Is the Wall Street Bailout a Scam?

[QUOTE=Smokee][B] I mean if you really think it'll help poor people everywhere i'll give up that extra $15 and go dialup[/B] :pimp:[/QUOTE]


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.

There definitely needs to be oversight on this money spent.

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.

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.

[QUOTE]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 [email]WALLSTREETBAILOUT@TREASURY.GOV[/email] 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

-------------------------[/QUOTE]

Heh..

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<[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Federal_Housing_Enterprise_Oversight"][COLOR=#0000ff]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Federal_Housing_Enterprise_Oversight[/COLOR][/URL]>),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.

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.

[quote=Real Men Wear Green]

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.[/quote]

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?

[QUOTE]What cracks me up is that the Bush Admin's proposal was what...3 pages, around 750 words[/QUOTE]because 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...

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]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?[/QUOTE]
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.

[quote=Real Men Wear Green]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.[/quote]

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

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

[QUOTE]"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
[/QUOTE]

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

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.

[QUOTE=gts]actually mccain doesn't oppose the bailout that's just liberal speak... he just wants restrictions placed on it[/QUOTE]
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).

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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.