Is the Wall Street Bailout a Scam?

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


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.

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]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?[/QUOTE]


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.

[QUOTE=rufuspaul]Why 700 billion? Where did that number come from? Why now and not 6mos. ago or 6 mos. from now?[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=gigantes]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?[/QUOTE]
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...

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.

[quote=gigantes]

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.[/quote]

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

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


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.

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.

@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.

[QUOTE=hwliuLAP]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.[/QUOTE]


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.

[QUOTE=hwliuLAP]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.[/QUOTE]
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.[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green]I just don't trust the people that have been in power.[/QUOTE]
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.

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!.

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

[Quote]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.[/Quote]

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.

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.

[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26869586/[/url]

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.

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.

[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

[QUOTE=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.

[url]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26869586/[/url]

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.[/QUOTE]

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.

[QUOTE=RapsFan]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.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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:

[quote=Dash]

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

:mad:[/quote]

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

[QUOTE=Dash]

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

[/QUOTE]

You are very naive.

Where did you get that avatar, Bagelred?

[QUOTE=Smokee]

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.[/QUOTE]


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.

[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

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]
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.

[QUOTE=hwliuLAP]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.[/QUOTE]


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?

[quote=Smokee] 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?[/quote]

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

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

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.

[QUOTE=Smokee]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.[/QUOTE]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...

[QUOTE=Smokee]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Smokee]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:[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Hawker]So we should punish the rich for succeeding in life and actually applying themselves and not taking their opportunities for granted?[/QUOTE]


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.

[QUOTE=Smokee]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?[/QUOTE]

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

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.

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

(2 minutes)

[quote]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![/quote]






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



Jesus... maybe it is a scam.

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.......

[QUOTE=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.......[/QUOTE]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....

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:

[QUOTE]Partisan breakdown: 140 Dems for, 95 against, and 65 Rs for, 133 against. [/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=bagelred]You are very naive.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=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.......
[/QUOTE]

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.

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

[QUOTE]'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.'"[/QUOTE]

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

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