same thing and using language such as "failure" when referring to the House voting down a bill that their constituents wanted them to. Wake up people, that is their job and it is the first success of government in quite some time. Also, how is it a bad thing that representatives who are up for reelection in close races voted against this for fear of being voted out. We should be so lucky that every vote of this magnitude is treated that way.

I was simply showing an email I received. I think there has to be a better solution than handing over the $700B.



You are right .. I didn't even look at the numbers when I posted it ...

I posted this email in an earlier thread. The people I responded to said exactly this. It almost seems like a joke, but I don't get it. (one guy was confused when I told him the math was off and asked me to explain, instead of just checking it himself)

Even if those numbers were right it would just drive up inflation... if YOU have $425K then that's great, if EVERYONE has $425k then all the sudden bread cost $150/loaf. Plus as most Americans have proven, they would just spend it stupidly and still be in debt when it was all over.

I saw a clip of this on TV yesterday.September 30, 2008
Kaptur: Media Should 'Calm' in Bailout Coverage for Sake of U.S.
@ 3:18 pm by Hill Staff

The media should calm down in their coverage of the stock market and the collapse of the bailout legislation, Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) said in an interview Tuesday.

"You're very anxious, I can hear your voice there," Kaptur said to ABC News's Chris Cuomo, who was reporting from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange.

"For the sake of the country, and even for the sake of the markets, I think you should operate prudently and with a little bit of calm in your voice today," Kaptur told Cuomo.

Cuomo had seemed to indicate a delay in audio between New York and Washington during his interview with Kaptur and Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). Both Kaptur and Musgrave voted against yesterday's financial assistance legislation.

"Of course, both of you understand that any anxiety here is because of the interests of people on Main Street, and wanting to make sure they don't get caught up in politics," Cuomo said.

"I think one of the problems is that [Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson is a day-trader; he's not a banker," Kaptur said later in the video.http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2008/09/30/kaptur-media-should-calm-in-bailout-coverage-for-sake-of-us/

Video here (http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=5917670).

I agree with Marcy Kaptur. It doesn't help when they characterize such things in headlines as "the biggest one-day plunge in the history of the exchange." While technically true, it's very misleading. But I guess they want to sell newspapers, and the media (local and national, print and tv) loves to put people in a panic mode.

And I agree with Marcy Kaptur, Marilyn Musgrave, Herb Doggett, etc. & Red Dog. :)

This Marcy Kaptur?

Ben Bernanke's Goldman-Sachs secret

In October, Representative Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, embarrassed herself during a Congressional hearing on broadband access with an out-of-the-blue rant against Internet smut. On Thursday, she distinguished herself once again while questioning Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke during a Committee on the Budget hearing.

KAPTUR: Number three, seeing as how you were the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, what percentage level -- oh, investment -- were you not...

BERNANKE: No, you're confusing me with the Treasury Secretary.

KAPTUR: I got the wrong firm?

BERNANKE: Yes.

KAPTUR: Paulson. Oh, OK. Where were you, sir?

BERNANKE: I was a CEO of the Princeton Economics Department.

KAPTUR: Oh, Princeton. Oh, all right. Sorry. Sorry.

(LAUGHTER)

I got you confused with the other one. I'm sorry. Well, I'm glad you clarified that for the record.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/01/17/marcy_kaptur_strikes_again/

I wonder how many times that email with the bad math is going to be posted in these threads (along with the Nigerian scam letter with Paulson's name). And I wonder why they haven't updated it for the 700 billion number with the same bad math (The 700 billion plan is a crock... that's 3.5 million for each adult over 18, give or take a few decimals!).

What's worse are the people who try to put the actual dollar amount in "real world" terms. How many big macs could each person buy? ooo. You'd think just spouting the dollar amount would be enough without dressing it up like that.

Wait. How many Big Macs am I going to lose? http://www.mindspring.com/~boycekb/images/Smilies/Huh.gif

Sorry, fuji, if my post offended you. But with the number of pages/posts/threads this subject has, it is often hard to keep up with what has/has not been posted.

Wait. How many Big Macs am I going to lose? http://www.mindspring.com/~boycekb/images/Smilies/Huh.gif

Some, but it's still better than the alternative. I heard that if we don't pass the bailout immediately, we will soon see a day where Big Macs are made from starving children. Like, within a couple weeks.

This Marcy Kaptur?KAPTUR: Number three, seeing as how you were the former CEO of Goldman Sachs, what percentage level -- oh, investment -- were you not...Number three? Is this the Dating Game?

I hope there is a provision in there to save Stargate Atlantis and freeze the price of ground chuck at $1.00/lb.

Now you're talking!

This Marcy Kaptur?Yeah, she's a real sharp one.

-ohbfrank-

Sorry, fuji, if my post offended you. But with the number of pages/posts/threads this subject has, it is often hard to keep up with what has/has not been posted.

It wasn't a dig at you, sorry if it came across that way. But it's just odd that it continues to make the rounds when it's talking about the AIG "bailout," and even with the bad math is still being forwarded around as new. But yeah, it's tough to keep up in these threads. Did we get bailed out yet? :)

Yeah, she's a real sharp one.

-ohbfrank-

But since she's a dem, her district will keep re-electing her in perpetuity. Just like William Jefferson (D-LA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Barbara Boxer(D-CA), and Nancy Pelosi(D-CA).

nancy pelosi is probably a big reason this is going through. word is that a few weeks ago her AIG holdings were $500,000

Pelosi is not stupid. I may not like her or her politics, but I wouldn't question her intelligence.

i think she's worth $600 million and runs a tuna business

But since she's a dem, her district will keep re-electing her in perpetuity. Just like William Jefferson (D-LA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Barbara Boxer(D-CA), and Nancy Pelosi(D-CA).You forgot Ted Stevens(D-AK). Oh wait....

But since she's a dem, her district will keep re-electing her in perpetuity. Just like William Jefferson (D-LA), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Barbara Boxer(D-CA), and Nancy Pelosi(D-CA).The idea that only Democrats have safe districts is stupid. My rep (Pat Tiberi (R-OH)) is a moron but it would take an atomic bomb to dislodge him from his seat, thanks to all the stupid rednecks from Licking and Delaware counties.

Pelosi is not stupid. I may not like her or her politics, but I wouldn't question her intelligence.

Really? Wow. She failed miserably this past week, being completely unprepared.

Was she even in today's meeting?

Pelosi is not stupid. I may not like her or her politics, but I wouldn't question her intelligence.

Queen Nancy was stupid to bring up the vote without knowing that so many dems were going to vote against it. It speaks volumes about her incompetence.

Queen Nancy was stupid to bring up the vote without knowing that so many dems were going to vote against it. It speaks volumes about her incompetence.
If you really believe that, then you ARE clueless as to what was REALLY going on with Pelosi's speech.

If you really believe that, then you ARE clueless as to what was REALLY going on with Pelosi's speech.

I'm not talking about republicans voting against it. I'm talking about democrats. She brought up a bill for vote without knowing that so many dems were going to vote against it. A simple vote count would have let her know. Then she could have spent time trying to get 11 dems to change their mind and it would not have mattered if all of the republicans voted against it. She could have passed the bill.

If you really believe that, then you ARE clueless as to what was REALLY going on with Pelosi's speech.

Well, I am clueless, but I still think I know what went on with Ms. Pelosi. And I disagree with bhk on this on.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/t_LWQQrpSc4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/t_LWQQrpSc4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Lessons from Ducktales

Intelligent people make mistakes and have lapses in judgment....just like everyone else on the face of the earth. I can't stand her, but I don't believe for a minute that Pelosi isn't a very intelligent person.

McCain wants Bush to unilaterally (without Congressional approval) spend $1 trillion of the treasury money to buy up mortgages. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/mccain-urges-bush-to-spen_n_130729.html

Thoughts from the forum conservatives?

That Ducktales video should have had the part from "Duck to the future" where Uncle McScrooge talks about cutting expenses and increasing profits for the Nephew's lemonade stand.

Seriously, that show was all about capitalism.

McCain wants Bush to unilaterally (without Congressional approval) spend $1 trillion of the treasury money to buy up mortgages. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/mccain-urges-bush-to-spen_n_130729.html

Thoughts from the forum conservatives?

My thought. Get an actual news agency to report it, and I will give a response. I don't quite believe it means what Huffington thinks it means when taken this way.

My thought. Get an actual news agency to report it, and I will give a response. I don't quite believe it means what Huffington thinks it means when taken this way.Check the link. It has video embedded from CNN, Huffington Post, and...wait for it...Fox News.

He actually says it in the second piece of that youtube clip. I think it's a bit scary that the Treasury would spend 1 trillion without needing the authority of Congress.

McCain wants Bush to unilaterally (without Congressional approval) spend $1 trillion of the treasury money to buy up mortgages. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/mccain-urges-bush-to-spen_n_130729.html

Thoughts from the forum conservatives?


:lol: Fine. Tell me where he says he wants to spend 1 trillion. He mentions that they have up to 1 trillion in the treasury and they should begin to buy up stuff. He never says, "Let's spend the whole trillion!"

I think you are seeing the boogie monster you expect to see.

Otherwise, my opinion is that I disagree with him. But what do you think Pelosi thinks? She is all for the bailout. Thoughts from the forum liberals?

I think it is weak to even attempt to make this ideological given the fact that the Dems could have passed the bailout on their own, but didn't (so many were against it), and the Republicans could have passed it if they stood with the president/Pelosi/Dem leadership, but didn't.

:lol: Fine. Tell me where he says he wants to spend 1 trillion. He mentions that they have up to 1 trillion in the treasury and they should begin to buy up stuff. He never says, "Let's spend the whole trillion!"

I think you are seeing the boogie monster you expect to see.

Otherwise, my opinion is that I disagree with him. But what do you think Pelosi thinks? She is all for the bailout. Thoughts from the forum liberals?

I think it is weak to even attempt to make this ideological given the fact that the Dems could have passed the bailout on their own, but didn't (so many were against it), and the Republicans could have passed it if they stood with the president/Pelosi/Dem leadership, but didn't.I'm against the bailout, like many Republicans. However, I'd like to know what the Republicans think when their candidate suggests unilateral control over decisions on how much Treasury money (UP to $1 trillion; but you honestly don't think he's proposing using as much of that as needed to save the corporations??) to use in a bailout. If Republicans thought a $700 billion bailout was a bad idea, then is McCain's suggestion to bypass Congress to do the same thing (except without congressional input), a better idea? Is this the kind of idea you want to hear from a candidate you would support? (Not you specifically kvrdave, just "you" in general) This is a man who's repeatedly stated that he doesn't have a good grasp of economics.

My thought. Get an actual news agency to report it, and I will give a response. I don't quite believe it means what Huffington thinks it means when taken this way.SesiK5CpcII

Intelligent people make mistakes and have lapses in judgment....just like everyone else on the face of the earth. I can't stand her, but I don't believe for a minute that Pelosi isn't a very intelligent person.

I'm pretty sure she's viewed as a failure at her role, by the democrats.

I don't think the woman is very bright, she isn't going to be a ~90 on a standardized IQ test, if that's what you mean I agree.

But she isn't that bright.

I mean just as a gauge to common sense... when your eyebrows are going to be halfway up your forehead most of the time, and if you flex any muscle in your face your eyebrows make it look like you are staring down an oncoming train or the barrel of a loaded gun in a state of sheer panic? It's time to stop with the facelifts, rich or no rich(she's rich). Not a very commonsense approach there by Pelosi.

You know... for one example. (something feels so right about typing those ellipsis there)

Well, I am clueless, but I still think I know what went on with Ms. Pelosi. And I disagree with bhk on this on.
Neither side in the House really wanted that bill to pass. At least while constituent support/opposition didn't fall along party lines.

Pelosi's partisan shots in her speech were simply to stir up partisan back-n-forth to get voters to fall in line with their party. Both parties were in on it.

People really don't think that republicans who voted against the bill did so because of what Pelosi said, do they? But since then, the discussion amongst people has shifted from the bill itself to "partisanship on the hill". So Pelosi's speech was successful...it worked.

I'm against the bailout, like many Republicans. However, I'd like to know what the Republicans think when their candidate suggests unilateral control over decisions on how much Treasury money (UP to $1 trillion; but you honestly don't think he's proposing using as much of that as needed to save the corporations??) to use in a bailout. If Republicans thought a $700 billion bailout was a bad idea, then is McCain's suggestion to bypass Congress to do the same thing (except without congressional input), a better idea? Is this the kind of idea you want to hear from a candidate you would support? (Not you specifically kvrdave, just "you" in general) This is a man who's repeatedly stated that he doesn't have a good grasp of economics.

You are right in that I am not a McCain supporter, nor a bailout supporter. But, surely you can see there is a difference between reporting that McCain is saying "Spend 1 trillion with congress now" and saying, "The treasurey has 1 trillion and we should start to buy up....."

I see that as two different (but related) sentences. Because we have 1 trillion does not mean he is saying we should spend the entire trillion. That seems obvious to me, but I am not look for reasons to fear him (or like him, for that matter).

Here is an example. I was on a city rezoning committee. Churches came out of all zoning and moved only to being allowed with a variance. Do you think it would be fair and accurate to post a headline that says, "City Zones Out Churches."

I think that is a gross mischaracterization, and it is still more accurate than McCain advocating we spend 1 trillion.

Intelligent people make mistakes and have lapses in judgment....just like everyone else on the face of the earth. I can't stand her, but I don't believe for a minute that Pelosi isn't a very intelligent person.

So you beleive she is an evil genius?:frankie:

I would feel a hell of a lot better about some flavour of 'bailout' that gave money to the homeowners to stop the foreclosures, and allow loan repayment on re-negotiated terms for the 'toxic' loans. This solves the bank problem.

This would solve the problem from more of a 'ground up' approach.

I would feel a hell of a lot better about some flavour of 'bailout' that gave money to the homeowners to stop the foreclosures, and allow loan repayment on re-negotiated terms for the 'toxic' loans. This solves the bank problem.

This would solve the problem from more of a 'ground up' approach.

I would be most of those mortgages that go back go back anyway. Foreclose now and I don't have -20% equity.

I would be most of those mortgages that go back go back anyway. Foreclose now and I don't have -20% equity.

Wait.

You're not a 'sucker' who took a sub-prime loan on a house you couldn't afford, and this housing con game the banks created is affecting you?

How's that possible? At least according to most of your posts on the matter that wouldn't be possible? I thought it was only the 'suckers' who were affected?

Remember a few months ago when I told it was good to have ALL your properties paid for and you disagreed? HA! and double HA!

You are right in that I am not a McCain supporter, nor a bailout supporter. But, surely you can see there is a difference between reporting that McCain is saying "Spend 1 trillion with congress now" and saying, "The treasurey has 1 trillion and we should start to buy up....."

I see that as two different (but related) sentences. Because we have 1 trillion does not mean he is saying we should spend the entire trillion. That seems obvious to me, but I am not look for reasons to fear him (or like him, for that matter).

Here is an example. I was on a city rezoning committee. Churches came out of all zoning and moved only to being allowed with a variance. Do you think it would be fair and accurate to post a headline that says, "City Zones Out Churches."

I think that is a gross mischaracterization, and it is still more accurate than McCain advocating we spend 1 trillion.On the same note then, the bailout did not propose using all $700 billion. It's asking for $700 billion in CASE it's needed. The only difference here is that one person wants $1 trillion set aside in CASE it's needed to bail out bad mortgages, and he wants to do so without Congressional approval. That's not mischaraterization, just as as it's not mischaracterization to say the bailout package was for $700 billion. We don't know what the actual figure is (since no one can explain where the $700 billion figure even came from), but McCain wants to enable the Treasury to have the money to spend freely without any oversight or control by anyone else.

Do any of us know how much will actually be needed? Are we okay with letting McCain just throw out the $1 trillion figure without knowing how much will be needed, and what the benefits/consequences of buying up the government buying up the mortgages will be? I'm still having trouble understanding how McCain could propose this knowing that the bailout just got shot down and many (if not most) Americans are infuriated by the idea of a bailout.

Wait.

You're not a 'sucker' who took a sub-prime loan on a house you couldn't afford, and this housing con game the banks created is affecting you?

How's that possible? At least according to most of your posts on the matter that wouldn't be possible? I thought it was only the 'suckers' who were affected?


:lol: What are you talking about? I haven't been affected in the least.

I'm just saying that people faced with the decision to stay in a house that is worth 20% less than they paid for it, and they put no money down, and often paid no closing costs, there is very little incentive to stick around.

My local market has remained quite good.

You are right in that I am not a McCain supporter, nor a bailout supporter. But, surely you can see there is a difference between reporting that McCain is saying "Spend 1 trillion with congress now" and saying, "The treasurey has 1 trillion and we should start to buy up....."

I see that as two different (but related) sentences. Because we have 1 trillion does not mean he is saying we should spend the entire trillion. That seems obvious to me, but I am not look for reasons to fear him (or like him, for that matter).

Here is an example. I was on a city rezoning committee. Churches came out of all zoning and moved only to being allowed with a variance. Do you think it would be fair and accurate to post a headline that says, "City Zones Out Churches."

I think that is a gross mischaracterization, and it is still more accurate than McCain advocating we spend 1 trillion.


Adding, many folks, economist and even some in these threads, have been advocating very similar ideas. This is not some new off the wall idea. Further, to a degree this is what the has been already going on.

On the same note then, the bailout did not propose using all $700 billion. It's asking for $700 billion in CASE it's needed. The only difference here is that one person wants $1 trillion set aside in CASE it's needed to bail out bad mortgages, and he wants to do so without Congressional approval. That's not mischaraterization, just as as it's not mischaracterization to say the bailout package was for $700 billion. We don't know what the actual figure is (since no one can explain where the $700 billion figure even came from), but McCain wants to enable the Treasury to have the money to spend freely without any oversight or control by anyone else.

He isn't saying to set it aside. It is there. And he isn't saying "in case" as I understand it, he is saying to start now. And he isn't saying he wants to enable them to do this, they are enabled. He is saying to start doing it. None of that I agree with, but that is a mischaracterization.

Do any of us know how much will actually be needed? Are we okay with letting McCain just throw out the $1 trillion figure without knowing how much will be needed, and what the benefits/consequences of buying up the government buying up the mortgages will be?

:lol: He isn't throwing out the figure of 1 trillion as being what is needed. he is throwing it out as to what is in the treasury.

:lol: What are you talking about? I haven't been affected in the least.

I'm just saying that people faced with the decision to stay in a house that is worth 20% less than they paid for it, and they put no money down, and often paid no closing costs, there is very little incentive to stick around.

My local market has remained quite good.

What percentage of these homes were actually bought by families, as opposed to speculators and 'flippers', in your opinion?

I would feel a hell of a lot better about some flavour of 'bailout' that gave money to the homeowners to stop the foreclosures, and allow loan repayment on re-negotiated terms for the 'toxic' loans. This solves the bank problem.

This would solve the problem from more of a 'ground up' approach.


How would that address the valuation & lack of information problems, the real problems?

What percentage of these homes were actually bought by families, as opposed to speculators and 'flippers', in your opinion?

50/50 in my opinion. Might be more when you add "second home, investment property, etc." to the speculators/flipper category. I could see "primary residence" people being as low as 35%. I know that most of my business came from investment property, etc. rather than poor family buying their first home.

But I'm in a very different market. I am sure there are many where primary residence was the main amount because people that could never afford a home before got their chance with crap ARMs and nothing down.

I would be most of those mortgages that go back go back anyway. Foreclose now and I don't have -20% equity.

:lol: What are you talking about? I haven't been affected in the least.

I'm just saying that people faced with the decision to stay in a house that is worth 20% less than they paid for it, and they put no money down, and often paid no closing costs, there is very little incentive to stick around.

My local market has remained quite good.

Dammit!!!

You burned me again...

When you said "I would be" I assumed you meant you, were referring to yourself, and the rest of the sentence was fucked up completely. Then you meant you had -20% equity. Now I see it was the front of the sentence that was fucked up.

DAMN YOU!!!! It's like tea leaves some times with you.

Either way my basic point is kinda the same. You have many times said this housing crisis was about suckers who took out loans they couldn't afford. Several times I bought up people who had made legit home loans years ago the 'normal' and proper way, with down payments and etc., who were fucked by the sleazy con game the banks pulled on America, and you poo poo'd the notion.

How would that address the valuation & lack of information problems, the real problems?

How does bailout of the con men who did this in the first place address that?

I feel better about taxpayer money going to actual taxpayers is the idea. I would greatly prefer a solution with that in mind. You stop the bleeding by putting a compress on the wounds, not the heart. You follow?

I'm not trying to be specific, and I know there's no way anyone will give a fuck about the average American losing their homes and lives basically. Though the Democrats will forever give lip service to that notion to pander to their base.

There's no way it will happen, but it's the way it should be done.

Then re-instate banking regulations and prosecute the banks for fraud, because they committed fraud many times over. From the CEO's down. And not just the WaMu sleazebag either.

Dammit!!!

You burned me again...

When you said "I would be" I assumed you meant you, were referring to yourself, and the rest of the sentence was fucked up completely. Then you meant you had -20% equity. Now I see it was the front of the sentence that was fucked up.

DAMN YOU!!!! It's like tea leaves some times with you.

Either way my basic point is kinda the same. You have many times said this housing crisis was about suckers who took out loans they couldn't afford. Several times I bought up people who had made legit home loans years ago the 'normal' and proper way, with down payments and etc., who were fucked by the sleazy con game the banks pulled on America, and you poo poo'd the notion.


Ohhhhh, yeah, I meant "bet."

And you bought up people???? And you call me a monster?????


:p

We'll start a running count if you want to mister.

Don't make me do it!!!

Either way my basic point is kinda the same. You have many times said this housing crisis was about suckers who took out loans they couldn't afford. Several times I bought up people who had made legit home loans years ago the 'normal' and proper way, with down payments and etc., who were fucked by the sleazy con game the banks pulled on America, and you poo poo'd the notion.

I am into poo poo, Uhhhhh, wait. No, I can see where people that bought years ago could have gotten screwed, but if they bought at fixed rates on something they can afford, I don't see it as a big deal. By that I mean, a primary residence is so much more than an investment, and most people look at it as an investment first, then complain that they haven't gone up in value in a year. That is not why people should buy homes, that is why they should buy CDs. Those that bought and had their homes go down in value will be fine so long as they aren't looking to move right away. Certainly those that are transfered will get screwed, I suppose.

And again, I see much of it from my own corner of the world. I didn't see many buying their first homes. If that was the majority of what I saw, it would color my perspective. But I also haven't seen values here go down, which probably also colors my perspective.

We'll start a running count if you want to mister.

Don't make me do it!!!

:lol: I am sure I would lose. My mind is faster and more accurate than my fingers.

I feel better about taxpayer money going to actual taxpayers is the idea. I would greatly prefer a solution with that in mind. You stop the bleeding by putting a compress on the wounds, not the heart. You follow?I don't agree with this plan either. Just as bailing out the corporations encourages them to take risky bets, so does bailing out taxpayers. People should not be bailed out when they bet that they can flip a place for 40% profit or when they take out a mortgage without sitting down to any one of hundreds of available online mortgage calculators to see if they can afford this if and when their ARM introductory payment period is up, or when they bet that their house value will rise faster than their 0% down loan's interest. No, I don't feel ANY better about my taxes going to these people. I was responsible, so why should I pay for people who weren't? Wow, did I just sound conservative? :)

Let the banks who were run by idiots, fail. The slack in the credit market will be taken up by the banks that were run by slightly smarter people. Likewise, allow those banks to foreclose on properties that aren't being paid for and destroy the credit of those who walked away. If you allow people to continue to do stupid things without consequences, guess what? People will continue to do stupid things.

I am into poo poo, Uhhhhh, wait. No, I can see where people that bought years ago could have gotten screwed, but if they bought at fixed rates on something they can afford, I don't see it as a big deal. By that I mean, a primary residence is so much more than an investment, and most people look at it as an investment first, then complain that they haven't gone up in value in a year. That is not why people should buy homes, that is why they should buy CDs. Those that bought and had their homes go down in value will be fine so long as they aren't looking to move right away. Certainly those that are transfered will get screwed, I suppose.


Most people would disagree with this post here. I certainly do. A residence is the largest single investment most people make in their lives. Far and away.

And yes I'm sure you'd feel fine paying an extra $100,000 or $200,000 or etc. more than your home was worth to a sleazy con artist banker who is getting bailed out by the government and gets to keep his $40,000,000 golden parachute for fucking you over. Yeah I REALLY(this is sarcasm here, note the capital letters) buy that.

Use that fast and accurate mind to see beyond the horizons of your personal experience. It so happens that my larger properties haven't lost much value either for the most part, but that doesn't stop me from seeing beyond that when millions of people are being wiped out.

I don't agree with this plan either. Just as bailing out the corporations encourages them to take risky bets, so does bailing out taxpayers. People should not be bailed out when they bet that they can flip a place for 40% profit or when they take out a mortgage without sitting down to any one of hundreds of available online mortgage calculators to see if they can afford this if and when their ARM introductory payment period is up, or when they bet that their house value will rise faster than their 0% down loan's interest. No, I don't feel ANY better about my taxes going to these people. I was responsible, so why should I pay for people who weren't? Wow, did I just sound conservative? :)

Yes.

kvr?

Most people would disagree with this post here. I certainly do. A residence is the largest single investment most people make in their lives. Far and away.

Then you have bought into what the sleazy con artist bankers have been selling. -wink- A home is a home. Historically, it has never been part of your retirement nestegg, nor should people have ever gotten to the idea that it was. Over periods of time they go up, but a primary residence has never (historically) been seen as an investment. It has been seen as a family home, place to live, place to pay off, and not have a payment on when they retire.

A duplex is an investment. A CD is an investment. A primary residence is not (primarily) an investment, historically speaking.

Yes.

kvr?

He didn't sound like Bush. He didn't sound like Pelosi or Frank.

:shrug:


:lol: I agree with him.

The short selling ban has been extended through October 17th.

And yes I'm sure you'd feel fine paying an extra $100,000 or $200,000 or etc. more than your home was worth to a sleazy con artist banker who is getting bailed out by the government and gets to keep his $40,000,000 golden parachute for fucking you over. Yeah I REALLY(this is sarcasm here, note the capital letters) buy that.
:lol: Of course I wouldn't feel good about it, but that is not why I bought my home. But I also wouldn't worry a lot about it (assuming we were only talking 20% devalue) any more than I am worried about the 35% that my IRAs, etc. are down. I don't like it, but I am not worried. I'm not in it short term.

Obviously I'd feel differently if I were about to retire in a year. Okay, I may not, but I can see why most people in that situation would.

Use that fast and accurate mind to see beyond the horizons of your personal experience. It so happens that my larger properties haven't lost much value either for the most part, but that doesn't stop me from seeing beyond that when millions of people are being wiped out.

I'm not saying I don't empathize with them. I don't want people to get wiped out. But the vast majority of people really didn't lose anything other than a number of payments on a place that they put nothing down on. They would have had to pay rent somewhere anyway. It's not a good and happy thing. And many banks were predatory (more mortgage brokers than banks, I think), but I feel about them about how I feel about people that paid big money for cdnow.com stock, etc. They got caught up in a national fever. Most really didn't lose anything other than pain in the ass. Why are the banks going under? Because they lost.

How does bailout of the con men who did this in the first place address that?

I feel better about taxpayer money going to actual taxpayers is the idea. I would greatly prefer a solution with that in mind. You stop the bleeding by putting a compress on the wounds, not the heart. You follow?

I'm not trying to be specific, and I know there's no way anyone will give a fuck about the average American losing their homes and lives basically. Though the Democrats will forever give lip service to that notion to pander to their base.

There's no way it will happen, but it's the way it should be done.

Then re-instate banking regulations and prosecute the banks for fraud, because they committed fraud many times over. From the CEO's down. And not just the WaMu sleazebag either.


The whole point of the original plan, and subsequent plans to a slightly lesser degree, was to valuate and reduce the asymmetrical information.

The whole point of the original plan, and subsequent plans to a slightly lesser degree, was to valuate and reduce the asymmetrical information.

Well just as the 'plan' goes to shit after the first contact with the enemy(this is an old war quote), so did that 'plan' do likewise after first contact with the congress.

It looks like a couple of other things are going to be attached to this bailout bill in the Senate.

yes, a tax break for arrow manufacturers and a Nascar tax break

Allegedly a tax break. I'm all for tax breaks if it doesn't take us deeper into debt. But I'd like to know how that's going to happen here if they give a tax break and at the same time do the bailout. It sounds to me like they're trying to put chocolate sprinkles onto a pile of turd so that there isn't a revolt.

Allegedly a tax break. I'm all for tax breaks if it doesn't take us deeper into debt. But I'd like to know how that's going to happen here if they give a tax break and at the same time do the bailout. It sounds to me like they're trying to put chocolate sprinkles onto a pile of turd so that there isn't a revolt.

I saw that as the major problem with a bailout plan getting voted down. In order to get votes, everyone will be given something and it could well end up worse that the original plan, all things considered.

Allegedly a tax break. I'm all for tax breaks if it doesn't take us deeper into debt. But I'd like to know how that's going to happen here if they give a tax break and at the same time do the bailout. It sounds to me like they're trying to put chocolate sprinkles onto a pile of turd so that there isn't a revolt.

That's how I am reading it too. Just what a 700 BILLION dollar plan needed, tax breaks.

I wish the Senate would shoot this down, but they wont.

A nice list of sweetners is here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26981240/). Can someone tell me what "Requiring group health plans that include mental health or addiction treatment to provide coverage for those conditions that is equitable to other medical coverage" has to do with this issue? Congress is such a piece of work.

The 'plan' goes to shit after first contact fellas.

You can bet on that one.

Neither side in the House really wanted that bill to pass. At least while constituent support/opposition didn't fall along party lines.

Pelosi's partisan shots in her speech were simply to stir up partisan back-n-forth to get voters to fall in line with their party. Both parties were in on it.

People really don't think that republicans who voted against the bill did so because of what Pelosi said, do they? But since then, the discussion amongst people has shifted from the bill itself to "partisanship on the hill". So Pelosi's speech was successful...it worked.

I don't believe the leadership of either side wanted the bill to fail. The point with pelosi is that she left absolutely zero wiggle room. She wanted the bill to pass while giving political cover to as many Democrats, without having a firm grasp on how many Republicans might vote against it. She backed Republicans into a corner and obviously many did not like it. So no, it was not her speech, but the whole course of her actions. Incompetence.

The vote final passage will commence shortly.

It will pass.

Mitch McConnell: 'I believe this is one of the finest moments in the history of the Senate.'

Remember what he was saying just a few days ago? ;)

I don't believe the leadership of either side wanted the bill to fail. The point with pelosi is that she left absolutely zero wiggle room. She wanted the bill to pass while giving political cover to as many Democrats, without having a firm grasp on how many Republicans might vote against it. She backed Republicans into a corner and obviously many did not like it. So no, it was not her speech, but the whole course of her actions. Incompetence.

I don't disagree, but you could say the exact same things about Reps. Boehner and Blunt. The fact is, leadership on both sides of the aisle had political considerations that got in the way of getting the bill passed.

I don't see how any Blue Dog Democrat can vote for this.

It clearly violates the budget act.

If this passes in the House - obviously it's going to pass in the Senate - I don't want to hear any Democrat who votes for this in the House ever say say the words 'fiscal discipline' again. It will ring hollow in these ears.

I don't see how any Blue Dog Democrat can vote for this.

It clearly violates the budget act.

If this passes in the House - obviously it's going to pass in the Senate - I don't want to hear any Democrat who votes for this in the House ever say say the words 'fiscal discipline' again. It will ring hollow in these ears.

Isn't the act revenue neutral (albeit over a 5-year period)?

It doesn't look like there's going to be 15 votes against it.

Cornyn voted yes even though he's in a close race. And Domenici voted no but he's retiring anyways.

I believe Domenici voted aye.

Obama voted no - just kidding - he voted aye.

There's at least 11 that voted no, now it looks like 15. I heard no for Domenici but you're right, he voted aye. I know why I thought it was him, Dole voted No.

Now there are 19 who voted no, Jon Tester voted no which kind of surprised me.

Hurray for getting the banks back on their feet and giving the 3 week old WaMu CEO $19 million! Good times guys!

It has go to The House.

74-25

Hurray for getting the banks back on their feet and giving the 3 week old WaMu CEO $19 million! Good times guys!
I'm as pro-free-market as the next guy, but that is way too young to be a CEO. :down:

I don't disagree, but you could say the exact same things about Reps. Boehner and Blunt. The fact is, leadership on both sides of the aisle had political considerations that got in the way of getting the bill passed.

Agreed. I even said something similar in one of the other threads. The only two differences are that pelosi had more ability in this matter and blew it, and that I loathe her.

I thought we would get 75 votes, so not too bad.

Who didn't vote?

4 times in the last 10 days Senate Democrats voted to violate the Budget Act.

This is the same party that argued for & passed PayGo.

Shame on them.

I thought we would get 75 votes, so not too bad.

Who didn't vote?


Kennedy, I would imagine.

btw: What's this 'we?'

Kennedy, I would imagine.

btw: What's this 'we?'

Stupid of me. I forgot.

Pharoh = Harry Reid

A little off topic: I hope there will be a challenge in the Democratic caucus in the next Congress for the leadership positions.

I expect Reid will get a challenge - just maybe from a former Democratic Presidential Candidate. He's done a really bad job over the last 3-4 months, IMO.

I never cared a great deal for Durbin.

I'm as pro-free-market as the next guy, but that is way too young to be a CEO. :down:I did a double take reading that too :lol:

I did a double take reading that too :lol:

I should have said 3 week old employed WaMu CEO...

I think the only rational strategy for the lowly voter is to vote out every incumbent.

Add another ~$130 Billion for add-on earmarks. $830+ Billion. It'll probably be a trillion or more once it actually passes the Senate and House.

A few CEOs and executives are going to be celebrating this weekend, alsongside their representatives in Congress.

when to i get my check?

Passes the House by eight to ten votes on Friday.

Add another ~$130 Billion for add-on earmarks. $830+ Billion. It'll probably be a trillion or more once it actually passes the Senate and House.

A few CEOs and executives are going to be celebrating this weekend, alsongside their representatives in Congress.

Not that I am for any of them, but it of course does not matter that all of those extenders would have been enacted upon regardless.

Passes the House by eight to ten votes on Friday.


Whether the bill passes or not is not 'up' to the Republicans, IMO.

If the very liberal Democrats who voted against this bill stay firm & the Blue Dogs join in, I believe the bill may not pass.

The tax cut will probably prove too enticing for the Repubs who voted against the bill the first time. We know that God put Republicans on this earth to cut taxes. ;)

Whether the bill passes or not is not 'up' to the Republicans, IMO.

If the very liberal Democrats who voted against this bill stay firm & the Blue Dogs join in, I believe the bill may not pass.

The tax cut will probably prove too enticing for the Repubs who voted against the bill the first time. We know that God put Republicans on this earth to cut taxes. ;)

I was actually estimating a good number of Democrats switching their votes from nay to yes.

I think the only rational strategy for the lowly voter is to vote out every incumbent.

I'm thinking Congressional term limits.

I'm not going to go that far. ;)

Another $9.4B injected by the Bank of Japan. Still no movement.

I don't see this pork loaded monstrosity passing the House, especially since they've refused to explore any other reasonable options before spending such an incredible amount of money. Calls and emails to representatives' offices are like 90 to 1 against this, despite all the fear mongering by the Bush administration and the mainstream media.

One thing is for sure now -- McCain has exactly zero credibility on being against pork barrell spending, zero credibility as a "maverick". Not that he ever did in my opinion. This was probably his one chance to reinvigorate his dying campaign by leading the charge against this incredible amount of deficit spending, but he doesn't have the courage to do it, nor the courage to lead the country in anything else.

If this passes, I'm thinking it's high time to vote anti-incumbent for every office.

I'm thinking Congressional term limits.I hesitantly voted for term limits in California and as I watch the effects, with and without, I fall more strongly on the term limit side.

It still sucks in local California politics, but not nearly as much as it would suck without term limits.

But no law is required if voters just do what is right.

Hurray for getting the banks back on their feet and giving the 3 week old WaMu CEO $19 million! Good times guys!


They actually gave it to him???!!! After giving him a $7.5 million sign-on bonus less than a month ago? I'm pretty sure thousands of WaMu employees will get laid off too. :mad: What the fuck is wrong with this country!!!!??? :chainsaw:

I don't believe the leadership of either side wanted the bill to fail. The point with pelosi is that she left absolutely zero wiggle room. She wanted the bill to pass while giving political cover to as many Democrats, without having a firm grasp on how many Republicans might vote against it. She backed Republicans into a corner and obviously many did not like it. So no, it was not her speech, but the whole course of her actions. Incompetence.
You can claim it is incompetence, but Republican house members claimed it was her partisan rhetoric that caused them to "back out at the last minute". Sounds like you DO believe that she is the reason they changed their minds.

I hesitantly voted for term limits in California and as I watch the effects, with and without, I fall more strongly on the term limit side.

It still sucks in local California politics, but not nearly as much as it would suck without term limits.

But no law is required if voters just do what is right.

I don't know, I'm getting sick of these entrenched Congressmen in both houses. If the lobbyists are going to rule Washington, let's at least give them moving targets.

I don't know, I'm getting sick of these entrenched Congressmen in both houses. If the lobbyists are going to rule Washington, let's at least give them moving targets.I totally agree.

I totally agree.

But won't they be easier targets?

And don't look now, but a banking crisis might be coming to everybody's favourite overrated 'superpower' across the Pacific.

Methinks their bailout just may be a tad easier to get through.

But won't they be easier targets?I think it takes a while for them to become a target. I'd like to think that politicians get into it for good reasons. Only after they sit on the vine too long do they become ripe for the picking.

But won't they be easier targets?

How is that? With term limits, the lobbyists will have to continually win over an ever-changing group of Congressmen. Versus now, where they can keep going to the same people who get voted in year after year and never have to worry about anything but giving basic lip service to their constiuents.

Also, I think term limits would help raise voter awareness. I believe so many Congressmen get elected time and time again because voters don't want to take the time to actually figure out what they do and do not stand for. With term limits, you have to at least pay attention to who's running, since it's two new people, no incumbent (when their run of terms is up).

Talk about putting lipstick on the proverbial pig.

So the idea here is to go deeper into debt to save a failing credit market that was created by too much debt. And the only way to get this brilliant plan to pass was to....go deeper into debt. Does that about sum it up?

On a related note, does anyone here know if it's legal to setup a bank account in another country in another currency? Just wondering.

Not that I am for any of them, but it of course does not matter that all of those extenders would have been enacted upon regardless.

Well, the $700B Bailout would have been enacted upon regardless. Like it really had a chance to NOT make it in our amazing government of prudent spending. These extenders have been modified to make it rather unrisky for businesses to do business. It's economic socialism. Cronie capitalism.

What's the average homeowner getting out of this? Holy shit oh dear, you can now apply for a lower interest rate, or opt for a fixed rate over your ARM. :lol:

Yeah, that's gonna help the average homeowner. But I'm sure if somebody requested the US Gov't to bailout the most troubled homeowners in America, they'd look at us like we were crazy.

On a related note, does anyone here know if it's legal to setup a bank account in another country in another currency? Just wondering.

Perfectly legal. As long as your money is legal. Transferring one country's funds to another country's bank is common practice. I think many of us should learn this practice.

Anyone speak Swedish?

But won't they be easier targets?

Obviously you never watched 'Mr Smith Goes To Washington'.

Whether you're more of a Dem or a Repub the best congress we've had in at least 50 years is the Republican freshman 'revolution' congress.

Most of that was the 'freshman' part. The were the most fiscally responsible congress possibly in history, and Clinton to this day gets credit for the surplus they created in spite of his many spending proposals.

I'm for term limits. That is ALL it would take to end the good 'ol boy network.

CEO of WaMu was employed for 3 weeks. Gets $19 Million.