Savage Beatings Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I'm guessing that sometime in the next month, we'll have a proposal for another bailout bill, with politicians saying that the first one didn't go far enough. Would you support another couple hundred billion dollars to help heal the credit crunch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I'm guessing that sometime in the next month, we'll have a proposal for another bailout bill, with politicians saying that the first one didn't go far enough. Would you support another couple hundred billion dollars to help heal the credit crunch? You assume I supported the first couple hundred billion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted October 6, 2008 Author Share Posted October 6, 2008 You assume I supported the first couple hundred billion? Nah, I'm not making any assumptions... just wondering if people would support another one if/when it comes. And I have no idea whether this would happen or not really... I'm just making an educated guess based upon the way that Washington works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Well I for one would like to thank Nancy pelousy, she has run a very efficient house, and things couldn't be better! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Assuming the objective behind all of the actions this year (starting with the Bear Stears transaction in March) is to keep the USA out of a massive recession... I would say that the possibility of needing "another bailout" is more than 50%. Why? The first one wasn't big enough and didn't get enacted fast enough. However, I'd bet that whatever the "next bailout" is will look lots different than the one that just passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Yeah, as long as they double the amount of pork added to this one from 140 Billion to 280 billion. I don't want my lawmakers half assing their rape of the American public anymore! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I'm guessing that sometime in the next month, we'll have a proposal for another bailout bill, with politicians saying that the first one didn't go far enough. Would you support another couple hundred billion dollars to help heal the credit crunch? Was the first one effective? Did we do anything to attack the source of the problem (the foreclosures). These are the questions that will need to be asked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 This is pretty much a worldwide problem now right? Can we really do anything to prop up the entire world economy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Assuming the objective behind all of the actions this year (starting with the Bear Stears transaction in March) is to keep the USA out of a massive recession... I would say that the possibility of needing "another bailout" is more than 50%. Why? The first one wasn't big enough and didn't get enacted fast enough. However, I'd bet that whatever the "next bailout" is will look lots different than the one that just passed. I pretty much agree with all of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 This is pretty much a worldwide problem now right? Can we really do anything to prop up the entire world economy? We have with our military, why not with our(China's) money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 (edited) However, I'd bet that whatever the "next bailout" is will look lots different than the one that just passed. Why is that? Are they gonna give us a "reach around" next time or are you saying they won't use any lube next time? Edited October 6, 2008 by millerx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 We have with our military, why not with our(China's) money? At some point, China will stop giving us money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Why is that? Are they gonna give us a "reach around" next time or are you saying they won't use any lube next time? My guess is that they will either use an expedited bankruptcy approach or a funds-for-equity approach the next time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Why is that? Are they gonna give us a "reach around" next time or are you saying they won't use any lube next time? I'm saying that recent legislation focused on (imo) two things ... (i) the ability to buy assets directly from financial insitutions and (ii) the Federal Reserve pay interest to member banks for their deposits made at the Fed. New legislation may be something very different, like: 1) $1T dedicated to buying freshly issued equity in any publicly traded company with more than _______ employees, $____ million in market capitalization or $____ million in revenue ... with a cap of 20% of the current market value of the company and a minimum purchase of $_____ ... first come, first served ... regardless of industry ... overseen by the Federal Reserve and US Treasury Department ... where the funds used can be used to retire existing indebtedness, among other things. 2a) Establishment of the Bank of Settlements to act as counterparty to all existing credit default swaps written against companies based in the USA, for anyone that will pay a 'fee' to the BoS for acting as the central clearing house. Existing CDS's are allowed to remain in force until they are set to contractually expire. New legislation requires that the CDSs written against a comapny can only be issued by the BoS and are only available for origination up to an amount equal to the total outstanding debt (including accounts payable), so that Company X won't have $100 million of debt, but $500 million of CDSs written against its viability (as is often times the case today as there are no caps on the potential notional value of CDSs written against a single issuer). 2b) BoS acts as the operating entity for the merged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG, plus any other failed financial institution that is taken over by the FDIC, the Federal Reserve and/or the US Treasury, allowing the netting of CDS related exposure amongst failed institutions, minimizing the contagion risks. 3) Establishment of the Global Asset Solvency Trust (or somesuch), funded by the USA, developed Europe, developed Asia, India, Brazil, Russia and China, and anyone else that wants in, proportional to each countries' GDP (in US dollar terms) allowing for the coordinated 'nationalization' of large financial institutions in countries that are smaller than the failing financial institutions (i.e., Bigass Belgian Bank is taken over by the governments included in the GAST), with the intention of winding down it's operations in a coordinated fashion, minizing fall-out across the financial system. 4) Elimination of Social Security Benefits to anyone under the age of ______. 5) Drilling on federal lands by the newly created US Energy Trust, where the USET is owned by federal government. 6) ...etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I'm saying that recent legislation focused on (imo) two things ... (i) the ability to buy assets directly from financial insitutions and (ii) the Federal Reserve pay interest to member banks for their deposits made at the Fed. New legislation may be something very different, like: 1) $1T dedicated to buying freshly issued equity in any publicly traded company with more than _______ employees, $____ million in market capitalization or $____ million in revenue ... with a cap of 20% of the current market value of the company and a minimum purchase of $_____ ... first come, first served ... regardless of industry ... overseen by the Federal Reserve and US Treasury Department ... where the funds used can be used to retire existing indebtedness, among other things. 2a) Establishment of the Bank of Settlements to act as counterparty to all existing credit default swaps written against companies based in the USA, for anyone that will pay a 'fee' to the BoS for acting as the central clearing house. Existing CDS's are allowed to remain in force until they are set to contractually expire. New legislation requires that the CDSs written against a comapny can only be issued by the BoS and are only available for origination up to an amount equal to the total outstanding debt (including accounts payable), so that Company X won't have $100 million of debt, but $500 million of CDSs written against its viability (as is often times the case today as there are no caps on the potential notional value of CDSs written against a single issuer). 2b) BoS acts as the operating entity for the merged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, AIG, plus any other failed financial institution that is taken over by the FDIC, the Federal Reserve and/or the US Treasury, allowing the netting of CDS related exposure amongst failed institutions, minimizing the contagion risks. 3) Establishment of the Global Asset Solvency Trust (or somesuch), funded by the USA, developed Europe, developed Asia, India, Brazil, Russia and China, and anyone else that wants in, proportional to each countries' GDP (in US dollar terms) allowing for the coordinated 'nationalization' of large financial institutions in countries that are smaller than the failing financial institutions (i.e., Bigass Belgian Bank is taken over by the governments included in the GAST), with the intention of winding down it's operations in a coordinated fashion, minizing fall-out across the financial system. 4) Elimination of Social Security Benefits to anyone under the age of ______. 5) Drilling on federal lands by the newly created US Energy Trust, where the USET is owned by federal government. 6) ...etc... Are you f'n serious? So fedgov just becomes the next third reich, economically speaking? If this doesn't upset you, you're not paying enough attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishPride Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 Yeah, as long as they double the amount of pork added to this one from 140 Billion to 280 billion. I don't want my lawmakers half assing their rape of the American public anymore! That's just about the most intelligent thing I've heard this week and it couldn't be more to the point.......The middle class is gone for generations! I feel guilty thinking of the world my 4 year old will be left with.......What has happened to AMERICA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moneymakers Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 If Barney Frank says we need one than I am in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Are you f'n serious? So fedgov just becomes the next third reich, economically speaking? If this doesn't upset you, you're not paying enough attention. Millerx asked what I thought may be next in line, as it regarded government intervention ... I was not asked if I was happy about it. ...other options include: A complete overhaul of all banking, investment management and corporate finance activities under a single regulator with dramatically expanded scope and reach which would involve a (nearly) complete overturning of all current regulation and the launching of new oversight, restriction and penalties. Some of this will be very welcome (essentially the parts that get rid of conflicting overlaps), some will not (particularly the stuff that tells individual citizens what they can and cannot do with their money, primarily as it regards the suitability of certain investments). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I'm saying that recent legislation focused on (imo) two things ... (i) the ability to buy assets directly from financial insitutions, and (ii) the Federal Reserve pay interest to member banks for their deposits made at the Fed, and the pork.. fixed. Folks if you are not pissed off about our lawmakers slipping 140 BILLION dollars worth of pork into the bailout package then frankly, I'm quite ashamed that you are Americans. When the frak are you going to stand up and say STOP! When are you ever going to vote these jackasses out of office for fraking you like this! The bastages steal our fraking money and then treat us like a 6 year old, telling us that they did it for our own good. VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 (edited) fixed. Folks if you are not pissed off about our lawmakers slipping 140 BILLION dollars worth of pork into the bailout package then frankly, I'm quite ashamed that you are Americans. When the frak are you going to stand up and say STOP! When are you ever going to vote these jackasses out of office for fraking you like this! The bastages steal our fraking money and then treat us like a 6 year old, telling us that they did it for our own good. VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!!! sounds like we got a guy here who is gonna vote for the candidate who has "stopping pork and earmark spending" as a lead issue on his platform. Edited October 7, 2008 by millerx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Helllooooooooooooooo Socialism. Someone's getting rich off this scam, and it ain't gonna be me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 sounds like we got a guy here who is gonna vote for the candidate who has "stopping pork and earmark spending" as a lead issue on his platform. I'll not vote for either a Democrat or a Republican. Don't be so quick to try and put labels on things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 sounds like we got a guy here who is gonna vote for the candidate who has "stopping pork and earmark spending" as a lead issue on his platform. I wish John McCain, Sarah Palin, Barack Hussein Obama, and Joe Biden would all be caught in bed together so we could elect someone with just a small clue on how to run this country. Anyone fervently supporting any of these morons is a moron. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millerx Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 I'll not vote for either a Democrat or a Republican. Don't be so quick to try and put labels on things. I was just playin'... , but I am sick of the pork myself, and any candidate that has that as at least one of their items, I will at least listen more intently to what the rest of the platform is. Basically, it is a good start. I wish John McCain, Sarah Palin, Barack Hussein Obama, and Joe Biden would all be caught in bed together so we could elect someone with just a small clue on how to run this country. Anyone fervently supporting any of these morons is a moron. I agree with the "fervently" discription. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 When are you ever going to vote these jackasses out of office for fraking you like this! The bastages steal our fraking money and then treat us like a 6 year old, telling us that they did it for our own good. VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE!!! Do you think the people we vote into office would NOT commit the same egregious behavior? The entire system needs to be wiped out and started over from scratch. Unfortunately, that would require a full blown revolution, which I don't think is likely to happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.