The Bailout

[SuperCharger]

Government having their hands out of the market is part of the cause of the problems that are going on today. This is not just saving wall street banks. There's a financial crises that will impact all of us, whether you work for a corporation or run a small business or have money in your 401k plan. The long term looks brighter today? why? because people have lost a crapload of money?

 

Why? WHY? Because we're not out 700 billion to bail out people who borrowed more then they could afford and banks who lent to those who could not afford. Maybe we'll learn from this and exercise alittle self responsibility next time.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Does anybody else see anything ironic about this?

 

McCain: 'Not the time for blame'?

"Now is not the time to fix the blame. It's time to fix the problem," McCain says, not long after his campaign blamed Obama and Pelosi for killing the bill.

Then he blames Obama and the Democrats: "Sen. Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process."

 

"I would hope that all our leaders — all of them — can put aside short-term political goals and focus on what’s best for the American people," he says.

By Ben Smith 05:45 PM

(Politico)

[AtomicCEO]

So, were you curious where the magic number of $700B came from?

They just made it up.

 

 

Vote this crap bill DOWN. Save us House Republicans!

 

It scares me a little bit that I agree with H8Tank on this issue.

 

Yes, thank you House Republicans for dropping my 401K another 8% today. I REALLY appreciate it. And thank you all Arizona House members, all eight of you, 4 Republican and 4 Democrat for destroying my savings.

 

If this bill passes and a trillion dollars are printed out of thin air, the value of your dollars will decrease by more than 8%.

 

What do you want, something worth a lower number of dollars, or something worth the same amount of lower valued dollars?

 

Nothing is a magical fix here, folks.

[Jimmy Neutron]

If this bill passes and a trillion dollars are printed out of thin air, the value of your dollars will decrease by more than 8%.

 

What do you want, something worth a lower number of dollars, or something worth the same amount of lower valued dollars?

 

Nothing is a magical fix here, folks.

 

Are we allowed to agree with Atomic and H8 on the same day?

 

My head hurts.

 

You are absolutely right here, Atomic - the devaluation of our currency is a real danger we face with this bailout - never mind the fact we don't know if it'll effectively prop the economy up or if we'll see a return on our "investment."

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

778

 

The Dow's close puts the stock market below where it was on President Bush's first day in office.

 

By Ben Smith 04:56 PM

(Politico)

[SuperCharger]

It scares me a little bit that I agree with H8Tank on this issue.

 

That is certainly a sign the world is ending or possibly that everything will finally be all right.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Are we allowed to agree with Atomic and H8 on the same day?

 

My head hurts.

 

You are absolutely right here, Atomic - the devaluation of our currency is a real danger we face with this bailout - never mind the fact we don't know if it'll effectively prop the economy up or if we'll see a return on our "investment."

 

I'm worried about that as well. But if the economy shuts down, will it really matter?

[H8tank]

Sen. Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process."

 

The dems took a 3 page bill, and have it up to 110+ pages, full of little pet projects and pork for their 'friends' including not taking the golden parachutes.

 

This bill was a SHAM. They should wait for 10 days, let the markets settle, let banks die that should, think out a good insurance, loan bill and get the industry back on it's feet.

 

They said we had to have something by today or else, well did we? Has the sky fallen?

 

Eat, drink beer and watch football. Everything else will work itself out.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

The dems took a 3 page bill, and have it up to 110+ pages, full of little pet projects and pork for their 'friends' including not taking the golden parachutes.

 

This bill was a SHAM. They should wait for 10 days, let the markets settle, let banks die that should, think out a good insurance, loan bill and get the industry back on it's feet.

 

They said we had to have something by today or else, well did we? Has the sky fallen?

 

Eat, drink beer and watch football. Everything else will work itself out.

 

Now imagine we'd approached Iraq like that...I'm just sayin'.

[Azazello1313]

Does anybody else see anything ironic about this?

 

McCain: 'Not the time for blame'?

"Now is not the time to fix the blame. It's time to fix the problem," McCain says, not long after his campaign blamed Obama and Pelosi for killing the bill.

Then he blames Obama and the Democrats: "Sen. Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process."

 

I think he may have been referring to all of the speeches about how this is all bush's fault, blah blah blah. if they f8ck it up by trying to score political points, that ought to be called out (like wedgie, for one, did in this thread). did you notice how in the debate, mccain didn't talk about frank raines and jim johnson...he didn't talk about obama reciving more money from freddie and fannie lobbyists than anyone in the last few years...he didn't mention how obama, as a lawyer representing ACORN, sued banks because they weren't writing enough subprime mortgages. he really is trying to get a deal done here, and some of the democratic leadership really did step in today making that more difficult.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I think he may have been referring to all of the speeches about how this is all bush's fault, blah blah blah. if they f8ck it up by trying to score political points, that ought to be called out (like wedgie, for one, did in this thread). did you notice how in the debate, mccain didn't talk about frank raines and jim johnson...he didn't talk about obama reciving more money from freddie and fannie lobbyists than anyone in the last few years...he didn't mention how obama, as a lawyer representing ACORN, sued banks because they weren't writing enough subprime mortgages. he really is trying to get a deal done here, and some of the democratic leadership really did step in today making that more difficult.

 

I blame all of them. Everyone.

 

And I blame them for making my head hurt trying to understand all this crap.

 

So what does this do now? : http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=ahwz_k5JvuB8

[SuperCharger]

...he didn't mention how obama, as a lawyer representing ACORN, sued banks because they weren't writing enough subprime mortgages.

 

Did that actually happen? I have absolutely nothing nice to say about that so I will say nothing.

[Jackass]

Why? WHY? Because we're not out 700 billion to bail out people who borrowed more then they could afford and banks who lent to those who could not afford. Maybe we'll learn from this and exercise alittle self responsibility next time.

 

it ultimately will not cost us anywhere near 700 billion. I agree with you that the banks don't deserve to be bailed out. But we're all roped into this mess now. Just letting the problem fix itself could easily bring down the entire economy. The financial system needs capital. There is none available right now.

[H8tank]

Now imagine we'd approached Iraq like that...I'm just sayin'.

 

 

Yeah, almost 2 years instead of 10 days.

[Pope Flick]

The fate of the $700 billion financial bailout bill is in limbo, following today's surprising and dramatic defeat of the delicately negotiated plan in the House, by a 228-205 vote. With the Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeting (it declined by more than 700 points), President Bush and congressional leaders vowed to bring the package back for another vote as soon as possible — probably later this week — but it was far from clear what they could do to make it any more palatable.

 

The main reason for the defeat was opposition from House Republicans, two-thirds of whom voted against the bill, despite the fact that it was conceived by the Bush Administration and supported by their presidential nominee, John McCain, who had suspended his campaign last week to return to Washington and work on the package. By comparison, 140 Democrats, some 60% of the caucus, voted for it.

 

Supporting the bill wasn't easy for lawmakers on either side of the aisle. As the deal was being worked out last week, congressional offices were reporting that constituent phone calls were running 100 to 1 against the measure, which was seen across the country as a bailout of the very Wall Street executives whose misjudgment in making and selling bad real estate investments had spawned a credit crisis that threatens to drag down the entire financial system.

 

But supporters of the plan — which had been crafted by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke — argued that as painful as it would be to commit such an unprecedented amount of taxpayer money to cleaning up Wall Street's mess, the price of not doing it would be even greater, because the crisis would spread to hurt ordinary businesses and their workers. Supporters of the plan argued that the only way to keep the financial system operating was to have the government buy the junk assets in order to take them off the balance sheets of the banks that now hold them. Congressional leaders of both parties also negotiated changes to the plan that were aimed at making it more politically salable, including limits on executive compensation for the Wall Street firms that take advantage of it and stricter oversight of the program.

 

Not surprisingly, given the market's quick negative response and the general atmosphere that pervades Washington, both sides were quick to point fingers. House Republicans charged to the microphones to blame Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the defeat, saying that at least a dozen of their members switched their votes because they were offended by the partisanship of a speech she gave on the House floor. Democrats scoffed at that excuse. "Think of this: Somebody hurt my feelings, so I am going to punish the country," said House Banking Committee chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat who had been one of the chief negotiators of the plan.

 

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign — which had been taking credit for the deal, when it appeared to be headed for passage — put out a statement blaming its failure on Democrats, starting with Barack Obama. "Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain, and refused to even say if he supported the final bill," the campaign said in a statement attributed to economic adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.

 

Both houses of Congress had been scheduled to adjourn this week until after the election. The defeat of the bailout plan means that everyone is likely to be back at work later this week. The question is what the markets will do in the meantime.

[Jimmy Neutron]

I'm worried about that as well. But if the economy shuts down, will it really matter?

 

I don't think the economy will shut down. Yes, I think it will be painful. Frankly, I'd rather take my lumps now than venture further down a very unsure path paved with my kids' tax dollars.

 

I think a lot of what we have heard is over-stated fear-mongoring. I know there are local banks and credit unions in good shape because they were conservative enough not to get mixed up in the sub-prime mess. They will continue to make loans, perhaps at higher interest rates to protect their capital - but they'll make loans. The criteria for getting those loans will tighten up, but that's part of the market correction we need.

 

I think what we're seeing on Wall Street today is fear, speculation and some bullying by those that want this bailout.

[AtomicCEO]

The financial system needs capital. There is none available right now.

 

There is apparently 700bn dollars in capital available right now.

 

Start a government program to lend it to the people who need it instead of the people who took a dump on it.

[Jackass]

I don't think the economy will shut down. Yes, I think it will be painful. Frankly, I'd rather take my lumps now than venture further down a very unsure path paved with my kids' tax dollars.

 

I think a lot of what we have heard is over-stated fear-mongoring. I know there are local banks and credit unions in good shape because they were conservative enough not to get mixed up in the sub-prime mess. They will continue to make loans, perhaps at higher interest rates to protect their capital - but they'll make loans. The criteria for getting those loans will tighten up, but that's part of the market correction we need.

 

I think what we're seeing on Wall Street today is fear, speculation and some bullying by those that want this bailout.

 

So local banks and credit unions have enough money to loan out to support the entire U.S. economy?

[H8tank]

There hasn't been enough time to evaluate the impacts this legislation would have if enacted, or to consider alternatives. Congress deserves time to weigh the benefits and the potential pitfalls of borrowing this money." — Rep. Baron Hill, Democrat.

 

"We are now in the golden age of thieves. And where I come from we put thieves in jail, we don't bail them out." — Rep. Pete Visclosky, Democrat.

 

[SuperCharger]

it ultimately will not cost us anywhere near 700 billion. I agree with you that the banks don't deserve to be bailed out. But we're all roped into this mess now. Just letting the problem fix itself could easily bring down the entire economy. The financial system needs capital. There is none available right now.

 

It's going to be painful but, in my opinion, that was always the case. Throwing money at it will only make the problem bigger tomorrow. This ride has ups and downs. Need to take both in stride.

[Jackass]

It's going to be painful but, in my opinion, that was always the case. Throwing money at it will only make the problem bigger tomorrow. This ride has ups and downs. Need to take both in stride.

 

There are examples in history where if we just let the problem fix itself, most people agree that things would have ended very badly. Recent examples that come to mind are the S&L crises or the bailout of Long term capital in the late 90's. I think there are situations where government is needed and this to me, seems like its one of them.

[theeohiostate]

Fellas,

 

I'm all for ANYTHING that could help new home sales NOW , whether it's a bailout or not, I could care less. Being in the housing industry has been very difficult. The past 2-3 years have been the most stressful on my life. With no apparent light at the end of the tunnel , we need something to spark up consumer confidence, lending and any type of growth. Many of my fellow small business owners have already closed up shop due to lack of work, I may be able to withstand the pain for some time longer, but not much. I don't pretend to know the right choice, I would hope Congress does the right thing by the American people. for once. If that was to veto this current bill, then so be it, if not, they need to put politics aside and consider the countless being hit the hardest.

[Jimmy Neutron]

I have not read the bill that was defeated today, so someone correct me if I'm wrong but...

 

The bill that failed today only:

 

Deferred hugh salaries of CEOs

 

Still gives hugh powers to Paulson and his successor - including bailing out foreign, even foreign central banks...

 

Would have provided hundreds of millions to special interest groups like ACORN who profess to have an interest in low income families getting loans - thank you LITERALLY - Nancy Pelosi

 

Created an oversight board that the Treasury Sec. sits on. It's raining men! Hallelulah! It's raining men!???

 

Unless someone can disprove all of this - ya'll still think this bailout is a good idea?

 

Edit to add a doozy: The Sec Treas could purchase bad debt above basement level prices. He wouldn't do that, would he - pay his buddies more for bad debt than it's worth?

Edited September 30, 2008 by Jimmy Neutron

[Jimmy Neutron]

So local banks and credit unions have enough money to loan out to support the entire U.S. economy?

 

No, but you can bet that there are conservative financial institutions all over the world who still have capital to lend to low-risk consumers.

[theeohiostate]

I have not read the bill that was defeated today, so someone correct me if I'm wrong but...

 

The bill that failed today only:

 

Deferred hugh salaries of CEOs

 

Still gives hugh powers to Paulson and his successor - including bailing out foreign, even foreign central banks...

 

Would have provided hundreds of millions to special interest groups like ACORN who profess to have an interest in low income families getting loans - thank you LITERALLY - Nancy Pelosi

 

Created an oversight board that the Treasury Sec. sits on. It's raining men! Hallelulah! It's raining men!???

 

Unless someone can disprove all of this - ya'll still think this bailout is a good idea?

 

 

These were points just made on Lou Dobbs, so I'm assuming your correct.