Is the Wall Street Bailout a Scam?

[bagelred]

The more this whole Financial Bailout proposal has sunk in, and people have had time to think about it, some people are saying its a scam.

Doesn't it seem that way? Anything Bush and Cheney tell us is an emergency should be quickly second guessed. Doesn't the fact that Bush and Cheney are pushing this Bailout heavily cause us hesitation?

I"m not saying economy isn't in trouble, but is the bailout the answer?


9/11 happened. Patriot Act!!!! Don't think. Sign it!!!!!

Iraq War. War on Terror!!!!! Don't think. Attack!!!!!

Wall Street Bailout. Great Depression!!!!! Don't think. Sign it!!!!!

This is Bush and Cheney last chance to rape the Treasury for as much as they can. They've already stolen trillions with military spending and fake wars, now this is the last grasp at stealing taxpayers money.

Doesn't anyone wonder how all of a sudden they need $700 Billion RIGHT NOW!!!! Don't think, just ACT!!!!!! Give us money, NOW!!!!!!

Why not wait? Even if economy is struggling, couldn't $700 Billion be used to give health care for everyone, help those with foreclosers, extend benefit payments until economy turns around? Why are we bailing out the wealthy?
Something is fishy about this whole thing.........



Some interesting articles on subject:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/treasury-secret.html

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/23/171759/124/260/607908

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8451


"After reviewing the administration's proposed bailout plan, I believe it is completely unacceptable," [South Carolina Sen. Jim] DeMint, chairman of the Senate Republican Steering Committee, said in the statement. "This plan does nothing to address the misguided government policies that created this mess and it could make matters much worse by socializing an entire sector of the U.S. economy."

That's a Republican, BTW....

This whole situation is sketchy.....

[Smokee]

its funny as hell because i had a customer at work talk about this when the topic of the bailouts was on the radio. She basically said Bush rushes us to make decisions just like pushing Congress giving him the permission to go to war, but only as an option he had on the table for negotiations mostly, and all of a sudden we're at war :wtf:

Patriot Act was rush rush to push it through too, talking about Terrorists could strike at any minute.

Even getting Congress to push funding for the troops was a rush rush push by Bush, talking about there are troops dyiing without equipment over there.

And now this. Like everybody the day it happened was in a daze but like 'yeah i guess we have to', Bush was pushing we have to get this done now, its urgent, a top priority...and after a day everyone is like wait a minute...at the very least how the hell are you not attaching stipulations to just giving them all that money :ohwell:

[bagelred]

its funny as hell because i had a customer at work talk about this when the topic of the bailouts was on the radio. She basically said Bush rushes us to make decisions just like pushing Congress giving him the permission to go to war, but only as an option he had on the table for negotiations mostly, and all of a sudden we're at war :wtf:

Patriot Act was rush rush to push it through too, talking about Terrorists could strike at any minute.

Even getting Congress to push funding for the troops was a rush rush push by Bush, talking about there are troops dyiing without equipment over there.

And now this. Like everybody the day it happened was in a daze but like 'yeah i guess we have to', Bush was pushing we have to get this done now, its urgent, a top priority...and after a day everyone is like wait a minute...at the very least how the hell are you not attaching stipulations to just giving them all that money :ohwell:

Smokee, we have a FORUM EMERGENCY!!!!

Don't think, give me Reputation Points....NOW!!!!!.....The whole forum might shut down!!!!!!

Quickkkkkk..........REP ME!!!!!!!!!!!..........:D



I read someone describe this Bailout as a Used Car Salesman who has to create a sense of urgency in order to get you to buy.....LAST CHANCE!!!!! BUY NOW OR ELSE!!!!!!!!

[Smokee]

lol rep'd or the forum might've died.

lucky i acted so fast :pimp:

[bagelred]

lol rep'd or the forum might've died.

lucky i acted so fast :pimp:

Heh heh heh.....sucker......:lol....turns out it wasn't really an emergency....oh well, guess you can't take those rep points back....live and learn.......

[Smokee]

Damn you :mad:

[Denali]

so you support when obama proposes bailing out poor people with tax payer money but you oppose when bush proposes bailing out struggling financial institutions with tax payer money????

what is the difference?

[bagelred]

so you support when obama proposes bailing out poor people with tax payer money but you oppose when bush proposes bailing out struggling financial institutions with tax payer money????

what is the difference?

All I'm saying is that Wall Street has a "Heads I win, tails you lose" mentality. All the profits get privatized, all the loses get socialized. Taxpayers don't get the profits when Wall Street is doing great, but they have to bail out Wall Street with tax dollars when they are about to go belly up? Isn't that odd?

I realize Wall Street effects the whole economy....but doesn't this bailout strike you as a sort of "trust us, we need this money or else" scam?

[Kumo]

All I'm saying is that Wall Street has a "Heads I win, tails you lose" mentality. All the profits get privatized, all the loses get socialized. Taxpayers don't get the profits when Wall Street is doing great, but they have to bail out Wall Street with tax dollars when they are about to go belly up? Isn't that odd?

I realize Wall Street effects the whole economy....but doesn't this bailout strike you as a sort of "trust us, we need this money or else" scam?

Taxpayers do profit from a good economy.. Who do you think those companies employ, who gets to use those businesses? Taxpayers.

[reppy]

Isn't this the same group that brought us the Savings and Loans scam? Are we surprised?

[Smokee]

so you support when obama proposes bailing out poor people with tax payer money but you oppose when bush proposes bailing out struggling financial institutions with tax payer money????

what is the difference?


how is this remotely similar to business failure, and taxpayers bailing them out because the failure could ruin the economy?

taxes have always been levied. other countries tax the rich way more, and have less rich vs poor. but no, the rich in our country want to stay rich with their vacation homes, can't give up that luxury yacht, no way you'll see them drivinig a Honda. No way giving up all of that stuff is worth less poor people suffering, and barely able to provide for their families. Am i right?

If you can't see the difference you're retarded.

[Smokee]

Taxpayers do profit from a good economy.. Who do you think those companies employ, who gets to use those businesses? Taxpayers.


Not everybody works for the big corporations. Not everyone has their money tied up into they're stocks and retirement plans. Its mostly already well off to rich people that do. Not everyone, nor most people, are directly affected by a big company going under, only indirectly through the economy and maybe trickle down spending. its arguable the effect is has on 'everyone'.

The Great Depression from what i understand was a time where everybody had their money tied up into stocks, and lost their life savings as a result. Today, not many play the stock market anymore. Its been way too volatile, too many CEO scams, ever since the internet boom hits its ceiling and all of the corruption put a bad taste in peoples mouths. Day trading is nothing close to what it was at one point. People have been weary of the stock market for a long time now. So i can't see people losing all of their money from these big companies going under, pretending like it'll be another 'Great Depression'.

Reality is nobody knows how its going to play out either way. Most of you talking about the Great Depression don't know ****. Even the politicians don't know exactly wtf is going to happen if we don't or do. You have the corporates who benefit from that much money being pumped into their investments saying its the end of the world, along with some politicians, and then you have the skeptics, that aren't exactly sure, that want more time to weight the situation. That seems to be where we're at :confusedshrug:

[Denali]

how is this remotely similar to business failure, and taxpayers bailing them out because the failure could ruin the economy?

taxes have always been levied. other countries tax the rich way more, and have less rich vs poor. but no, the rich in our country want to stay rich with their vacation homes, can't give up that luxury yacht, no way you'll see them drivinig a Honda. No way giving up all of that stuff is worth less poor people suffering, and barely able to provide for their families. Am i right?

If you can't see the difference you're retarded.


nice tapdance around the question.

but since you're so concerned with people suffering, why are you paying money to have an internet service provider that allows you to sit here on ISH when you could be in Africa feeding starving children? obviously your own greed and avarice dictates your heartless apathy to those children and your own selfish desire to sit leisurely on Teh Internetz.

[KeylessEntry]

The more this whole Financial Bailout proposal has sunk in, and people have had time to think about it, some people are saying its a scam.

Doesn't it seem that way? Anything Bush and Cheney tell us is an emergency should be quickly second guessed. Doesn't the fact that Bush and Cheney are pushing this Bailout heavily cause us hesitation?

I"m not saying economy isn't in trouble, but is the bailout the answer?


9/11 happened. Patriot Act!!!! Don't think. Sign it!!!!!

Iraq War. War on Terror!!!!! Don't think. Attack!!!!!

Wall Street Bailout. Great Depression!!!!! Don't think. Sign it!!!!!

This is Bush and Cheney last chance to rape the Treasury for as much as they can. They've already stolen trillions with military spending and fake wars, now this is the last grasp at stealing taxpayers money.

Doesn't anyone wonder how all of a sudden they need $700 Billion RIGHT NOW!!!! Don't think, just ACT!!!!!! Give us money, NOW!!!!!!

Why not wait? Even if economy is struggling, couldn't $700 Billion be used to give health care for everyone, help those with foreclosers, extend benefit payments until economy turns around? Why are we bailing out the wealthy?
Something is fishy about this whole thing.........



Some interesting articles on subject:

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/treasury-secret.html

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/23/171759/124/260/607908

http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8451



That's a Republican, BTW....

This whole situation is sketchy.....

I am totally agreed with you. I am not going to try to pretend that I know a lot about finances, but I seriously doubt just throwing $700 billion into the economy is going to fix the underlying problem which caused all the banks to go belly up in the first place. It certainly is not going to put mortgage paying families back into the millions of homes that have been foreclosed in the past 2 or 3 years.

Its not like Bush has given me any reasons to trust him in the past 8 years anyway.

[Smokee]

nice tapdance around the question.

but since you're so concerned with people suffering, why are you paying money to have an internet service provider that allows you to sit here on ISH when you could be in Africa feeding starving children? obviously your own greed and avarice dictates your heartless apathy to those children and your own selfish desire to sit leisurely on Teh Internetz.


yeah but thats only $39.95 or something. Its not like i have a luxury yacht, 7 homes, 8 cars, and am angry the government wants to increase my taxes to help the poor.

i don't see a tapdance at all. If anything i see you trying to twist things to make it seem like taxing the rich more to help the poor is just like companies failing and the taxpayers bailing them out. When they aren't similar at all :rolleyes:

Go ahead tho, play the exaggerate humanitarianism card, as if people can't tell the difference from someone paying for their cable modem expenditure vs having multiples of houses, cars, boats, maids, etc., and then having to give up some of that :rolleyes: I mean if you really think it'll help poor people everywhere i'll give up that extra $15 and go dialup :pimp:

[Denali]

I mean if you really think it'll help poor people everywhere i'll give up that extra $15 and go dialup :pimp:


lol no you won't. and that's the point. you dont want someone else telling you what you can or cant have, and neither does anyone else. rich or poor. and that 15 dollars a month could literally save multiple lives in third world countries. but you have an excuse as to why its not fair for YOU to have to give it up, but other people SHOULD have to give up the cars or boats or houses they have purchased themselves with the money they worked to earn themselves. of course you're always going to put the cut-off line above your reach. thats the true hypocrit spirit.

what you are suggesting is communism. that everyone should have the same amount of stuff. its an impossible ideal. that's why you are such an extremist loony liberal. you dont understand the reality of the real world. you think that if you can dream it, it can be. "imagine!"

your a wack job.

[bagelred]

There definitely needs to be oversight on this money spent.

[hwliuLAP]

so instead of trying to learn some economy, you're gonna quote someone who also doesn't know much about the situation and just speculate.


I'm just amazed on the fact that instead of learning what is really going on people are just looking for political statements or blogs of others to base your judgment on.




Either way the bailout is going to happen, Republican and Democrat is going to come to an agreement with new legislation and whatnot.

[gigantes]

this is not a pretty situation and not something we should ever have had to do, but my understanding is that if we don't do this, that if we allow lending between institutions and institutions to the private sector to freeze up, our economy is in for one major, cataclysmic f--king.

not because of what bush and crew say, but because of what the economists say. because after all, if it was up to the bush crew, they'd probably rather just ignore this and avoid one more crisis that makes them look like dumbasses yet again.

if we do nothing, my understanding is that the whole backbone of the lending sector will collapse, causing a chain reaction of further collapses of other businesses and people in the private sector, all whose business model relies on the movement of money. this is one of the most scary prospects i've ever heard in my life, frankly.

also, remember that the $700 billion buyout is not money freely given- it's an investment in debt, which is a whole major sector of financial trading. it may not be the most desirable investment and we shouldn't have to be making it, but it's not money for nothing.

[konex]

There's a suspicious e-mail that's been floating around. Could it be a scam?

---------------------

SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR URGENT BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP

DEAR FRIEND:
I NEED TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT AN URGENT SECRET BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH A TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF GREAT MAGNITUDE.

I AM MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMERICA. MY COUNTRY HAS HAD CRISIS THAT HAS CAUSED THE NEED FOR LARGE TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF 800 BILLION DOLLARS US. IF YOU WOULD ASSIST ME IN THIS TRANSFER, IT WOULD BE MOST PROFITABLE TO YOU.

I AM WORKING WITH MR. PHIL GRAM, LOBBYIST FOR UBS, WHO WILL BE MY REPLACEMENT AS MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY IN JANUARY. AS A SENATOR, YOU MAY KNOW HIM AS THE LEADER OF THE AMERICAN BANKING DEREGULATION MOVEMENT IN THE 1990S. THIS TRANSACTIN IS 100% SAFE.

THIS IS A MATTER OF GREAT URGENCY. WE NEED A BLANK CHECK. WE NEED THE FUNDS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE CANNOT DIRECTLY TRANSFER THESE FUNDS IN THE NAMES OF OUR CLOSE FRIENDS BECAUSE WE ARE CONSTANTLY UNDER SURVEILLANCE. MY FAMILY LAWYER ADVISED ME THAT I SHOULD LOOK FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTHY PERSON WHO WILL ACT AS A NEXT OF KIN SO THE FUNDS CAN BE TRANSFERRED.

PLEASE REPLY WITH ALL OF YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, IRA AND COLLEGE FUND ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THOSE OF YOUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN TO WALLSTREETBAILOUT@TREASURY.GOV SO THAT WE MAY TRANSFER YOUR COMMISSION FOR THIS TRANSACTION. AFTER I RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION, I WILL RESPOND WITH DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT SAFEGUARDS THAT WILL BE USED TO PROTECT THE FUNDS.

YOURS FAITHFULLY MINISTER OF TREASURY PAULSON

-------------------------

Heh..

[rufuspaul]

From a friend of mine:
I will throw my hat in the ring as a guy who works in finance (and is therefore under suspicion as a crypto-Republican), part of the blame for the current crisis can be be laid at every Congress for the past 30 years. Fannie and Freddie were known as GSE's, for Government Sponsored Entities,and Congress created a regulatory agency just for them (theOFHEO<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Federal_Housing_Enterprise_Oversight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Federal_Housing_Enterprise_Oversight)>),and set those regulationss.. Accordingly, they were not subject to the same capital requirements that banks regulated by the Treasury. Also, they carried the implicit guarantee that the government would bail out debtholders, meainng they were able to borrow at advantageous rates. This arrangement was satisfactory to successive governments, as it provided a cheap way to increase the rate of home ownership (F&F borrowed very cheaply to buy mortgages, which they bundled and sold as bonds, earning a spread, and vastly increasing the capital available to finance America's homebuying). Anytime a Congress wanted to increase the rate of homeownership even more, they would lower F&F's reserve requirements, and/or raise their portfolio limits. This never seemed like a bad idea, because home prices always go up, right? This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, as more cheap money for home-buying flooding the market ends up stimulatng demand, which drives up prices. This was a major factor in creating the bubble in market prices. Granted, what really tipped it over the edge was Wall Street wanting to get in on the action. The big 5 (Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch,Lehman Bros, Bear Stearns) were especially eager but were unable to compete with F&F, because they couldn't borrow nearly as cheaply. But, having stables full of incredibly bright, creative, eager, ambitious, and greedy MBA's, they found a solution: F&F only buys prime loans, and won't touch sub-prime, 'jumbo' (over $415K), or 'Alt-A' (no-doc, or 'liar loans'). Thus was born the sub-prime mortgage backed security industry. Add in teaser rate ARM's, mortgage brokers with no interest in the long-term performance of the loans they made, ratings agencies paid by the banks putting together the securities being rated, and regulatory agencies that didn't understand what was going on (and couldn't have done much about it ifthey had); stir lightly, raise interest rates, and BOOM! You have today. But, we do need to look back a realize the role that Congress played in creating the housing bubble. I don't mean just in the 21st century either; generations of well-meaning Senators and Congressmen of both parties have contributed to this, 'cause nobody ever wants to be tagged as that guy who voted against more Americans owning homes.

[Real Men Wear Green]

What cracks me up is that the Bush Admin's proposal was what...3 pages, around 750 words? When I was in high school, I used to write 500-word essays during lunch-time and hand them in next period. I've both read and written longer posts than that on this message board.

What bothers the hell out of me is that that original proposal expressly stated that there would be no oversight over how the Treasury Secretary spends this money. And yet there Bernanke is, lying his ass off, telling Congress that he was for oversight all along. Seems like this whole issue is going to be used as another excuse for the Bush Admin to line the pockets of their cronies, much like how the Katrina relief and Iraq reconstruction contracts went to Halliburton. I used to think our "Representative Democracy" lead to oligarchy due to the dominating influence of money, but under the Bush Admin "kleptocracy" may be the more accurate term.

[rufuspaul]

What bothers the hell out of me is that that original proposal expressly stated that there would be no oversight over how the Treasury Secretary spends this money. And yet there Bernanke is, lying his ass off, telling Congress that he was for oversight all along. Seems like this whole issue is going to be used as another excuse for the Bush Admin to line the pockets of their cronies, much like how the Katrina relief and Iraq reconstruction contracts went to Halliburton. I used to think our "Representative Democracy" lead to oligarchy due to the dominating influence of money, but under the Bush Admin "kleptocracy" may be the more accurate term.

I totally agree. One of the things that really scares me is where are the checks and balances that are supposed to keep power from being concentrated? Paulson and Bernanke are getting grilled on Capital Hill, but will it do any good? Does congress have any backbone at all? Or will this go through just like the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq?

[gts]

What cracks me up is that the Bush Admin's proposal was what...3 pages, around 750 wordsbecause the white house can not actually institute the bail out, they can recommend what to do, toss in their 2 cents but they cannot actually pull the trigger on it, the white house can only back the proposal, they can't write it up... that will be done by the feds, the house and senate if they feel it's the thing to do...

[Real Men Wear Green]

I totally agree. One of the things that really scares me is where are the checks and balances that are supposed to keep power from being concentrated? Paulson and Bernanke are getting grilled on Capital Hill, but will it do any good? Does congress have any backbone at all? Or will this go through just like the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq?
The rumors I see on MSNBC talk about McCain and the Republicans opposing it while the Democrats push it through, so that when the CEO's open their "golden parachutes"/if it doesn't work, the Republicans can point the finger of blame at the left. The Dems, meanwhile, support it knowing this because they don't want to be marked down as the do-nothing party that let the second Depression happen. Basically, they're all spineless cowards more concerned with political power and avoiding blame than anything else.

[rufuspaul]

The rumors I see on MSNBC talk about McCain and the Republicans opposing it while the Democrats push it through, so that when the CEO's open their "golden parachutes"/if it doesn't work, the Republicans can point the finger of blame at the left. The Dems, meanwhile, support it knowing this because they don't want to be marked down as the do-nothing party that let the second Depression happen. Basically, they're all spineless cowards more concerned with political power and avoiding blame than anything else.

Damn, combine this with what's happening with N. Korea and Iran and it makes you want to go hide under a rock.

[gts]

actually mccain doesn't oppose the bailout that's just liberal speak... he just wants restrictions placed on it


"Further inaction is simply not an option," McCain said in brief remarks to reporters, his first news conference in more than a month. "We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees."

He called the proposed bailout a "staggering" figure that amounts to a $10,000 contribution for each U.S. household, money that could otherwise be used to rebuild roads and bridges in every town in the country. To protect taxpayers, he asked for a bipartisan board to provide oversight, a plan to recover the money, a cap on compensation for executives of firms that are helped by the bailout and a ban on earmarks on the legislation.

McCain stopped short of saying he would vote "no" if his priorities weren't reflected. He said he was confident the final plan would include them.

While members of Congress have agreed in principle on aspects of the administration's proposal, many Democrats and some Republicans, like McCain, have insisted the plan deny "golden parachute" payments to executives at failing financial firms.

"In any solution, we must see accountability, we must see transparency and we must make sure taxpayers' dollars don't line the pockets of executives," McCain said


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

[gigantes]

just got met by the post above, but again, where is anybody else in this thread acknowledging the consequences if we don't do this bailout?

look up what the experts say would probably happen and tell me if that sounds like a rosy picture.

[Real Men Wear Green]

actually mccain doesn't oppose the bailout that's just liberal speak... he just wants restrictions placed on it
We've already stated that it's just a rumor. What is a fact is that he hasn't taken a stance for or against it (while, of course, criticizing Obama for not providing leadership).

[Real Men Wear Green]

just got met by the post above, but again, where is anybody else in this thread acknowledging the consequences if we don't do this bailout?

look up what the experts say would probably happen and tell me if that sounds like a rosy picture.
I'd be surprised if anyone on this board knew for sure what would happen if there's no bailout...mainly because, no one seems to know, period. Jim Cramer predicts the Apocalypse, and he's almost always right, so I believe him, but what I personally find frustrating is that only the well-schooled economists really understand what's going on. The rest of us are kind of clueless and just picking someone to trust.

[rufuspaul]

just got met by the post above, but again, where is anybody else in this thread acknowledging the consequences if we don't do this bailout?

look up what the experts say would probably happen and tell me if that sounds like a rosy picture.

Definitely not, and there lies the conundrum. We know we need to do something, but what and when? Why 700 billion? Where did that number come from? Why now and not 6mos. ago or 6 mos. from now?

I just see shades of Bush policies from the past:
Patriot Act: We need to pass this NOW before the terrorists attack.
Iraq War: No time for debate, we need to act NOW before Sadam blows us up.

[gts]

We've already stated that it's just a rumor. What is a fact is that he hasn't taken a stance for or against it (while, of course, criticizing Obama for not providing leadership).he said he opposes it if there are no restictions placed on it, if they put restrictons in place like he mentioned then he's onboard...
it's called being responsible, you don't just hand a blank check over to a bunch of assclowns who just ran a multi billion dollar company into the ground...

[Real Men Wear Green]

I just see shades of Bush policies from the past:
Patriot Act: We need to pass this NOW before the terrorists attack.
Iraq War: No time for debate, we need to act NOW before Sadam blows us up.
It's the Bushie M.O.: The correct response to any crisis is to quickly pass a bill that no one will examine too carefully because they're all panicked and just want an immediate response. That way, we can give millions and billions more to our rich friends in Halliburton, or (in this case) Wall Street.

One of the things I like most about Obama is that his deliberate, well-thought-out approach is the exact political opposite of Bush.

[Real Men Wear Green]

he said he opposes it if there are no restictions placed on it, if they put restrictons in place like he mentioned then he's onboard...
it's called being responsible, you don't just hand a blank check over to a bunch of assclowns who just ran a multi billion dollar company into the ground...
Actually, he did not say what would keep him from voting against the bill in the three or four questions he's fielded over the last month.

[hwliuLAP]

I'd be surprised if anyone on this board knew for sure what would happen if there's no bailout...mainly because, no one seems to know, period. Jim Cramer predicts the Apocalypse, and he's almost always right, so I believe him, but what I personally find frustrating is that only the well-schooled economists really understand what's going on. The rest of us are kind of clueless and just picking someone to trust.


as a top 10 business school with finance and economic consulting major I would tell you that the bailout is very much needed at the moment.

I think it'd be safe to say that everyone understands that economy works in a cycle through supply demand check writing and check clearing. The biggest problem right now is that we are being f-ucked over from the mortgage crisis. People stopped paying their bills, so all of a sudden the housing market crashed, and the "market value" of all the houses has dramatically gone down. With that, during Spring, just about every single major bank had to had major write down of their assest because all of a sudden the market value of what they have written down as an asset doesn't worth even close to what it was. You can't really say this is "their fault" as they couldn't just predict on the crash of the housing market.

So the value of the firm has gone down, then we have to look at it from the people who are home owners standpoint. What they did was they would own a home, refinance it for a longer term at a lower rate to take that money out and spend it now or pay their credit card. But after that's done, they still keep on spending on their credit card and have outstanding balance on it, but this time the home doesn't worth much anymore, and it's getting to a point where you save more by giving away the house.


The Bank isn't getting the money, the people aren't paying the money, the market value of all the houses has just crashed, so that messed up everyone's accounting badly as well, which is why you have been hearing all these "write down" That isn't caused by over estimating the value of an asset by being affected with what is exactly going on.



So now all the asset value has dramatically decreased, which f-ucked up your asset to debt ration, in which most company uses that as a judgement as to how much cash you need in order for a firm to stay liquid. Since this ratio has gone wrong, most financial firms are now not liquidated enough anymore, because they can't get anything out of their investments.


So unless we help them to liquidfy all those assest, the economy is going down the drain since essentially there will be no money that is being floated around considering financial firms are what keeps the money going, and since the economy is a cycle, if we don't stop the floating of all cash flows, we will stop our growth completely.

from an economy standpoint, the biggest reason on why you wouldn't want to do this bailout is because of inflation. Not saying this isn't a concern, but with the global economy being in recession as well, the demand is gonna go down, so the prices will fall, thus the inflation problem is not as dangerous as the problem we are facing right now.


I hope that clears up some point.

[rufuspaul]

as a top 10 business school with finance and economic consulting major


I hope that clears up some point.

Well, you're obviously not an English major :oldlol: , but thanks for the tutorial. Maybe you can help us understand the $700billion figure. Where did that come from?

[Real Men Wear Green]

Thanks for the info, but one thing:

I think it'd be safe to say that everyone understands that economy works in a cycle through supply demand check writing and check clearing. The biggest problem right now is that we are being f-ucked over from the mortgage crisis. People stopped paying their bills, so all of a sudden the housing market crashed, and the "market value" of all the houses has dramatically gone down. With that, during Spring, just about every single major bank had to had major write down of their assest because all of a sudden the market value of what they have written down as an asset doesn't worth even close to what it was. You can't really say this is "their fault" as they couldn't just predict on the crash of the housing market.
Isn't that why they have credit checks? They ran one on me just to rent half an apartment, and I know that you get one when you go for a house. The sub-prime insanity is the major factor that lead to the mortgage crisis, and if a bank financed a home for someone that a credit check would have shown was a bad risk then I don't think it's at all unfair to blame them for being greedy for short-term on-paper gains and extreme stupidity. I understand that this can have a domino effect on other businesses that had nothing to do with the foolishness, but the sub-prime lenders definitely aren't innocent in this.

[gigantes]

I'd be surprised if anyone on this board knew for sure what would happen if there's no bailout...mainly because, no one seems to know, period. Jim Cramer predicts the Apocalypse, and he's almost always right, so I believe him, but what I personally find frustrating is that only the well-schooled economists really understand what's going on. The rest of us are kind of clueless and just picking someone to trust.
i think it's very understandable to feel frustrated for that reason. yet at the same time, there are areas in life where we really have no choice but to trust the experts.

just to give a cheap analogy, if we have a warning pain in the abdomen and if we're not delusional then we go see the experts (ie, ER and doctors) and if they tell us that we need the appendix out or else, we trust the experts and get it taken out... again, assuming we're not delusional.

que non?

[tontoz]

Well, you're obviously not an English major :oldlol: , but thanks for the tutorial. Maybe you can help us understand the $700billion figure. Where did that come from?

Two weeks ago Paulson said major government action wouldn't be necesary then he turns around and (in the last week of Congress) asks for $700 billion to spend as he pleases.

Something definitely doesn't smell right.

[Dash]

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.

The events of the past week are no exception.

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."

That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

[hwliuLAP]

Thanks for the info, but one thing:

Isn't that why they have credit checks? They ran one on me just to rent half an apartment, and I know that you get one when you go for a house. The sub-prime insanity is the major factor that lead to the mortgage crisis, and if a bank financed a home for someone that a credit check would have shown was a bad risk then I don't think it's at all unfair to blame them for being greedy for short-term on-paper gains and extreme stupidity. I understand that this can have a domino effect on other businesses that had nothing to do with the foolishness, but the sub-prime lenders definitely aren't innocent in this.


The biggest problem was that "risk" and "credits" are all relative majors. someone who has had good credit in the past may be f-ucked over by the housing crash simply because they are paying more for what their house is worth anymore. Like you said, it's a domino effect, and sometimes when the bad credit people tips over the first piece, and you don't have others who are strong enough to stop the effect, it just keeps on going, eventually the government is that very last piece to stop us from completely crashing.


I'm not saying those financial firms aren't at fault for this, but to me what's more important is to understand what is needed right now and get us out of this hole then make legislations and see the after math to understand where and why and how exactly did it go wrong. If we are going to be stucked at the logistic of this, then it's just not healthy for the economy, people have to understand that the pace of the economy moves much much faster than passing a law. By the time you pass a law that is trying to reflect what happened, it may not be affective anymore.

[hwliuLAP]

Well, you're obviously not an English major :oldlol: , but thanks for the tutorial. Maybe you can help us understand the $700billion figure. Where did that come from?


English is my 2nd language, well, not really, I just hate language and grammer in general :oldlol: .


I can't really tell you how exactly did they come up with the amount of 700 billion, but I can tell you that they want to make a clear statement to the market that once this check is written there will be no more liquidation problem anymore and to gain back consumer confidence in the market.

[gigantes]

Why 700 billion? Where did that number come from? Why now and not 6mos. ago or 6 mos. from now?
700 billion because my understanding is that under federal regulations that's the maximum that can be invested. if the economic chairman had his way it would perhaps be a trillion dollars, not a 700 billion dollar investment. articles floating around on the subject will clarify this, which is where i got this info in the first place (sorry they're from yesterday and i don't have the links).

why now? because the loaning institutions just collapsed in the last couple weeks. if they hadn't, this crisis would probably not be happening right now.

govt is generally non-proactive about impending crises. and as you rightfully point out, this makes it harder to sort between BOGUS crises like the typical bush ones and REAL crises like this appears to be.

ie, we must not let the fact that the boy with the dunce cap has been calling wolf the last 7-8 years prevent us from doing something when an actual wolf shows up. this is a monster wolf from what the experts say, not the paper wolves that karl rove and crew typically trot out in their second-rate halloween display.

[Real Men Wear Green]

i think it's very understandable to feel frustrated for that reason. yet at the same time, there are areas in life where we really have no choice but to trust the experts.

just to give a cheap analogy, if we have a warning pain in the abdomen and if we're not delusional then we go see the experts (ie, ER and doctors) and if they tell us that we need the appendix out or else, we trust the experts and get it taken out... again, assuming we're not delusional.

que non?
I'm only entrusting a doctor with my life, not 700 billion dollars...slightly more seriously, on most subjects, we can do 30 minutes of internet search and have a fairly good grasp of the situation. Including health, like an issue with the appendix. But the economic issues and this subprime stuff? I took macroeconomics and have an ok basic understanding, but there's so much terminology and cause/effect analysis that people in general just don't think about...I suspect that we're going to be inundated with info over the next few weeks that will lead to a more solid understanding now that the walls are burning down, but the vast majority of the population has been blindsided by a crisis that we don't understand. The Congressional banking committee or commision or whatever those guys Tester and Co. call themselves didn't see this coming, and they're supposed to be experts (they blame the Fed for nmot reporting to them on it). These companies claim to have this that and the other asset and we oftentimes have no clue whatsoever (look at Enron). Under these conditions, I don't like having to just trust the expert. My life really isn't even worth 1 billion dollars, let alone 700...

[hwliuLAP]

I guess this is my question, especially to all those damn politicians.

You want to debate principle or you want to discuss how to give the Americans food to eat and a home to sleep.

until any politician would simply learn what exactly is going on, instead of "quoting" some "financial analyst" or "economic expert" their statement is simply falsed.


because as many statements about how the bailout shouldn't be used, I can simply find even more experts to show that it is needed.

Warren Buffet said it best "the economy is everyone's business" and his dumping in 5 billion to goldman to help clear the doubt of the last 2 wallstreet firm possibly going down.

[rufuspaul]

ie, we must not let the fact that the boy with the dunce cap has been calling wolf the last 7-8 years prevent us from doing something when an actual wolf shows up. this is a monster wolf from what the experts say, not the paper wolves that karl rove and crew typically trot out in their second-rate halloween display.

Well put. I'm still not sold on the bailout as written though.

[hwliuLAP]

The Congressional banking committee or commision or whatever those guys Tester and Co. call themselves didn't see this coming, and they're supposed to be experts (they blame the Fed for nmot reporting to them on it). These companies claim to have this that and the other asset and we oftentimes have no clue whatsoever (look at Enron). Under these conditions, I don't like having to just trust the expert. My life really isn't even worth 1 billion dollars, let alone 700...


to say that they are expert and they should have seen this coming is like blaming the weather forecast for not being able to predict whether or not it will rain 100%. Sometimes there are things that you could be cautios and feel as if there should be something wrong, but yet it's difficult to detect what exactly is going wrong. Well the expert know what went wrong now, and is proposing a way to save it, but you think that since the expert couldn't predict the future so their understand of what is happening now is wrong, then we really have no one to turn to.

[Smokee]

I really wonder how intolerable it would be if we just let the market ride itself out, even if we have to go through a depression of some sort. It seems we've enjoyed an almost too good to be true era of internet booms/stock booms to real estate booms making a lot of people rich with a higher standard of living. Maybe we need to face a downturn, of more penny pinching, less over consumption, and more down to earth reality in how we all live?

I just highly doubt it'll be the 'Great Depression' where people are killing themselves everywhere and people are supposedly starving. Thats very extreme when people say that. It just seems if we let it ride out, the market will naturally go down, and naturally up itself through free market competition. New companies will pop up or merge eventually i would think to profit where those huge failed companies left room for someone, or many, to move in.

[gigantes]

@real men,
re: your salient points, i don't know why they couldn't see this coming. i imagine they knew that these institutions would be under a crunch, but from the available info thought that they would be able to withstand the crisis.

is it possible that if the full asset sheets were known (including off-the-sheet info not known to the general public), the experts could predict stuff like this more accurately? because if so, the experts could have predicted the entire history of bankruptcies and financial collapses.

my thinking is, when the experts don't know something then it's bound to be extraordinarily complicated or to contain much hidden information. neither of those should be reasons to discount the value of the experts IMO.

[Smokee]

to say that they are expert and they should have seen this coming is like blaming the weather forecast for not being able to predict whether or not it will rain 100%. Sometimes there are things that you could be cautios and feel as if there should be something wrong, but yet it's difficult to detect what exactly is going wrong. Well the expert know what went wrong now, and is proposing a way to save it, but you think that since the expert couldn't predict the future so their understand of what is happening now is wrong, then we really have no one to turn to.


Theres also a lot we don't know, or i never knew, and most people don't seem to know about the business sector. Fannie Mae and i believe Lehman Bros., and i'm assuming many other big companies are known to have cooked their books withiin the business sector but were never made accountable, in 2005?. I wish i could link the CNN interview with some 'expert' from the Wall Street Journal talking about how they donated to something like 365 out of 435 or something political candidate campaigns for them to look the other way, with the official CNN expert guy nodding his head. There was more to it, i just can't recall it specifically right now, but it seems well known to the 'experts' that a lot of these big business companies are extremely crooked, and get away with misrepresenting their profits.

I'm sure someone else saw it or knows about it, maybe they can explain it better. Either way i got the overall impression that a lot of these huge 'professional' companies that seem like they run on the up and up at the top of the corporate ladder, are run in underhanded ways generally that are a big part of the problem. Nothing changes with just a blank check when the underlying issues aren't addressed. I guess thats the realization everyone has come to now, but there was more than i knew, and i think more people knew, to all of this it seems.

[Real Men Wear Green]

to say that they are expert and they should have seen this coming is like blaming the weather forecast for not being able to predict whether or not it will rain 100%. Sometimes there are things that you could be cautios and feel as if there should be something wrong, but yet it's difficult to detect what exactly is going wrong. Well the expert know what went wrong now, and is proposing a way to save it, but you think that since the expert couldn't predict the future so their understand of what is happening now is wrong, then we really have no one to turn to.
Well, the main reason I do believe in the bailout is because Jim Cramer is for it, and he saw the current crisis coming well in advance. But I don't think you fully understand the reasons behind my reservations. I'll list them.

1: I don't trust the Bush Administration at all. They used both Katrina and the Iraq War as excuses to funnel government money into their friends at Halliburton, and I actually have more faith in them giving the bailout funds to their cronies than I do in them actually accomplishing any good.

2: These companies can and do lie. They were incapable of managing their companies correctly before but somehow the receiving of billions will make them smarter and more honest?

No question that something has to happen, but I would liek to see some more deliberate action done by people that are actually trustworthy. I do not blanketly blame the "experts," I just don't trust the people that have been in charge up to the point.
@real men,
re: your salient points, i don't know why they couldn't see this coming. i imagine they knew that these institutions would be under a crunch, but from the available info thought that they would be able to withstand the crisis.

is it possible that if the full asset sheets were known (including off-the-sheet info not known to the general public), the experts could predict stuff like this more accurately? because if so, the experts could have predicted the entire history of bankruptcies and financial collapses.

my thinking is, when the experts don't know something then it's bound to be extraordinarily complicated or to contain much hidden information. neither of those should be reasons to discount the value of the experts IMO.
Again: I am not against "the experts." I am against the people that have been in charge. To repeat myself, Jim Cramer saw this coming last year (and told us to invest in gold, which is doing very well at present). I just don't trust the people that have been in power.

[gigantes]

I just don't trust the people that have been in power.
well, that is just one of those things that we are going to have to live with.

for example, if the examining doc who (rightfully) says we need to have the appendix out happens to be an obnoxious @sshole that you've known for years- he's the last person on earth who should tell you what to do with your life, but he happens to be right in this case.

[Rab]

I'm not sure what to think about the bail out plan. I hate the fact that it has come to this when these big time companies like Fannie Mae turned a blind eye to the future to bring in big temporary profits. They all knew it was coming and did nothing about it, and now it has come to this.

I just wish I knew more about the plan. How the money will be distributed? What kind of a tax hit we are going to take? Will this really work, or should ride out the public market and see if it will correct itself? I've read a lot about it, and I can see both sides.

This just popped on on Yahoo!.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080924/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown


WASHINGTON - President Bush readied a prime time speech to the nation and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson accepted a major change in legislation for a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry on Wednesday as the administration scrambled to prevent further deterioration in the economy.

Republican officials said that Paulson had bowed to demands from critics in both parties to limit the pay packages of executives whose companies benefit from the proposed bailout. They spoke on condition of anonymity because Paulson's decision had not been formally announced.

How this will be done is beyond me. It was one of my major concerns about the plan. I certainly don't want these CEO's to benefit at all from bad business decisions. I just don't know how you regulate all this.

[bagelred]

Here comes George Bush tonight at 9 PM to speak to the nation.....gee, where have we seen this before?...oh yeah....Iraq War BS.....Patriot Act BS.....

Here's a rule of thumb: If George Bush is pushing hard for something, we should quickly dismiss it and do the exact opposite. I think after 8 years of Bush/Cheney acting as traitors to our nation, at least we can learn THAT much.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26869586/

Let's think this through logically. There's only about three months left in this Presidency right? Why not wait to take drastic action until the NEW President gets into office? Since that President will be hampered by this "deal", shouldn't he be the one to sign it into action?

Makes sense right? Of course not. Bush and Cheney have to rape the Treasury for as much as they can even in their last breaths of power. Just to make the raping complete.

[shadow]

On one hand I do not at all enjoy the idea of footing the bill to bail out corporations that got us in this mess, their overpaid executives who took home millions despite presiding over this mess, and the idiot homeowners who can’t be bothered to understand the terms of their loans or understanding the meaning of the word afford. But the again is there an alternative? We rely so much on credit that you almost need somewhat to bolster the credit market and open up lending, hopefully responsible lending again. I am glad that congress is not rushing this through though. Another 1-2 weeks won’t kill anyone and allow us to flesh out more details. I mean who in their right mind would hand out a check for 700 billion on the basis of 750 words? I’ve had to write longer essays to get $2000 scholarships!


My opinion is that we need a bailout but we also need to be careful about how the money is spent. No way we should trust Bush-Cheney and their cronies with any more absurd powers like that. They’ve already put us in a hole with Iraq while making their buddies rich. I’m sure they’d do it again if given a chance.

You guys know what the really pathetic part about this is though? The real victims end up being the responsible folks, that what really sucks. Corporations like Wells Fargo for example, or consumers who understand what it means to live with their means. We end up footing the bill while idiots get to keep their homes they shouldn’t have bought in the first place and corporations get rewarded for taking risk they probably shouldn’t have either.

[Rab]

[QUOTE=shadow]On one hand I do not at all enjoy the idea of footing the bill to bail out corporations that got us in this mess, their overpaid executives who took home millions despite presiding over this mess, and the idiot homeowners who can

[RapsFan]

Here comes George Bush tonight at 9 PM to speak to the nation.....gee, where have we seen this before?...oh yeah....Iraq War BS.....Patriot Act BS.....

Here's a rule of thumb: If George Bush is pushing hard for something, we should quickly dismiss it and do the exact opposite. I think after 8 years of Bush/Cheney acting as traitors to our nation, at least we can learn THAT much.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26869586/

Let's think this through logically. There's only about three months left in this Presidency right? Why not wait to take drastic action until the NEW President gets into office? Since that President will be hampered by this "deal", shouldn't he be the one to sign it into action?

Makes sense right? Of course not. Bush and Cheney have to rape the Treasury for as much as they can even in their last breaths of power. Just to make the raping complete.

You have to be careful though. There is a lot more to this for the entire economy, and therefore, the everyday people. It's not just helping these corps. A financial meltdown will not help everyday people fighting to make it through. A bailout needs to happen. Waiting 3 months could be a disaster.

[bagelred]

You have to be careful though. There is a lot more to this for the entire economy, and therefore, the everyday people. It's not just helping these corps. A financial meltdown will not help everyday people fighting to make it through. A bailout needs to happen. Waiting 3 months could be a disaster.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/the-home-front/2008/09/19/ron-paul-this-bailout-wont-be-the-last.html

Ron Paul was right about this economic situation, I trust his opinion. He is saying no bailout.

[Dash]

It's so disheartening to know that a monster like Osama Bin Laden accomplished exactly what he set out to do only 7 years ago.....absolutely bleed us economically.

He set the conditions and hysteria....our government played it right into his hands.

Of course this collapse is part of a bigger picture (fed, economic policy, etc.) but the terrorism hysteria put us into meltdown overdrive.

And just wait until US auto makers need a bailout.....it's going to get real messy.

:mad:

[rufuspaul]

And just wait until US auto makers need a bailout.....it's going to get real messy.

:mad:

Jeez I didn't even think about that :banghead:

[bagelred]

He set the conditions and hysteria....our government played it right into his hands.



You are very naive.

[rufuspaul]

Where did you get that avatar, Bagelred?

[hwliuLAP]

I just highly doubt it'll be the 'Great Depression' where people are killing themselves everywhere and people are supposedly starving. Thats very extreme when people say that. It just seems if we let it ride out, the market will naturally go down, and naturally up itself through free market competition. New companies will pop up or merge eventually i would think to profit where those huge failed companies left room for someone, or many, to move in.


Do you even know the difference between what a depression is compare to a recession?

Note that we have been in recessions in the past 70 years, but not a depression, you need to google it up and understand what's the different before you want to make any judgment on it.

Look it up and it may change your mind of what's exactly being talked about here.

[hwliuLAP]

[QUOTE=shadow]

You guys know what the really pathetic part about this is though? The real victims end up being the responsible folks, that what really sucks. Corporations like Wells Fargo for example, or consumers who understand what it means to live with their means. We end up footing the bill while idiots get to keep their homes they shouldn

[gigantes]

It's so disheartening to know that a monster like Osama Bin Laden accomplished exactly what he set out to do only 7 years ago.....absolutely bleed us economically.

He set the conditions and hysteria....our government played it right into his hands.

Of course this collapse is part of a bigger picture (fed, economic policy, etc.) but the terrorism hysteria put us into meltdown overdrive.
exactly- i was just thinking this myself.

bin-laden probably had no accurate idea what would happen down the road, but there can be no doubt that he could not be more thrilled how incompetently we played the whole situation.

it is godamn scary thinking of how many anti-american outfits around the world see us teetering on the brink of disaster and think about how best to push us over now.

[Smokee]

Do you even know the difference between what a depression is compare to a recession?

Note that we have been in recessions in the past 70 years, but not a depression, you need to google it up and understand what's the different before you want to make any judgment on it.

Look it up and it may change your mind of what's exactly being talked about here.


a recession is just a downturn thats going to be ongoing in the economy, and there are varying degrees of what you're calling a 'depression'. So are you saying theres only one definition of a depression, and if we have one it'll be exactly like 'the great depression' in every way?

[rufuspaul]

So are you saying theres only one definition of a depression, and if we have one it'll be exactly like 'the great depression' in every way?

Certainly modern factors exist that weren't around in the 1920s, but as far as comparing goes, what other example do we have?

[Smokee]

Certainly modern factors exist that weren't around in the 1920s, but as far as comparing goes, what other example do we have?

I don't think any. But i'm just saying it seems like many people are over-emphasizing it by saying it'll be the great depression or i guess depression, of which like you said things are very different now compared to back then.

Its not like i can read up on the Great Depression specifically like he said i should do to be informed, then expect that same exact outcome to our current financial crisis...like many seem to be making out will happen.

[gts]

I don't think any. But i'm just saying it seems like many people are over-emphasizing it by saying it'll be the great depression or i guess depression, of which like you said things are very different now compared to back then.

Its not like i can read up on the Great Depression specifically like he said i should do to be informed, then expect that same exact outcome to our current financial crisis.one thing that is different now is the fact the fed can offer up the money for bail out... during the crash of wall street that preceded the depression it was against the law for the feds to pony up more cash then they had in gold reserves, and since the goverment was in debt almost to the limit it had no extra funding to offer the failing banks...

[Hawker]

how is this remotely similar to business failure, and taxpayers bailing them out because the failure could ruin the economy?

taxes have always been levied. other countries tax the rich way more, and have less rich vs poor. but no, the rich in our country want to stay rich with their vacation homes, can't give up that luxury yacht, no way you'll see them drivinig a Honda. No way giving up all of that stuff is worth less poor people suffering, and barely able to provide for their families. Am i right?

If you can't see the difference you're retarded.

So we should punish the rich for succeeding in life and actually applying themselves and not taking their opportunities for granted?

[Hawker]

yeah but thats only $39.95 or something. Its not like i have a luxury yacht, 7 homes, 8 cars, and am angry the government wants to increase my taxes to help the poor.

i don't see a tapdance at all. If anything i see you trying to twist things to make it seem like taxing the rich more to help the poor is just like companies failing and the taxpayers bailing them out. When they aren't similar at all :rolleyes:

Go ahead tho, play the exaggerate humanitarianism card, as if people can't tell the difference from someone paying for their cable modem expenditure vs having multiples of houses, cars, boats, maids, etc., and then having to give up some of that :rolleyes: I mean if you really think it'll help poor people everywhere i'll give up that extra $15 and go dialup :pimp:

Like you arent exagerrating in your post either. :oldlol:

[Smokee]

So we should punish the rich for succeeding in life and actually applying themselves and not taking their opportunities for granted?


Thats another way of looking at it. only problem i really have with that is you are probably pro life pretending like you care so much about the welfare of each and every human life out there also. You'd think such giving and selfless people wouldn't think along these lines, but rather nobody should have to be living on the streets or have starving children. I mean would such people really choose their 2nd home and summer car over there being less poor?

But its always something like this when it comes down to it with general right wing beliefs. Just a lot of hypocritical stuff that doesn't add up entirely. Even with the attacks its amazing to me how so many of you can sit there attacking Obama for inexperience for so long as the basis of your issues with him, and then sit there supporting Palin a week later as the greatest VP ever :rolleyes: Do you not see the inconsistencies? I mean say what you want about the Democrats but they aren't this blatantly hypocritical. They don't force their personal beliefs on others nearly as much. Its just a very self righteous attitude when its extremely hypocritical in a lot of ways. I mean i used to be very open to both sides, and man if you read the main news pages with regularity its amazing how one sided the lack of common sense is.

I guess its all okay if you look at it like a game. That the right are supposed to stay right and support their party regardless of logic. Same with the left. The same people who love to toss around the 'liberal' label like a diragatory term because they think completely along those old party lines. Just don't pretend you are actually voting on sensibility more than staying true to your party ignorantly.

[hwliuLAP]

a recession is just a downturn thats going to be ongoing in the economy, and there are varying degrees of what you're calling a 'depression'. So are you saying theres only one definition of a depression, and if we have one it'll be exactly like 'the great depression' in every way?

How hard was it to google, http://economics.about.com/cs/businesscycles/a/depressions.htm

I do like the fact on how you once again, you couldn't make any research yet keep on making comments. All of your judgment is just irrelevant until you educate yourself on the issue itself.

Now if you would also go read up what GDP means, and try to understand how harsh 10% of GDP could do to an economy, you may be able to start seeing the picture.

[mell-0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAADyc6t4nY

(2 minutes)


LISTEN!!! You guys are completely missing it here. She is saying that members of congress are not being allowed to review the bill in its entirety. The criminal elite who orchestrated this whole meltdown in the first place are shutting down our entire law making system so they can pass this bill. WTF!?!? Only evil is done in the dark and in secret, for it must hide its face from the light or it will be exposed. What are they hiding!? Contact your rep in congress!! This bill must not pass!






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7B4laX1E70
We Are Under Martial Law! As Declared By The Speaker Last Night! Rep Burgess



Jesus... maybe it is a scam.

[bagelred]

The bailout failed. Now what?

I, like most Americans, I don't think have a real understanding what I'm "rooting for".

I get the sense that we might hit hard times soon if bailout fails, but it might be alot worse later is we DO the bailout. The bailout would sort of delay the inevitable and make the dollar weaker, inflation higher......

Confusing.......

[gts]

The bailout failed. Now what?

I, like most Americans, I don't think have a real understanding what I'm "rooting for".

I get the sense that we might hit hard times soon if bailout fails, but it might be alot worse later is we DO the bailout. The bailout would sort of delay the inevitable and make the dollar weaker, inflation higher......

Confusing.......your confused because the plan was a fed plan that the white house backed that a majority of the democrats backed...lol then pelosi played politics with it last night and that pissed off a bunch of republicans that had reluctently backed it...

but the real problem is there is just not enough control in the bailout proposal for some lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and it's probably too much money..they'll revamp it and try again... there are lawmakers that don't want to vote for it but are because they feel if they don't the sky will fall. if the threat of the economy collapsing wasn't hanging over their heads the thing would fail big time, but then if the economy wasn't an issue there would be a bill so....

[bagelred]

The problem is no one knows if its going to work. So do we just tack on 700 billion of more debt? :confusedshrug:

This is an interesting vote. Look how party lines broke down:


Partisan breakdown: 140 Dems for, 95 against, and 65 Rs for, 133 against.

Wow....its like every man/woman for themself.

[Dash]

You are very naive.

So OBL didn't set this country off into a whirlwind of panic?


The bailout failed. Now what?

I, like most Americans, I don't think have a real understanding what I'm "rooting for".

I get the sense that we might hit hard times soon if bailout fails, but it might be alot worse later is we DO the bailout. The bailout would sort of delay the inevitable and make the dollar weaker, inflation higher......

Confusing.......


I'm calling their bluff....and I'm glad to see that the House did too.

I can't believe people are even considering this. Principles are principles....and this bailout is as un-American as it gets.

LIQUIDATE.

[Dash]

And they keep on inflating........


'The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression. The Fed increased its existing currency swaps with foreign central banks by $330 billion to $620 billion to make more dollars available worldwide. The Term Auction Facility, the Fed's emergency loan program, will expand by $300 billion to $450 billion. The European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan are among the participating authorities.'"

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ahwz_k5JvuB8&refer=worldwide

[Dash]

Here's the roll call:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

[bagelred]

So OBL didn't set this country off into a whirlwind of panic?



OBL is a product of the CIA. He most likely died in 2001....a long time ago...but some reports say he died in 2004.

The War on Terror is simply made up.

[CelticForce1349]

nice tapdance around the question.

but since you're so concerned with people suffering, why are you paying money to have an internet service provider that allows you to sit here on ISH when you could be in Africa feeding starving children? obviously your own greed and avarice dictates your heartless apathy to those children and your own selfish desire to sit leisurely on Teh Internetz.




lol. ^^^^^Is this guy retarded or what? Wow. I mean go ahead and be a conservative but...you gots to use yo brain homie.

Seriously...no wonder Republicans have always made it a priority to cut the budget for education in America. If more people received a good education in this country there would be very few Republicans left. ( Excluding the one percent of this country that is uber-wealthy of course)

[Dash]

"I'm working on an 'audit the Federal Reserve' bill." - Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFh6PU6qM9Q

I like it!! :rockon:

[bagelred]

This is classic. The reason the GOP didn't get on board with the bailout was because Nancy Pelosi hurt their feelings.....I am not making this up......:lol :rolleyes:

Check this out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/29/gop-leaders-blame-innocuo_n_130310.html

So, because Pelosi said something they didn't like, the entire country is at risk.....that seems right.....:hammerhead:

"Country First" :hammerhead: :wtf:

[bagelred]

Done deal. The theft of America continues.

Has anyone noticed that the sky has not fallen in the time Paulson and Bernake said it would? Yet 700 billion down the drain, bye bye....

Another "emergency".....don't think much, ACT!!!!!!!

[XxNeXuSxX]

Done deal. The theft of America continues.

Has anyone noticed that the sky has not fallen in the time Paulson and Bernake said it would? Yet 700 billion down the drain, bye bye....

Another "emergency".....don't think much, ACT!!!!!!!
Ridiculous, but you have to blame the democrats as much as the Republicans, this is pitiful.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Market went from 300 up to 100 down. Woot! Go f*cking bailout! :rolleyes:

[bagelred]

There would be a revolution by the American people, but everyone's too busy watching American Idol or Project Runway or something.......

[Denali]

There would be a revolution by the American people, but everyone's too busy watching American Idol or Project Runway or something.......

or talking on ISH....?

nice hypocrisy.

stop talking about politics. you are an embarrassment.

[Hawker]

F*ck this. Cant believe it passed.

[mell-0]

Market went from 300 up to 100 down. Woot! Go f*cking bailout! :rolleyes:


makes no sense... I love the confidence investors found after the bill passed.

[boozehound]

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

... The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating. -Thomas Jefferson

[mell-0]

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

... The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating. -Thomas Jefferson


Yea... looks like we just signed our own death sentence.

I'm still trying to figure out why the stocks fell by 400 points after we passed the bill?

like Nex said... It was up around 250... Bill signed... down 150?

[tontoz]

Yea... looks like we just signed our own death sentence.

I'm still trying to figure out why the stocks fell by 400 points after we passed the bill?

like Nex said... It was up around 250... Bill signed... down 150?

It was the typical "buy the rumor, sell the news" deal.

[bagelred]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XgkeTanCGI&eurl=http://911truth.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8

[Denali]

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.

... The modern theory of the perpetuation of debt has drenched the earth with blood, and crushed its inhabitants under burdens ever accumulating. -Thomas Jefferson

alexander hamilton > thomas jefferson

[mell-0]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XgkeTanCGI&eurl=http://911truth.org/


I just watched the first 10 minutes of this video... And I can't believe a conspiracy theorist like myself didn't realize this what the hell was really going on with all this stock market madness.

[bagelred]

I just watched the first 10 minutes of this video... And I can't believe a conspiracy theorist like myself didn't realize this what the hell was really going on with all this stock market madness.

If I'm getting what she is saying, was that the Congress was pressured to do the bailout or they would MAKE the stock market collapse. That could be it.

But my instincts in the OP were right. This whole bailout/panic was part of the larger plan.

The NEXT thing that has to happen is to somehow stop the Presidential election. How can they let Obama win and take office? He would roll back all their plans for at least 4 or 8 years. Once Obama wins election, its too late for Bush/Cheney to declare martial law and extend his rule. We already have a president elect. Something is going to happen this month.....

I still predict a "terrorist attack" in October caused by the CIA/Military Industrial complex to try to push election to McCain. Not 9/11 big, but something substantial enough to create fear.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Is the bail-out now officially a failure? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27699761/)

Treasury has so far has devoted $250 billion of the bailout money to buying equity in banks and another $40 billion to insurance giant American International Group Inc. The hope was that the infusion of news capital would enable them to increase lending, but so far that hasn't happened, lawmakers said at a hearing by the Senate Finance Committee Thursday.

Instead, some of the recipients of the money have continued to pay dividends to stockholders, provide pay raises and bonuses to executives and other employees and level takeover bids at other companies. Lawmakers said they want to impose restrictions on all those activities for companies getting bailout money.

Executives from four financial institutions that have received a total of $75 billion in federal bailout funds promised at the hearing that none of the aid would be used for paying executives and employees.
Although the current recession has forced me to learn more, I am still not an expert on macroeconomics, or even close. However, I know a ****ing scam when I see one. Looks like we all got Bushed one last time, and in a big way.

[rufuspaul]

:banghead:

[Hawker]

Is the bail-out now officially a failure? (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27699761/)

Although the current recession has forced me to learn more, I am still not an expert on macroeconomics, or even close. However, I know a ****ing scam when I see one. Looks like we all got Bushed one last time, and in a big way.

It's not only Bush's fault. Obama voted for it and the democrats are pushing to bail out automakers as well.

Seriously, quit using Bush as a scapegoat.

[Cannonball]

It's not only Bush's fault. Obama voted for it and the democrats are pushing to bail out automakers as well.

Seriously, quit using Bush as a scapegoat.
beat me to it.

[Real Men Wear Green]

It's not only Bush's fault. Obama voted for it and the democrats are pushing to bail out automakers as well.

Seriously, quit using Bush as a scapegoat.

Once again, Obama=Bush=McCain.
Obama certainly didn't help, but Bush's people are the ones that decide which companies are getting funding, so I hold his administration the most responsible. Onama and the rest of the congressmen and women that supported it get secondary blame, though I will concede that they really should have known better and doubt their innocence.

[XxNeXuSxX]

Ron Paul warned about how this will only hurt the economy and you had honest economists warning people against passing it. Big gobernment morons continue to think the government can "fix" the economy by controlling it more and spending money we don't have.

Think what that $700 billion could have gone to!

I know what I would have used it for: paying off the debt. Wait, we actually never had the money, that means we just did the exact opposite... meaning we now have to pay MORE money next year on the interest of the national debt.

Great!

[Showtime]

I think it's either a scam, or blatant incompitence. Just read up on what AIG is doing.

It's rewarding companies and home owners for making stupid decisions. Companies were making high risk loans, and people who couldn't afford it were buying homes. I'm hearing stories of people who pay their mortgage that have neighbors that didn't, and they get benefits from this deal, and end up in a better situation than the guy who paid his bills. Where's the accountability?

[boozehound]

It's not only Bush's fault. Obama voted for it and the democrats are pushing to bail out automakers as well.

Seriously, quit using Bush as a scapegoat.
while the passage of the bill with limited governmental oversight and control is part of the issue, it is the treasury dept that is handing the funds out. and in a manner totally unlike what they told congress they would use it for.

[bagelred]

while the passage of the bill with limited governmental oversight and control is part of the issue, it is the treasury dept that is handing the funds out. and in a manner totally unlike what they told congress they would use it for.

It was also the treasury dept. and federal reserve and the bush admin. that pushed HARD for this package, essentially presenting a "Chicken Little" scenario to the Congress, presenting a financial "9/11" scenario that was complete BS, just like weapons of mass destruction. They should be tried and convicted for misleading Congress (as usual).

[Legend of Josh]

I wonder if Wall Street will throw some of that bail money in ISH's direction. Fix this bandwidth crap.

[Hawker]

while the passage of the bill with limited governmental oversight and control is part of the issue, it is the treasury dept that is handing the funds out. and in a manner totally unlike what they told congress they would use it for.

Funny...this situation is almost carbon copy of the MSC renovation bs.

[Hawker]

It was also the treasury dept. and federal reserve and the bush admin. that pushed HARD for this package, essentially presenting a "Chicken Little" scenario to the Congress, presenting a financial "9/11" scenario that was complete BS, just like weapons of mass destruction. They should be tried and convicted for misleading Congress (as usual).

Congress should be blamed for being naive and actually falling for bush's words. They shouldv'e learned by now.

Blame goes on the Yea votes and on Bush.

[Real Men Wear Green]

Ron Paul warned about how this will only hurt the economy and you had honest economists warning people against passing it. Big gobernment morons continue to think the government can "fix" the economy by controlling it more and spending money we don't have.

Think what that $700 billion could have gone to!

I know what I would have used it for: paying off the debt. Wait, we actually never had the money, that means we just did the exact opposite... meaning we now have to pay MORE money next year on the interest of the national debt.

Great!
I just have one small argument with this statement: Is this really the government controlling the economy? It looks to me like the government has basically taken 850 billion it didn't have and is now in the process of handing that money to a bunch of businessmen that are either dishonest or incompetent, and in many cases, both. Is that the same thing as controlling the economy? To me, it's more like giving a thousand bucks to a crackhead with the "advice" that he spend the money on food and and work clothes. Is an enabler in control of the junkie they're funding?

[bagelred]

The Bailout was a scam. It's official. We suspected it, but now we know for sure.

Bait and Switch.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_081113.htm

[XxNeXuSxX]

The more this whole Financial Bailout proposal has sunk in, and people have had time to think about it, some people are saying its a scam.

Doesn't it seem that way? Anything Bush and Cheney tell us is an emergency should be quickly second guessed. Doesn't the fact that Bush and Cheney are pushing this Bailout heavily cause us hesitation?
That's a Republican, BTW...
This whole situation is sketchy.....


What's greater is how I predicted the bailouts extended; expanded; and furthered under the next president.

Seems like I had all these lucky guesses for ISH:lol

[lilbill]

Just about everything predicted in this thread happened. Sad.

[Godzuki]

Just about everything predicted in this thread happened. Sad.


im not reading the whole thing but if u summarize them i will. i doubt everything happened tho like people are yappping, without twists as usual :rolleyes:

[InfiniteBaskets]

At the very least, I believe the Bailout money that alleviated some banks from financial hardship helped avert housing problems that would've affected many more middle to low class people. Had JP Morgan or Bank of America failed to the point of liquidation, it could have gotten ugly for a lot of families living in houses with greatly diminished values and an ever-skyrocketing mortgage balance.

And from what I've read, most of the initial TARP money has been paid back to the govt.