BAILOUT: Yes or No?

[Divinus Arma]

Pretty Simple Poll.

Do we approve the bailout or not? Beyond the poll, why or why not?

EDIT: I understand that alot of you will will want "modified bailout", something not in its current form as urged by many House Republicans. Just vote "Bailout". This isn't a vote for the current bailout, but a vote for "a" Bailout in some form or fashion. Thanks.

[Jolt]

Curiously, the option "Let the Market work" has led us to where we are now. :P

[Kralizec]

Poll?

I'm not convinced it's the only way to remedy the situation, all I've got is my rather poor understanding of the situation and the end-of-days preaching by people who have a direct stake in the bailout. I'd like to know some opinions from economic scholars who are not directly involved.

[Lemur]

As it stands I'm against it. If Congress wants to take its time, do it right, and really work on the problem, then I could be persuaded. But we have a history of panicked, rushed legislation under the Bush Admin., and I'm done with it. If prominent Washington jerks are screaming that the sky is falling, I say let it fall unless you can show me you're going to prop it up responsibly.

This seems like a perfect moment to not panic and not rush into things.


I'd like to know some opinions from economic scholars who are not directly involved.
The Economist has a big, long story on the bailout which you can read here (http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?source=hptextfeature&story_id=12305746).

[Crazed Rabbit]

Jolt -no, it hasn't.

Fannie an Freddie were created (in the 1930s) by the government and privatized, but with extensive privileges, in the 1960s (Or 1970s? Not sure).

They were not free market institutions, but large government intrusions into the market. They were encouraged by the government to encourage bad lending policies and so they encouraged this huge mess of sub-prime loans by buying up just about any crap loans.

Democrats defeated measures in 2005 that would have curtailed those inherently risky activities.

Even now, we see the free market buying up failed firms.

CR

[Jolt]

Jolt -no, it hasn't.

Fannie an Freddie were created (in the 1930s) by the government and privatized, but with extensive privileges, in the 1960s (Or 1970s? Not sure).

They were not free market institutions, but large government intrusions into the market. They were encouraged by the government to encourage bad lending policies and so they encouraged this huge mess of sub-prime loans by buying up just about any crap loans.

Democrats defeated measures in 2005 that would have curtailed those inherently risky activities.

Even now, we see the free market buying up failed firms.

CR

Wait. Two banks singlehandedly created the biggest crisis since the Great Depression? Wow, this is new.

[Spino]

Curiously, the option "Let the Market work" has led us to where we are now. :P

Not entirely true. Check out Fragony's posts in the relevant thread for some background on past gov't legislation which helped fuel this disaster. The same generation that got the markets into this mess is running the government that is trying to fix the problem. Sort of like the blind leading the blind.

Better no bailout than a bailout using funny money. Tossing over $1 trillion dollars on this fire (I am taking into account the previous bailout bill passed a few months ago) is only going to contribute to the decline of the dollar and force foreign investors to exchange it for more stable currency. We have to show the world we're tough enough to endure and learn from our mistakes. But we all know that ain't gonna happen.

[Kadagar_AV]

If it was in sweden I would say bail out...

In the US however, I think that in a long term it would be better not to bail out... To show the population that the idea of a free market does not work:)

There is no american dream, the american dream = a way to keep the big masses under the whip while a few people get the cash.

In no other advanced country would people work under the same conditions as in the US... why do they do it? Because they believe in the american dream.... Never mind the american dream will never come to you;)

For everyone who reach the american dream, there are a thousand people having two jobs to get enough cash to go around.

So yeah, in my oppinion... Let the big companies fall.

Start over, build from scratch:)

[Jolt]

Not entirely true. Check out Fragony's posts in the relevant thread for some background on past gov't legislation which helped fuel this disaster. The same generation that got the markets into this mess is running the government that is trying to fix the problem. Sort of like the blind leading the blind.

Better no bailout than a bailout using funny money. Tossing over $1 trillion dollars on this fire (I am taking into account the previous bailout bill passed a few months ago) is only going to contribute to the decline of the dollar and force foreign investors to exchange it for more stable currency. We have to show the world we're tough enough to endure and learn from our mistakes. But we all know that ain't gonna happen.

Of course, the American Government is anything but helpful, but the market is the main culprit of this situation. I like Interventionism more and Laissez-Faire less.

[Koga No Goshi]

A strong majority of the public is hopping mad (of every political stripe) and calling their representatives' offices against the bailout. There is no real argument that the American people, at least as a gut reaction, don't want this bailout.

But, we have to remember, I don't know-- and maybe most of you don't know, either- what the full ramifications of doing nothing would be. Myself? I feel that they would probably be bad but I still wish we could just suffer through them if only to teach wanna-be monopolist crybaby capitalists a lesson through all this. But, I do also believe that the people most responsible will not suffer AT ALL, and it will be most of us normal people who suffer, no matter what we do.

I freely admit I have no idea what would happen if we don't bail them out. I just get the vague sort of impression it would be bad, but very little hard facts about what exactly would happen.

[Xiahou]

Wait. Two banks singlehandedly created the biggest crisis since the Great Depression? Wow, this is new.Read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_mac) about what the GSEs are and what they did and you'll begin to get the picture. :wink:

[Divinus Arma]

Email I sent to my congressional representative:


Dear ************,

Regarding the bailout being discussed, I would like to briefly communicate my opinion so that you may better have an understanding of the feelings within your district.

It seems that we are rushing into this without taking the necessary time to ensure that this is done correctly. A market economy must be allowed to feel pain from the poor choices of its players. A bailout may actually serve to increase risk-taking by large companies, since they will not be held accountable for their decisions. Allowing these firms and their executives to parachute to safety while the average American investor, most of whom are investing for retirement, falls to their financial ruin is simply unacceptable.

This bailout seems like a dangerously rushed expansion of government. Crisis is always the friend of the state, and our current economic hiccup is no excuse to consolidate additional power into the hands of the few and the unaccountable.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this very important issue.

Yours Truly,

*******************


Anybody else contact their congressman/woman?

[Strike For The South]

Email I sent to my congressional representative:


Dear ************,

Regarding the bailout being discussed, I would like to briefly communicate my opinion so that you may better have an understanding of the feelings within your district.

It seems that we are rushing into this without taking the necessary time to ensure that this is done correctly. A market economy must be allowed to feel pain from the poor choices of its players. A bailout may actually serve to increase risk-taking by large companies, since they will not be held accountable for their decisions. Allowing these firms and their executives to parachute to safety while the average American investor, most of whom are investing for retirement, falls to their financial ruin is simply unacceptable.

This bailout seems like a dangerously rushed expansion of government. Crisis is always the friend of the state, and our current economic hiccup is no excuse to consolidate additional power into the hands of the few and the unaccountable.

Thank you for your time and consideration on this very important issue.

Yours Truly,

*******************


Anybody else contact their congressman/woman?

Thats very good. Im to angry to articulate something like that now. My letter would consist of profanities and death threats.

[Koga No Goshi]

Good letter, Arma.

[KukriKhan]

Div A was much kinder and more polite than I was in writing to Boxer, Feinstein, and Bilbray.

[Tristuskhan]

Let the Market work. And meet it's fate of headless chicken.

[Hosakawa Tito]

As much as I hate the thought of a serious and long economic depression, and what that may mean to my retirement plans and investments I've accumulated and worked for toward those goals...I hate the thought of giving a taxpayer financed blank check to these robber barons even more. Let them fleece their own company shareholders for that golden parachute, because the Got Rocks will always be first in that line no matter who the rube happens to be. The future generations don't deserve this burden.

That is an excellent letter Div A. Respectful, firm and to the point.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Let us burn. Maybe we'll be better for it.

[Proletariat]

What Lemur and Tuff said. Let it burn and if we have half the mettle we boast, let's wait and see what rises from the ash.

[drone]

Let us burn. Maybe we'll be better for it.

That which does not kill...

I'm leaning towards the no-bailout side. There's too much coming down the pike to blow our wad now. Once the mortgage securities are dealt with, what's next? IIRC, there is approximately $700 billion in securitized credit card debt. Ford and/or GM may bite it soon, they are already asking for loans. State and local governments are struggling.

Plus, we are going to need this money to build a wall big enough for all the backs that need to put up against it. ~D

[Ironside]

Read (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_mac) about what the GSEs are and what they did and you'll begin to get the picture. :wink:

So if I got it right, they've problematic by making a bubble safer earlier on and then by being "too big to fall", they made the investor think that if/when the fecal matter hits the fan the goverment will bail it out.

While I can see that it's enforced the problem, but it also operates on the basic premise that the investors would gladly make a profit by creating a damaging economic situation and risking an economic failure.

You really got low expectations of how an economic system should be run if you consider it the best option to get those people free reins. :no:

As for the bailout, a reluctant yes, if done properly it would keep the economy up, mostly repay itself back and give the investors a nasty burn aswell. :smash:

Of course, this is the Bush administration so it's probably the other reason. Short term benefits to keep the econmy up is better than potential long terms, as this debacle is dragging our own economy down atm. Long term downsides is easier to prepare against ~;p



In no other advanced country would people work under the same conditions as in the US... why do they do it? Because they believe in the american dream.... Never mind the american dream will never come to you ;)

IMHO the american dream is partly directly responsible.

Isn't one part of that dream to own your own house? :book:

Of course, compared to the "outsmarting a bubble" syndrome it's small potato. :juggle:

[drone]

Here's a good plan from the ex-FDIC chairman. Looks much more palatable than free cash to Wall Street.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/26/AR2008092602200.html?hpid=topnews
I have doubts that the $700 billion bailout will work if enacted. Will banks really be willing to part with the loans, and will the government be able to sell them in the marketplace on terms that the taxpayers would find acceptable?

To get banks to sell the loans, the government would need to buy them at a price greater than what the private sector would pay today. Many investors are open to purchasing the loans now, but the financial institutions and investors cannot agree on price. Thus private money is sitting on the sidelines until there is clear evidence that we are at the floor in real estate.

Having financial institutions sell the loans to the government at inflated prices so the government can turn around and sell the loans to well-heeled investors at lower prices strikes me as a very good deal for everyone but U.S. taxpayers. Surely we can do better.

One alternative is a "net worth certificate" program along the lines of what Congress enacted in the 1980s for the savings and loan industry. It was a big success and could work in the current climate. The FDIC resolved a $100 billion insolvency in the savings banks (had they been marked to market) for a total cost of less than $2 billion.

The net worth certificate program was designed to shore up the capital of weak banks to give them more time to resolve their problems. The program involved no subsidy and no cash outlay.

The FDIC purchased net worth certificates (subordinated debentures, a commonly used form of capital in banks) in troubled banks that the agency determined could be viable if they were given more time. Banks entering the program had to agree to strict supervision from the FDIC, including oversight of compensation of top executives and removal of poor management.

The FDIC paid for the net worth certificates by issuing FDIC senior notes to the banks; there was no cash outlay. The interest rate on the net worth certificates and the FDIC notes was identical, so there was no subsidy.

If such a program were enacted today, the capital position of banks with real estate holdings would be bolstered, giving those banks the ability to sell and restructure assets and get on with their rehabilitation. No taxpayer money would be spent, and the asset sale transactions would remain in the private sector where they belong.

If we were to (1) implement a program to ease the fears of depositors and other general creditors of banks; (2) keep tight restrictions on short sellers of financial stocks; (3) suspend fair-value accounting (which has contributed mightily to our problems by marking assets to unrealistic fire-sale prices); and (4) authorize a net worth certificate program, we could settle the financial markets without significant expense to taxpayers.

[CountArach]

A bailout? Yes.

The Bailout? No.

Those who made the mistakes should pay for it.

[seireikhaan]

No.

Process- Person gets drunk. Person falls asleep. Person has massive hangover.

Sub in "financial sector" for person, and that's my opinion. Not saying that it won't absolutely suck, it will. However, the debt is getting ridiculous, we need to send the message that all businesses are equal. If you fail, too bad, you're fault. After a bout of horrible vomiting, the econ will eventually recover.

Besides, its been shown in the past that foreign companies will invest in American businesses which are in tailspin because they can make a profit on it.

[TevashSzat]

No, the market will work everything out eventually. Sure, it would be a rough couple of years, but its nothing the "invisible hand" can't handle. Anyways, thats what a free market is anyways....

[Reverend Joe]

No, the market will work everything out eventually. Sure, it would be a rough couple of years, but its nothing the "invisible hand" can't handle. Anyways, thats what a free market is anyways....

The Great Depression was a "rough couple of years" too. That invisible hand spanked our asses red. I don't want to go through anything like that.

But the problem is, like someone else said, inflation, which has already been bothering us recently. We need to do something, but it needs to be nice and steady, not just bum-rushing the economy with a wad of money. I vote no bailout; something else.

Edit: Damnit, Div, I can't vote "no bailout" because the other option says "Let the market work itself out!" Sneaky bastard.

[TevashSzat]

The Great Depression was a "rough couple of years" too. That invisible hand spanked our asses red. I don't want to go through anything like that.


Well, I don't think it ever will happen because politicians won't let something as big as the Great Depression happen nowadays.

But think of it, in a purely economist point of view, there is no thing wrong with great depressions. It is merely the market trying to correct itself and it will teach a TON of lessons. Just look at how much government changed due to the Great Depression.

That is, after all, one of the prices of being in a more or less free market economy. You either go along during both the good and the bad times or have the government intervene and hopefully, things will get better without a much bigger debt

[Jolt]

Well, I don't think it ever will happen because politicians won't let something as big as the Great Depression happen nowadays.

But think of it, in a purely economist point of view, there is no thing wrong with great depressions. It is merely the market trying to correct itself and it will teach a TON of lessons. Just look at how much government changed due to the Great Depression.

That is, after all, one of the prices of being in a more or less free market economy. You either go along during both the good and the bad times or have the government intervene and hopefully, things will get better without a much bigger debt

WON'T? As far as I'm aware, the Great Depression only got "Great" because one of the "measures" the current president at that time did was letting the market work for itself.

[Reverend Joe]

Well, I don't think it ever will happen because politicians won't let something as big as the Great Depression happen nowadays.

But think of it, in a purely economist point of view, there is no thing wrong with great depressions. It is merely the market trying to correct itself and it will teach a TON of lessons. Just look at how much government changed due to the Great Depression.

That is, after all, one of the prices of being in a more or less free market economy. You either go along during both the good and the bad times or have the government intervene and hopefully, things will get better without a much bigger debt

Well, to be fair, any major mistake should logically lead to people learning. The problem is a lot of people get hurt in the process. And besides, who's to say it can't happen again? The economy is really a lot like an 18-wheeler: you can put all the energy in that you want, but you can only control it with the brakes up to a certain point; past a certain speed it's just not going to obey. In our case, it all depends on if we caught this one early enough to stop the crash.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I haven't decided yet, I'd have to know what the effects of the market collapsing would be. Saying "let it burn and we'll become stronger afterwards" is too vague. Consider that during the stock market crash of 1929 only 2 percent of the population owned stock...

[ICantSpellDawg]

I haven't decided yet, I'd have to know what the effects of the market collapsing would be. Saying "let it burn and we'll become stronger afterwards" is too vague. Consider that during the stock market crash of 1929 only 2 percent of the population owned stock...

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I think leaving the market alone will lead to an immense tragedy. I'm just saying to hell with it. We deserve hellish torment for letting it get this bad.

[Koga No Goshi]

Oh no, don't get me wrong, I think leaving the market alone will lead to an immense tragedy. I'm just saying to hell with it. We deserve hellish torment for letting it get this bad.

What infuriates me, and I can't emphasize this enough, is that the people who most were responsible for this are not going to suffer, no matter which way the bailout decision goes. In either case the pain is left with the taxpayers. I don't think a crash would fix a thing or make any of the people who did this "hurt." We'd need mass mobbings and guillotines to accomplish that.

[Jolt]

And of course, since you don't like the capitalists gaining too much money, and being responsible for this vicious cicle, makes you either a socialist or a communist (In the USA I think.) I think a good left-wing socialist welfare state would only revive the USA and help terminate some of the most stupid things I've seen in the Western world.

[Koga No Goshi]

And of course, since you don't like the capitalists gaining too much money, and being responsible for this vicious cicle, makes you either a socialist or a communist (In the USA I think.) I think a good left-wing socialist welfare state would only revive the USA and help terminate some of the most stupid things I've seen in the Western world.

Frequently called a Commie, yes, but since anything to the left of Margaret Thatcher = Communist to American Republicans, it's a rather meaningless blanket.

[Lord Winter]

WON'T? As far as I'm aware, the Great Depression only got "Great" because one of the "measures" the current president at that time did was letting the market work for itself.

Hubert got everyone to try to pump money into it a few ruined billianorees latter it was worse. Throwing money at a black hole dosn't mean you plug it.

[Kralizec]

The CEO's ought to be held accountable for such disasters. Stockholders don't care about the longterm health of a company because the vast majority of them is only waiting for a good moment in the near future to sell them. Making this change won't solve the current mess but will prevent future ones if implemented properly.

I just voted no. I think it would be preferable if the government would just buy a ton of houses from involvant families and some of the mortgages (not the crappiest ones at the bottom of the pile, though), or any solution that doesn't involve shareholders.

[drone]

The House says: No!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092900623.html?hpid=topnews
Markets, understandably, plummet.

[HoreTore]

What infuriates me, and I can't emphasize this enough, is that the people who most were responsible for this are not going to suffer, no matter which way the bailout decision goes.

I think I heard something on the news about a possible investigation that may result in jail time for the CEO's. Anyone got info on that?

EDIT: Also, the current situation should really shake even the most hardened freemarketeer up from his daydreaming and face the reality that the current system just isn't working. If this had happened in a country like the USSR, China or EU, conservative yanks would be relentless in their criticism of it.

[Lemur]

A handy graphic from the LA Times:


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/bailoutgraph.gif

[cmacq]

This has been a long time in coming, and the people say they want change. Thus, its time to start anew, and the cards will fall as they may. Most are sick of the betrayal, thieving, and lies. The ledger must be balanced, all debts cleared, and atonements made! Prepare the bounty hunters, inform the hangman and ready the gallows...


the piper may now be paid, and watch oil fall like a rock!


CmacQ

[drone]

I think I heard something on the news about a possible investigation that may result in jail time for the CEO's. Anyone got info on that?

Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae get subpoenas (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092900825.html)

AIG has been under investigation since March (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR2008092403589.html)

Lehman/FM/FM/AIG (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/24/AR2008092400754.html), the first time I saw anything about the investigations.

To my untrained eye, the FBI is mainly looking into accounting issues, whether or not they broke laws by hiding losses in financial reports. If they can find some cooking of the books, maybe we can claim some heads.

I think I'm fairly happy with the House right now. I'm sure this is going to be painful, but the fact that neither party's leadership could get enough votes (for different reasons) makes me feel better. Revolt!

[Lemur]

Just so we all know, apparently the failed vote was entirely Obama's fault (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14087.html).


“From the minute John McCain suspended his campaign and arrived in Washington to address this crisis, he was attacked by the Democratic leadership: Senators Obama and Reid, Speaker Pelosi and others. Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis. By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families. [...]

“Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.

“This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.”

[Ironside]

Just so we all know, apparently the failed vote was entirely Obama's fault (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14087.html).


“From the minute John McCain suspended his campaign and arrived in Washington to address this crisis, he was attacked by the Democratic leadership: Senators Obama and Reid, Speaker Pelosi and others. Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis. By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families. [...]

“Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.

“This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.”

:inquisitive: Didn't he disagree with the bailout in the first place and suggested an alternative move?

And the money I still got on the market do not approve this chain of events :brood:

Edit: CR didn't most of the ones in congress voting no belong to the Republican party?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Um, McCain's blaming the dem leadership there, Lemur.

And the democrats control Congress. I'm getting a mite sick of the democrats never taking responsibility and blaming everything bad on the minority party.

CR

[drone]

Just so we all know, apparently the failed vote was entirely Obama's fault (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/14087.html).

Who says the vote was a failure?

[Xiahou]

I think the real interesting thing about the above story is how it illustrates the complete lack of political courage on behalf of the Democrat leadership in Congress. They're blaming the GOP for not supporting the bill and causing it's failure, when in fact it would've easily passed without GOP help were it not for the fact that 40% of their own party members voted against it as well.

Blaming Republicans makes for convenient cover for the lack of leadership on behalf of House Democrats.
ABC News: White House Has Been Told By Democrats "That There Is No Deal If McCain Doesn't Go Along." "A Democratic leadership source says that White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten has been told that Democratic votes will not be there if McCain votes no — that there is no deal if McCain doesn't go along." (George Stephanopoulos, "McCain; Holds Key To Administration's Bailout Passage On Capitol Hill," ABC News, 9/23/08)Translation: We're too gutless to pass this bill that we're telling everyone needs to pass unless a majority of Republicans also approve of it to give us political cover. They want the Republicans on board too so they won't take any blame if the thing blows up on them. Very courageous.... :sweatdrop:

[cmacq]

Um, McCain's blaming the dem leadership there, Lemur.

And the democrats control Congress. I'm getting a mite sick of the democrats never taking responsibility and blaming everything bad on the minority party.

CR



Very good point.

I just read this?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): "We Need The Republican Nominee For President To Let Us Know Where He Stands And What We Should Do." Reid: "We need, now, the Republicans to start producing some votes for us. We need the Republican nominee for president to let us know where he stands and what we should do." (Sen. Harry Reid, Press Conference, Washington, D.C., 9/23/08)

What the hell does this mean? I thought he was the Senate's Majority Leader?



CmacQ

[Crazed Rabbit]

Fun video from 2004. (http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=184743)

The GOP wanted more regulations on Fannie and Freddie, with Baker predicting a bailout from taxpayers. The dems fought any more rules on their friends, the GSEs.

CR

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

So when the government uses a not-quite privatized pair of corporations to avoid the market and give out risky loans, the market is at fault? I see.

Not that another $1T matters. You think there's going to be a depression now, how about when we can't pay the interest on our debt.

[woad&fangs]

They want the Republicans on board too so they won't take any blame if the thing blows up on them. Very courageous.... :sweatdrop:
yep:whip:

[Lemur]

I think the real interesting thing about the above story is how it illustrates the complete lack of political courage on behalf of the Democrat leadership in Congress. They're blaming the GOP for not supporting the bill and causing it's failure, when in fact it would've easily passed without GOP help were it not for the fact that 40% of their own party members voted against it as well.
Actually, the salient breakdown (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/swing-district-congressmen-doomed.html) wasn't between Dems or Repubs. The real difference was between Congressmen who are up for re-election this year and those who are not.


It's remarkable to see how strong a relationship there is between today's failed vote on the bailout and the competitive nature of different House races.

Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.

By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.

And I'm with drone — it's not at all clear that this vote was a failure. Let's see how not spending a trillion or so works out.

[Koga No Goshi]

Um, McCain's blaming the dem leadership there, Lemur.

And the democrats control Congress. I'm getting a mite sick of the democrats never taking responsibility and blaming everything bad on the minority party.

CR

Welcome to the club, like that hasn't been par for course for the past 8 years. And you need to get your facts straight, it's Bush and McCain trying to shove through a bailout, and the reason one wasn't passed last week was the Republican holdouts. Now it looks like (because of popular sentiment) both parties are having trouble getting a majority on board, either way. So we can drop the Republican persecution complex.

[Lemur]

Yeah, it's interesting that even though he suspended his campaign to work on this issue, Johnny Mac didn't have the pull to swing Repub Congresscritters to the side of Socialism. Bush is a wildly unpopular lame-duck president, so no surprises there — he could hardly be expected to move this thing.

[cmacq]

Actually, the salient breakdown (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/swing-district-congressmen-doomed.html) wasn't between Dems or Repubs. The real difference was between Congressmen who are up for re-election this year and those who are not.


It's remarkable to see how strong a relationship there is between today's failed vote on the bailout and the competitive nature of different House races.

Among 38 incumbent congressmen in races rated as "toss-up" or "lean" by Swing State Project, just 8 voted for the bailout as opposed to 30 against: a batting average of .211.

By comparison, the vote among congressmen who don't have as much to worry about was essentially even: 197 for, 198 against.

And I'm with drone — it's not at all clear that this vote was a failure. Let's see how not spending a trillion or so works out.


I'm with you both. Plus I want some very steep prison time.

[woad&fangs]

At first I was for a modified bailout plan. Now I'm perfectly content to watch the market burn.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yeah, it's interesting that even though he suspended his campaign to work on this issue, Johnny Mac didn't have the pull to swing Repub Congresscritters to the side of Socialism. Bush is a wildly unpopular lame-duck president, so no surprises there — he could hardly be expected to move this thing.

Bush and McCain being hardcore for something that a lot of Republicans seem to be against should be yet another identity crisis checkpoint for the party. But a lot of people seem happier to pretend the Reps are all of one mind on this and it's the Dems being the problem.

P.S. Cheers from a Dem against the bailout.... this is a non-partisan issue.

[caravel]

Indeed let it burn. Enough with giving away taxpayer's money to bail out irresponible yuppies.

[drone]

Leadership on both sides is severely lacking. The President, as one WaPo columnist recently stated, isn't a lame duck, he's a dead duck. Pelosi has been terrible as Speaker, the House Dems need to vote her off the island soon.

[Koga No Goshi]

Leadership on both sides is severely lacking. The President, as one WaPo columnist recently stated, isn't a lame duck, he's a dead duck. Pelosi has been terrible as Speaker, the House Dems need to vote her off the island soon.

A dead duck still contaminated with a wildly virulent and contagious plague would be even more apt. Even Republicans don't want to touch him with a 10 foot stick, even at their own convention. ;)

[Spino]

Yeah, it's interesting that even though he suspended his campaign to work on this issue, Johnny Mac didn't have the pull to swing Repub Congresscritters to the side of Socialism. Bush is a wildly unpopular lame-duck president, so no surprises there — he could hardly be expected to move this thing.

Yes but what about those 94 Democrats who voted against the bill? A higher percentage of Democratic Congressmen broke with their party and voted against the bill than Republicans who bucked their party and voted for it. Of those 94 votes the Democrats couldn't scratch out the 20 or so needed to pass the bill?

Thanks for that link referencing election year concerns. It should never come as a surprise when a politician puts re-election before principles (although, in this case many Republicans were actually voting for their traditional party principles as opposed to those who broke with said principles during the spending binges that took place during the Bush administration).

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

And the money I still got on the market do not approve this chain of events :brood:


If you play your cards right, it can make you money in the long run.

[Koga No Goshi]

Yes but what about those 94 Democrats who voted against the bill? A higher percentage of Democratic Congressmen broke with their party and voted against the bill than Republicans who bucked their party and voted for it. Of those 94 votes the Democrats couldn't scratch out the 20 or so needed to pass the bill?

Thanks for that link referencing election year concerns. It should never come as a surprise when a politician puts re-election before principles (although, in this case many Republicans were actually voting for their traditional party principles as opposed to those who broke with the spending binges during the Bush administration).

I think we all need to keep in mind that this is not the Imperial Senate in Star Wars. This is one month out from a major election and Congressional offices have been flooded with furious letters and calls about the bailout-- there is NO major support from the public. The momentum among politicians, the President, and the business sector has ranged from "We HAVE to do something, NOW!" to "Sigh, I guess we have to do it or this will get much worse." From the public, the insistent attitude is more like oh hell no, let it all burn, I don't care if the market crashes more.

So, to simply call it the lack of kneecaps or leadership amongst the parties is a bit off mark. Politicians are always on the cautious side right before an election, true, but they are torn between being insisted upon that this will cause another great depression from the "experts" and business community on Wall Street, and the public on the other hand hopping mad. And I still have not heard from anyone (well, besides Bush) who even CLAIMS to understand this crisis, what the implications are, why the 700 billion figure was selected, how it would be used, or how it would prevent specific economic calamities. I think that's true for most of the people in Congress, too. It's just fear tactics on one side and angry public on the other. Unless they are getting VASTLY more detailed information and the media isn't bothering to share or report it, they're almost making a big decision in the dark. I don't blame them for wanting to wait and get both parties on board with one decision or the other-- if they vote no, and the doomsday people are correct, they will have just voted in the economic end of our country as we know it. If they vote yes, and the doomsday people were selfserving liars, they've just gutted the treasury and handed it away to thieves.

Easy decision? Maybe on a forum, with no real responsibility for how the decision turns out. :)

[cmacq]

I think we all need to keep in mind that this is not the Imperial Senate in Star Wars. This is one month out from a major election and Congressional offices have been flooded with furious letters and calls about the bailout-- there is NO major support from the public. The momentum among politicians, the President, and the business sector has ranged from "We HAVE to do something, NOW!" to "Sigh, I guess we have to do it or this will get much worse." From the public, the insistent attitude is more like oh hell no, let it all burn, I don't care if the market crashes more.

So, to simply call it the lack of kneecaps or leadership amongst the parties is a bit off mark. Politicians are always on the cautious side right before an election, true, but they are torn between being insisted upon that this will cause another great depression from the "experts" and business community on Wall Street, and the public on the other hand hopping mad. And I still have not heard from anyone (well, besides Bush) who even CLAIMS to understand this crisis, what the implications are, why the 700 billion figure was selected, how it would be used, or how it would prevent specific economic calamities. I think that's true for most of the people in Congress, too. It's just fear tactics on one side and angry public on the other. Unless they are getting VASTLY more detailed information and the media isn't bothering to share or report it, they're almost making a big decision in the dark. I don't blame them for wanting to wait and get both parties on board with one decision or the other-- if they vote no, and the doomsday people are correct, they will have just voted in the economic end of our country as we know it. If they vote yes, and the doomsday people were selfserving liars, they've just gutted the treasury and handed it away to thieves.

Easy decision? Maybe on a forum, with no real responsibility for how the decision turns out. :)

You really don't understand Americans, do you?

[Koga No Goshi]

You really don't understand Americans, do you?

Um? You mean, demanding and unreasonable and rapidly blanket-judgmental? :)

[seireikhaan]

Hmm...

I wonder if George is practicing his fiddle right now? :jester:

Jokes aside, I'm glad on a principal that this bill failed. Yeah, this(these) next few year(s) will undoubtedly be rough and will suck. But, America's gotten soft and credit-happy. We need to learn a lesson.

[Spino]

Leadership on both sides is severely lacking. The President, as one WaPo columnist recently stated, isn't a lame duck, he's a dead duck. Pelosi has been terrible as Speaker, the House Dems need to vote her off the island soon.

Not gonna happen... at least not until the mob feels the pain of this self inflicted wound that's about to gush red, white and blue all over the place.

You know, I get the feeling whomever is going to be in elected office over the next 4 years, regardless of their party affiliation, will wind up being some of the most unpopular and hated politicians this country has ever had. Obama might wind up winning the Presidency only to have his ego fueled pipe dreams of being beloved by the masses dashed by the seething hatred of the mob looking for an outlet for their frustration. It's going to get reeeeallly ugly.

[cmacq]

Hmm...

I wonder if George is practicing his fiddle right now? :jester:

Jokes aside, I'm glad on a principal that this bill failed. Yeah, this(these) next few year(s) will undoubtedly be rough and will suck. But, America's gotten soft and credit-happy. We need to learn a lesson.

Agreed.

[Koga No Goshi]

Not gonna happen... at least not until the mob feels the pain of this self inflicted wound that's about to gush red, white and blue all over the place.

You know, I get the feeling whomever is going to be in elected office over the next 4 years, regardless of their party affiliation, will wind up being some of the most unpopular and hated politicians this country has ever had. Obama might wind up winning the Presidency only to have his ego fueled pipe dreams of being beloved by the masses dashed by the seething hatred of the mob looking for an outlet for their frustration. It's going to get reeeeallly ugly.

This is because despite all the praise we Americans heap on ourselves, we don't actually believe we should ever have to sacrifice, ever. People complain about schools, but want tax cuts. Complain about crime, but want tax cuts. Want to go to war, but want tax cuts.

And, unfortunately, we've been fed the idea over the years that not only can we have our cake, eat it too, but then we can even start cannibalizing ourselves once the cake is gone and it will still taste just as good.

[Hosakawa Tito]

I am glad it was voted down. Hold these :daisy: feet to the fire a bit longer. Don't believe for a minute that the Administration and pols from both parties didn't know this financial meltdown was coming; they were just hoping the :daisy: didn't hit the fan till after the election. Now, in less than a week, they want to stampede us into a $700 billion bailout (where'd they pull that figure from?) with vague specifics and "promises to address...um later" the flaws in the system. Some of these corporate officers and the rating agencies who rated junk securities as AAA have colluded to commit fraud, while federal regulators have looked the other way or had their warnings suppressed. I want to see a perp walk. I want to see jail time for the worst offenders and fines + banishment from the financial industry for the others. And I want to see it before the taxpayer hands over a dime.

[drone]

And I still have not heard from anyone (well, besides Bush) who even CLAIMS to understand this crisis, what the implications are, why the 700 billion figure was selected, how it would be used, or how it would prevent specific economic calamities. I think that's true for most of the people in Congress, too.

IIRC, I think the $700b comes from the deficit cap limitation. Got raised to $1.5t recently, so it meshes with the current spending to get that number.

My rep (Republican) voted for it. Makes it easier to vote against him come November.


You know, I get the feeling whomever is going to be in elected office over the next 4 years, regardless of their party affiliation, will wind up being some of the most unpopular and hated politicians this country has ever had. Obama might wind up winning the Presidency only to have his ego fueled pipe dreams of being beloved by the masses dashed by the seething hatred of the mob looking for an outlet for their frustration. It's going to get reeeeallly ugly.
I think it's very early in this thread, but I said the same thing. This was before the current crash, but signs were there along with the mess in Iraq/Afghanistan. Whoever wins this is going to be a one termer. We had, what, 15 candidates at the start? All wanting the job of janitor. :inquisitive:

[Koga No Goshi]

IIRC, I think the $700b comes from the deficit cap limitation. Got raised to $1.5t recently, so it meshes with the current spending to get that number.

My rep (Republican) voted for it. Makes it easier to vote against him come November.


I have heard from multiple sources that, when asked, Paulson's staff and such are admitting the number was just made up. They knew they needed a big amount and there is no guarantee they won't come back later asking for a trill.

[Ice]

Sorry if I missed anyone, but this post by Ironside was the most correct out of everything I've read so far:


As for the bailout, a reluctant yes, if done properly it would keep the economy up, mostly repay itself back and give the investors a nasty burn aswell

It's nice to see the usual partisan rhetoric going on in this thread and Congress. Instead of solving this in the least painful way and listen to the two men who actually know they are talking about, I have about -5% faith in Congress, what does Congress do? Bicker and Bicker and Bicker about stupid stuff that could wait. I'm going to have to agree with Tribesman that most, if not all politicians, are a waste of air.

While I can see the angle many of the absolute free marketers are getting out, theory and reality are two different things. Guys, this is bad. REAL BAD. If the FED hadn't take the appropriate steps already, this would have been a hell of a lot worse (think depression). I'm not going to put this country, 99% of which isn't responsible for this problem, to hell for a few years just to say I stood my ground.

Another issue is the bailout money. 700 billion is an estimation of the total bad debt that needs to be purchased from companies. This isn't set in stone, nor is will we simply add this debt to the national debt. Most of this debt, quite possibly could be recovered, so we are most likely looking at a much smaller number.

Sorry if this is a little vague, but I have had a really long day and decided to respond here as I consider this the most important thread quite possibly on this forum.

Likewise, apologies again if I sound arrogant, but I have a class entitled "Money and Banking" which deals with this three times a week for atleast an hour, not counting out of class work and discussion. This is also my professors field of specialty and he personally knows/communicates a few of the actual FED board members.

Edit: I forgot to add my opinion on investors. This "bailout" will still give investors a nasty burn. Most will only be able to recover a small amount of their portfolio. There are no free rides.

[Koga No Goshi]

Let me "put a face" on 700 billion for you. This is taken directly from Time Magazine, so those of you who are geekboys like me and read it might have seen this already.

What you could do with 700,000,000,000 dollars:

*Give every person in the United States $2,300.

*Pay the income taxes of every American who makes $500,000 per year or less.

*Fully fund the Defense, Treasury, Education, State, Veterans Affairs and Interior departments next year, as well as NASA.

*Buy gasoline for every car in the U.S. for 16 months.

*Buy every NFL, NBA and Major League Baseball team and build each one a new stadium - and pay your players $191 million apiece for a year.

*Create the 17th largest economy in the world, roughly equal to the Netherlands.

*Or, you could pay off 7% of the 9.8 trillion dollar national debt.

[Ice]

I am glad it was voted down. Hold these :daisy: feet to the fire a bit longer. Don't believe for a minute that the Administration and pols from both parties didn't know this financial meltdown was coming; they were just hoping the :daisy: didn't hit the fan till after the election. Now, in less than a week, they want to stampede us into a $700 billion bailout (where'd they pull that figure from?) with vague specifics and "promises to address...um later" the flaws in the system. Some of these corporate officers and the rating agencies who rated junk securities as AAA have colluded to commit fraud, while federal regulators have looked the other way or had their warnings suppressed. I want to see a perp walk. I want to see jail time for the worst offenders and fines + banishment from the financial industry for the others. And I want to see it before the taxpayer hands over a dime.

There will hearings, as the FBI is looking into the matter now, but such things take time. Taxpayer money wouldn't do much if we wait till next year to do anything.

This isn't actually the administration who put this together either. Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and the Treasury Secretary , both very smart men, put this together.

One last time for clarity: Although I disagree with most of you on what needs to be done, I do see your point of view. Just because I want a "Bailout" doesn't mean that I'm not pissed at these SOBS. There will be justice for most, but these things take time.

[Koga No Goshi]

While I can see the angle many of the absolute free marketers are getting out, theory and reality are two different things. Guys, this is bad. REAL BAD. If the FED hadn't take the appropriate steps already, this would have been a hell of a lot worse (think depression). I'm not going to put this country, 99% of which isn't responsible for this problem, to hell for a few years just to say I stood my ground.


I agree it probably has to be done. I'm digging in my feet and being stubborn, knowing that my personal opinion isn't going to change that something HAS to be done. And I actually do trust Congress, on the whole, to recognize that and act accordingly. But I think the partisanship comes in when people are trying to use this as a way to, yet again, sneak in provisions for no oversight, no regulation, no accountability, or corporate tax cuts (such as with the McCain alternative plan.) If this bill had gone through exactly as our President presented it and insisted it MUST pass, QUICKLY, with no add-on's, without oversight and regulation attached, there's no telling how this money would have been used and it would be too late to try to do something about it being misused. I don't think having serious concerns about DOING THIS RIGHT, rather than DOING THIS FAST, and not being billygoated into signing something too quick like with other bad big gubment interventions like the Patriot Act can, or should, be called partisan hackery.

[Caius]

Now, will the Gov save the people? or the market?

[Ice]

I agree it probably has to be done. I'm digging in my feet and being stubborn, knowing that my personal opinion isn't going to change that something HAS to be done. And I actually do trust Congress, on the whole, to recognize that and act accordingly. But I think the partisanship comes in when people are trying to use this as a way to, yet again, sneak in provisions for no oversight, no regulation, no accountability, or corporate tax cuts (such as with the McCain alternative plan.) If this bill had gone through exactly as our President presented it and insisted it MUST pass, QUICKLY, with no add-on's, without oversight and regulation attached, there's no telling how this money would have been used and it would be too late to try to do something about it being misused. I don't think having serious concerns about DOING THIS RIGHT, rather than DOING THIS FAST, and not being billygoated into signing something too quick like with other bad big gubment interventions like the Patriot Act can, or should, be called partisan hackery.

Doing right is doing it fast. The more time we waste bickering over stupid things, (exectitve compensation, in a 700 BILLION DOLLAR Bill), the faster we can start the recovery.

I'm amazed you actually trust Congress. Have you listened to a lot of what the big shots (speaker of the house, leader of the senate majority) sound like? They don't know their *** from their face. There is a reason why Bernanke and Paulson made the bill a page and half long.

[Ice]

Now, will the Gov save the people? or the market?

In this case, both.

[Koga No Goshi]

Doing right is doing it fast. The more time we waste bickering over stupid things, (exectitve compensation, in a 700 BILLION DOLLAR Bill), the faster we can start the recovery.

I'm amazed you actually trust Congress. Have you listened to a lot of what the big shots (speaker of the house, leader of the senate majority) sound like? They don't know their *** from their face. There is a reason why Bernanke and Paulson made the bill a page and half long.

I trust Congress on the whole to recognize that something must be done and act accordingly. The fact that SOME form of bill WAS going to be passed has been an almost foregone conclusion since day one, whereas if public sentiment had its way this thing would be dead, dead, dead. So that puts Congress at the very least ahead of the general public, in this case, doesn't it?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Welcome to the club, like that hasn't been par for course for the past 8 years. And you need to get your facts straight, it's Bush and McCain trying to shove through a bailout, and the reason one wasn't passed last week was the Republican holdouts. Now it looks like (because of popular sentiment) both parties are having trouble getting a majority on board, either way. So we can drop the Republican persecution complex.

I need to get my facts straight? Where did I say Bush and McCain haven't been pushing the bailout?

And as I said; Democrats have a majority. Minority Republican holdouts were trivial to passing the bill last week.

It didn't pass because 40% of dems voted against it. I wasn't complaining of 'Republican persecution' but of incessant democratic evasion of responsibility.

Sorry, Kush, but I'm still not convinced. There's a lot of good arguments to be made against the bill from what I've read (on realclearmarkets.com ).

CR

[Ice]

I trust Congress on the whole to recognize that something must be done and act accordingly. The fact that SOME form of bill WAS going to be passed has been an almost foregone conclusion since day one, whereas if public sentiment had its way this thing would be dead, dead, dead. So that puts Congress at the very least ahead of the general public, in this case, doesn't it?

Considering the bill failed due to partisan reasons, no it doesn't.

BTW, this is funny. I just caught Pelosi, speaker of the house, on tv addressing the House. She blames this all on the republicans, which is HILARIOUS due to the fact that this was a combination of FED policy, democratic policy, and republican policy. This is why I hate politicians with an utter passion.

She then goes on to talk about what great credentials Paulson has along with Bernanke. She calls Bernanke an expert on the Great Depression, which closely resembles what is going on now, but then wonders why the bill drafted by the two gives sole power to them to deal with the crisis and any extra money. It honestly boggles the mind. She is a idiot.

[Ice]

Sorry, Kush, but I'm still not convinced. There's a lot of good arguments to be made against the bill from what I've read (on realclearmarkets.com ).

CR

I'd like to see some if you wouldn't mind posting. Like I've repeatably said, I can see where you guys are coming from, but when the you have banks failing and freezing up liquidity, you have major problems. Does anyone enjoy paying 20% interest on a loan? I know I don't. Hey, who needs cash for college? I'm currently paying an absurd premium on my students loans due to this. What about a new mortgage?

[seireikhaan]

Considering the bill failed due to partisan reasons, no it doesn't.

BTW, this is funny. I just caught Pelosi, speaker of the house, on tv addressing the House. She blames this all on the republicans, which is HILARIOUS due to the fact that this was a combination of FED policy, democratic policy, and republican policy. This is why I hate politicians with an utter passion.

She then goes on to talk about what great credentials Paulson has along with Bernanke. She calls Bernanke an expert on the Great Depression, which closely resembles what is going on now, but then wonders why the bill drafted by the two gives sole power to them to deal with the crisis and any extra money. It honestly boggles the mind. She is a idiot.
Exactly why America needs a purging. In a democracy, change must come from the bottom up, from the people. Perhaps if this crisis rocks us enough, we'll wake up not just to meet our own financial responsibilities, but also stop having such apathy over our political situation.

[GeneralHankerchief]

I trust Congress on the whole to recognize that something must be done and act accordingly. The fact that SOME form of bill WAS going to be passed has been an almost foregone conclusion since day one, whereas if public sentiment had its way this thing would be dead, dead, dead. So that puts Congress at the very least ahead of the general public, in this case, doesn't it?

If the public wants it dead, dead, dead, who is Congress to deny them?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Exactly why America needs a purging. In a democracy, change must come from the bottom up, from the people. Perhaps if this crisis rocks us enough, we'll wake up not just to meet our own financial responsibilities, but also stop having such apathy over our political situation.

Ban the Democratic Party and Republican Party and force them to create completely new ones. Something like that. :dizzy2:

[seireikhaan]

Ban the Democratic Party and Republican Party and force them to create completely new ones. Something like that. :dizzy2:
:inquisitive:

Wow, way to totally misrepresent my statement. Good job.

[Koga No Goshi]

If the public wants it dead, dead, dead, who is Congress to deny them?

Well that's why we're in a you-can't-win. Both Republicans and Democrats are voting against the first couple variants of the bailout in sufficient numbers to stop passage. And that is most certainly in some part because of re-election considerations and public sentiment. I do not believe that the original bill should have been passed as-is. If it had, and that unaccountable money had gone poof, everyone would be blaming the "Democratic congress" anyway, even though a bailout has been high pressured by both McCain and Bush. It's funny that many of you seem quick to condemn that people in Congress seemed as concerned with how they'll come out in the "blame game" when this is said and done, as what's best for the country, and then quickly render your own blame judgments. Congress is never perfect but I think what we have is a result of a) our system and b) the passive aggressive moods of the voters.

I am not sure expecting better than what you're seeing is rational, given the way our system works, and given the way people cast votes. Especially in the House, where all representation is very local and each of those people is there representing a narrow slice of the constituency. I'm horrified by a lot of Bible Belt congresspeople like Coburn but I have no say in him keeping or losing his seat.

Edit: Err Colburn might be Senate? Still the same situation though, no say in his seat. ;)

[Ice]

Exactly why America needs a purging. In a democracy, change must come from the bottom up, from the people. Perhaps if this crisis rocks us enough, we'll wake up not just to meet our own financial responsibilities, but also stop having such apathy over our political situation.

They aren't apathetic, just idiotic. This is why you leave stuff like this to the Federal Reserve and Treasury Security. I mean they do this stuff for a living and are very well educated in current and past economics situations and principles. The Fed has come a very long way dealing with these kinds of crises.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Wow, way to totally misrepresent my statement. Good job.

You might say that what I said was an exaggeration, but honestly, I think it would probably be a good idea to get rid of the two-party system in America, however that is achieved. I wasn't trying to misrepresent your statement - in fact, I largely agree with it.

[Xiahou]

I'm currently of the opinion that we're basically screwed either way. We can print 700 billion dollars and have all the problems associated with that, just to get the credit machine running again- the same one that got us into this mess in the first place. Wealthy corrupt businesses will get big fat bailouts from their wealthy corrupt patrons in congress and maybe the unsustainable system can trundle on for a few more years. What's solved then? If we don't do anything we're probably heading for a serious recession. Both options stink, but right now I lean towards letting "nature" run its course.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Let's reform it Fight Club style. Problem solved.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

It's hard to say for me. I mean I didn't read (I don't know if it's available?...much less would I understand it all?) the plan the senators voted against. It seems bailing them out would not be the best idea, especially because 700 billion is just an estimate, of what it's worth. Whether the taxpayers will receive that much is not really known. Now this might mean the government would own more, which might not be such a horrible thing (but with who is currently in office, perhaps it is...).

Maybe the hindsight bias is making say this, but I would be in favor of a bill that would NOT give any amount of money to the companies, but would put restrictions on loans, mortgages, etc. It's more strict, but this devolution in these categories is obviously not working out.

My 2

[Crazed Rabbit]

Kush:
http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080929.htm
He argues buying the bad assets does nothing to lower liabilities. He proposes a streamlined bankruptcy process as well, among other things.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/luigi.zingales/Why_Paulson_is_wrong.pdf
An essay from the one thing I like about Chicago, their school of economics, on the need for a streamlined bankruptcy process.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/09/the_financial_c_1.html
Lists many problems with the plan.

I am really, insanely happy that the first version (the one that 'Republican holdouts' prevented, I suppose), did not get passed:

Thanks to the House GOP's intervention, the Paulson plan is also better than it would have been. Republicans helped to eliminate the Barney Frank-Chris Dodd slush fund for liberal housing lobbies; a plank to let judges shield deadbeat homeowners from bankruptcy laws; and a ploy to stack bank boards with union members.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122264821035984089.html

CR

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Kush:
http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080929.htm
He argues buying the bad assets does nothing to lower liabilities. He proposes a streamlined bankruptcy process as well, among other things.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/luigi.zingales/Why_Paulson_is_wrong.pdf
An essay from the one thing I like about Chicago, their school of economics, on the need for a streamlined bankruptcy process.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/09/the_financial_c_1.html
Lists many problems with the plan.

I am really, insanely happy that the first version (the one that 'Republican holdouts' prevented, I suppose), did not get passed:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122264821035984089.html

CR

Was helpful. Thanks.

EDIT: But I think this is true only in a perfect world. The corruption in these companies is changing these balance sheets and A bill (maybe not this one) would benefit by changing this (hopefully). I'm not sure what I want here...... :wall:

[HoreTore]

Thanks to the House GOP's intervention, the Paulson plan is also better than it would have been. Republicans helped to eliminate the Barney Frank-Chris Dodd slush fund for liberal housing lobbies; a plank to let judges shield deadbeat homeowners from bankruptcy laws; and a ploy to stack bank boards with union members.

That's got to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever read.

Thanks for the laugh, CR :2thumbsup:

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm currently of the opinion that we're basically screwed either way. We can print 700 billion dollars and have all the problems associated with that, just to get the credit machine running again- the same one that got us into this mess in the first place. Wealthy corrupt businesses will get big fat bailouts from their wealthy corrupt patrons in congress and maybe the unsustainable system can trundle on for a few more years. What's solved then? If we don't do anything we're probably heading for a serious recession. Both options stink, but right now I lean towards letting "nature" run its course.

This is exactly how I have felt, as well. In EITHER scenario, the party that gets screwed is the taxpayer, working and middle class. And maybe some dumb rich people who aren't rich enough to be major CEO's and own corps, but rich enough to have tied tons of money into Wall Street. The people directly responsible for this pyramid scheme? They had their golden parachutes pre-packaged. ANd they KNEW this was coming down; look at how many retired as CEO just months before this came down the pipeline. Look at how whatcha call it... Indy Mac and others were saying they were "just fine" right up until the day it was announced they were entering Federal conservatorship. Liars, the bunch of them.

I think the reason the fear tactic isn't working on us (the normal peon folk) is because the fact that we're in an economic downturn is NOT NEWS TO US LIKE IT APPEARS TO BE TO RICH PEOPLE AND INVESTORS. How long has gas been over $3 a gallon? How long have house values been going down? But, when it hits Wall Street--- then it's a crisis? The American people are stupid, but they weren't stupid enough to panic and start fleeing the theater no matter how many times Bush yelled "FIRE! FIRE!!!"

One of the neat ideas I've heard (this is pure pipedream, I'm sure, but I still love it) is get all these CEO's and execs under RICO laws, and repossess their property up to an equivalent value of what they got out of all of this racketeering. Won't happen, but I am mad for the idea.

To me this is not an issue of "I'm just stubbornly against the bailout because I'm mad at Wall Street fat cats." To me that ship has sailed; they made their money on this pyramid scheme and they're not going to be the ones losing a house (their ONLY house, to boot) over this, or struggling to make ends meet. That falls to us, the peons.

There isn't a pretty solution. I think we get screwed in this either way.


I am really, insanely happy that the first version (the one that 'Republican holdouts' prevented, I suppose), did not get passed:

Quote:
Thanks to the House GOP's intervention, the Paulson plan is also better than it would have been. Republicans helped to eliminate the Barney Frank-Chris Dodd slush fund for liberal housing lobbies; a plank to let judges shield deadbeat homeowners from bankruptcy laws; and a ploy to stack bank boards with union members.

CR I am really confused, a page back weren't you blasting the Democrats for not overwhelmingly voting lockstep to get this bailout passed? I can't even keep track of whether you are for or against the bailout that failed today. I am against it, because of insufficient accountability and the fact that it basically made Paulson into Finance Czar with no oversight of how he choose to dole out the money. Also, while you are busy applauding your little GOP minority for squashing this bill, let's not overlook that the head of the GOP (the President) and the heir apparent (McCain) both pushed for it in unchanged fashion. I agree with others that this partisan crap isn't helping but if you're going to take partisan snipes let's place blame where it's warranted.

[Crazed Rabbit]

That's got to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever read.

Thanks for the laugh, CR :2thumbsup:

Do you know what they're talking about?

I suppose not, so I'll spell it out for you:
One of the things prevented was a huge amount of money being given to ACORN ( Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ), which intimidated banks as much as they could into giving out subprime loans:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122264821035984089.html


In February 1990, Illinois regulators held what was believed to be the first-ever state hearing to consider blocking a thrift merger for lack of compliance with CRA. The challenge was filed by ACORN, led by Talbott. Officials of Bell Federal Savings and Loan Association, her target, complained that ACORN pressure was undermining its ability to meet strict financial requirements it was obligated to uphold and protested being boxed into an "affirmative-action lending policy." The following years saw Talbott featured in dozens of news stories about pressuring banks into higher-risk minority loans.

IN April 1992, Talbott filed an other precedent-setting com plaint using the "community support requirements" of the 1989 savings-and-loan bailout, this time against Avondale Federal Bank for Savings. Within a month, Chicago ACORN had organized its first "bank fair" at Malcolm X College and found 16 Chicago-area financial institutions willing to participate.

Two months later, aided by ACORN organizer Sandra Maxwell, Talbott announced plans to conduct demonstrations in the lobbies of area banks that refused to attend an ACORN-sponsored national bank "summit" in New York. She insisted that banks show a commitment to minority lending by lowering their standards on downpayments and underwriting - for example, by overlooking bad credit histories.

Koga - I was criticizing the dems not because I wanted the bill to be passed, but because they have the numbers to get it passed, and they are blaming the GOP - it is their fault and not the GOP's that it failed.

CR

[seireikhaan]

Koga - I was criticizing the dems not because I wanted the bill to be passed, but because they have the numbers to get it passed, and they are blaming the GOP - it is their fault and not the GOP's that it failed.

CR
Which is a pity- they should be congratulating those Dems that voted it down. The news media, regardless of orientation, is acting as though the world is going to explode. I have major doubts that the downturn will be as bad as the '29 depression. Not to mention that things will eventually get straightened out, and will be better for it in the long run. Point is- things will get pretty bad, but they will get better.

EDIT: Tuff is right about the last part, both deserve "blame" as far as the bill not passing. I missed that bit.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Koga - I was criticizing the dems not because I wanted the bill to be passed, but because they have the numbers to get it passed, and they are blaming the GOP - it is their fault and not the GOP's that it failed.

CR

I'm sorry CR, but both the Republicans and Democrats failed in this endeavor. The Democrats failed after the Republicans failed - but you can't say that the Republicans didn't fail.

I'm not sure that sucess would have been a good thing anyway, but the dual failure is pretty obvious.

[Koga No Goshi]

I'm sorry CR, but both the Republicans and Democrats failed in this endeavor. The Democrats failed after the Republicans failed - but you can't say that the Republicans didn't fail.

I'm not sure that sucess would have been a good thing anyway, but the dual failure is pretty obvious.

My feeling as well. I'm glad this incarnation didn't pass, and I don't think going "ha ha the Republicans blocked this one" and then "ha ha the Democrats failed to pass that one" is very informative or helpful at this point. By a 9:1 margin public calls to Congressional offices are saying no, no, no to both parties. So expecting a partisan lockstep vote either way by either side is totally unrealistic. Pelosi couldn't get all the Dems to vote yes but Bush and McCain combined could only get 1 out of 3 Republicans to vote yes. So um... let's call that one a draw. ;)

[ICantSpellDawg]

My feeling as well. I'm glad this incarnation didn't pass, and I don't think going "ha ha the Republicans blocked this one" and then "ha ha the Democrats failed to pass that one" is very informative or helpful at this point. By a 9:1 margin public calls to Congressional offices are saying no, no, no to both parties. So expecting a partisan lockstep vote either way by either side is totally unrealistic. Pelosi couldn't get all the Dems to vote yes but Bush and McCain combined could only get 1 out of 3 Republicans to vote yes. So um... let's call that one a draw. ;)

You've got to admit that her speech was insanely incendiary. I don't believe that it caused the house Republicans to vote no, but it certainly didn't inspire them with the bi-partisan sentiment necessary to get the bill through.

[Koga No Goshi]

You've got to admit that her speech was insanely incendiary. I don't believe that it caused the house Republicans to vote no, but it certainly didn't inspire them with the bi-partisan sentiment necessary to get the bill through.

If you dont' believe it influenced the Republican vote then it is totally irrelevant. It is the excuse I'm hearing floating around on the airwaves a lot for why so many Republicans voted no. It doesn't say much if Republicans sincerely believe the country needs this, to give a spite vote because they don't like Pelosi. I don't think she's the best thing since sliced bread but I think we should be getting our panties into a twist less over what she can or can't do considering that Bush and McCain together apparently can do even less than she can.

[Azi Tohak]

FYI Gentlemen: Working in Saudi my TV news source is BBC World News. I really like them, but last night while I was watching the vote, the anchor blamed Republicans for the failure. She didn't even mention that 40% of the Dems voted no. Not once.

I wonder if this is because Bush has given all Republicans a bad name or if BBC World News wants a Democrat president for the USA.

At any rate, back on topic: I still know so little about all of this I don't even know which way I would have voted. Personally, I am inclined to think that the market can (eventually) sort itself out. We've been due for another recession anyway. Yuck.

I do think it is interesting to speculate on the future. Will the USA still be a superpower? Is it still a superpower? The country has been brought low not by wars (even if they are costly) but by some greedy bastards on Wall Street.

Azi

[Koga No Goshi]

FYI Gentlemen: Working in Saudi my TV news source is BBC World News. I really like them, but last night while I was watching the vote, the anchor blamed Republicans for the failure. She didn't even mention that 40% of the Dems voted no. Not once.

I wonder if this is because Bush has given all Republicans a bad name or if BBC World News wants a Democrat president for the USA.


The vote was:

Dems Reps
Yes 140 65
No 95 133


Rep no votes nearly equalled the Dem yes votes, even though they're the minority party.

So how does it constitute a foreign conspiracy to influence our Presidential outcome by saying the Reps were primarily responsible for stopping the bill? They were. People are getting hypersensitive and tossing around the term blame. You guys should be proud the Reps stopped it, the bill in its current form is crap.

[Ice]

Kush:
http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080929.htm
He argues buying the bad assets does nothing to lower liabilities. He proposes a streamlined bankruptcy process as well, among other things.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/luigi.zingales/Why_Paulson_is_wrong.pdf
An essay from the one thing I like about Chicago, their school of economics, on the need for a streamlined bankruptcy process.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/09/the_financial_c_1.html
Lists many problems with the plan.

I am really, insanely happy that the first version (the one that 'Republican holdouts' prevented, I suppose), did not get passed:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122264821035984089.html

CR

Thanks, CR. I'll get back to you tommorow or when I have some free time. My brain is fried, and I don't want you to think I'm blowing you off.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I realise that this is not really the time to be talking about solutions longer-term, but you might be interested in this analysis of the Santander Bank (http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/big-question/the-big-question-why-are-spanish-banks-in-such-rude-health-when-ours-are-ailing-946135.html), a Spanish business that is quietly growing on the back of the British government's panic.


Not only has Santander weathered the storm, it has spectacularly benefited from it, announcing 9bn euros profit this year, a staggering 19.3 per cent improvement on last year.

Two reasons, really: first the Spanish banking system is very strictly regulated, largely as a result of a devastating crisis that shook the country's banking industry in the 1970s, and sent many regional and family banks to the wall. The Bank of Spain imposes iron controls in assuming high-risk assets, and insists that ordinary customers be protected from their vagaries. Second, Santander concentrates on retail banking – the unsexy stuff of high-street branches, current accounts and savings deposits – rather than investment banking, or anything fancier. The bank reckons its business is therefore largely immune from market swings.

In other words, a really conservative bank. You know, conservative in the real sense of the word.

[Koga No Goshi]

I realise that this is not really the time to be talking about solutions longer-term, but you might be interested in this analysis of the Santander Bank (http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/big-question/the-big-question-why-are-spanish-banks-in-such-rude-health-when-ours-are-ailing-946135.html), a Spanish business that is quietly growing on the back of the British government's panic.


Not only has Santander weathered the storm, it has spectacularly benefited from it, announcing 9bn euros profit this year, a staggering 19.3 per cent improvement on last year.

Two reasons, really: first the Spanish banking system is very strictly regulated, largely as a result of a devastating crisis that shook the country's banking industry in the 1970s, and sent many regional and family banks to the wall. The Bank of Spain imposes iron controls in assuming high-risk assets, and insists that ordinary customers be protected from their vagaries. Second, Santander concentrates on retail banking – the unsexy stuff of high-street branches, current accounts and savings deposits – rather than investment banking, or anything fancier. The bank reckons its business is therefore largely immune from market swings.

In other words, a really conservative bank. You know, conservative in the real sense of the word.

A lot of very conservative banks that operate in the U.S. are doing just fine. The Japanese banks, for instance, here on the West Coast, are doing okay, such as Union Bank of California. (There are several others, the names just elude me at the moment.) One of the prime reasons of course is that they really only gave loans on relatively "strict" guidelines, you had to basically have A credit to get an A loan. (Sort of a novel concept in today's context.) But, six months ago, a year ago... people were saying "screw you guys, you're not competitive, you're offering me 3%? PFFT" and took their money to the risky subprime mortgage & re-fi based savings/CD/banks. (I heard this all the time, working in an accounting office.)

It brings a quote to mind. After I read this, I never forgot it. It's so eminently relevant to so much of what's going on in America today, from economics to foreign policy.

Smedley Butler on Interventionism
-- Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I talked to a stock broker and former loan officer on the phone for 2 hours last night (family friend). This guy is a real genius. Anyway, I have a lot better understanding of where a lot of this came from, but long story short a bill should be passed because it's the only thing we really can do at this point. We have to make sure we watch over them like hawks though, and I would agree with him, some people need to be arrested.

[Lemur]

A great point (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/09/29/aftermath/):


If things are indeed as bad as the proponents say, and if they are the responsible, sober voices of wisdom that they pretend to be, the truly irresponsible thing was to wait up until the last weeks before the recess, rush out a terrible plan, demand immediate adoption of this terrible plan (which they were happy to admit in public was a terrible plan) and then not even correctly gauge the level of support for the legislation before bringing it to a vote. Calling the question when there likely wasn’t enough support (as opponents of the bill had said yesterday!), if you believe what these people claim to believe, was an act of brazen recklessness. If they are wrong about the consequences of not adopting this plan, they are merely politically incompetent.

[Mangudai]

Kush:
http://hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc080929.htm
He argues buying the bad assets does nothing to lower liabilities. He proposes a streamlined bankruptcy process as well, among other things.

http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/luigi.zingales/Why_Paulson_is_wrong.pdf
An essay from the one thing I like about Chicago, their school of economics, on the need for a streamlined bankruptcy process.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2008/09/the_financial_c_1.html
Lists many problems with the plan.

I am really, insanely happy that the first version (the one that 'Republican holdouts' prevented, I suppose), did not get passed:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122264821035984089.html

CR

Good stuff there.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I realise that this is not really the time to be talking about solutions longer-term, but you might be interested in this analysis of the Santander Bank (http://www.independent.co.uk/extras/big-question/the-big-question-why-are-spanish-banks-in-such-rude-health-when-ours-are-ailing-946135.html), a Spanish business that is quietly growing on the back of the British government's panic.


Not only has Santander weathered the storm, it has spectacularly benefited from it, announcing 9bn euros profit this year, a staggering 19.3 per cent improvement on last year.

Two reasons, really: first the Spanish banking system is very strictly regulated, largely as a result of a devastating crisis that shook the country's banking industry in the 1970s, and sent many regional and family banks to the wall. The Bank of Spain imposes iron controls in assuming high-risk assets, and insists that ordinary customers be protected from their vagaries. Second, Santander concentrates on retail banking – the unsexy stuff of high-street branches, current accounts and savings deposits – rather than investment banking, or anything fancier. The bank reckons its business is therefore largely immune from market swings.

In other words, a really conservative bank. You know, conservative in the real sense of the word.

Indeed. De-regulation in the late 1990s allowed new avenues for making profits in America. Those who used those opportunities wisely are doing fine.

But our problem is beyond mere capitalistic greed - the government and special interest groups pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to accept sub prime loans and the government didn't put the standard regulations on Fannie and Freddie.

I'm hearing the Democrat leadership is going to reinstall the liberal provisions of the bill to get more demos on board, including a huge amount of money for ACORN, the special interest group that pushed for giving sub prime loans to poor minorities.

CR

[HoreTore]

How about raising wages to make poor people afford a house instead of playing with the loan market?

[Koga No Goshi]

Indeed. De-regulation in the late 1990s allowed new avenues for making profits in America. Those who used those opportunities wisely are doing fine.

But our problem is beyond mere capitalistic greed - the government and special interest groups pushed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to accept sub prime loans and the government didn't put the standard regulations on Fannie and Freddie.

I'm hearing the Democrat leadership is going to reinstall the liberal provisions of the bill to get more demos on board, including a huge amount of money for ACORN, the special interest group that pushed for giving sub prime loans to poor minorities.

CR

Seriously, stop with the reinventing history. If you want to turn this into a pure partisan matter (and of course, from your perspective, it is all and only the Democrats) then let's get into the ownership society. Whose deal is that? Bush. You guys are still complaining to this day about the New Deal, when your party has given us such wonderful things as the ownership society, the idea that you can have whatever you want, with a joke tax cut, on a subprime loan, a credit card, or by taking a part time minimum wage job or going to night school. This is the guy who told us to go shopping after 9/11.

"We're creating... an ownership society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property. - President George W. Bush, October 2004."

Any finger you want to point at the Dems, three more are pointing back at you. The fact that we were even in a housing bubble is in large part because of heavily (not exclusively, but dominantly) Republican policies of deregulation, tax incentives for outsourcing, and the gutting of many major domestic industries. The last big cash cow was the housing market, and people's ability to pull big credit out of a house to pay for things their jobs didn't afford them but the economy depended on people buying (no matter how much we want to lecture about individual responsibility.) The fact that subprime loans were popping up like Starbucks was the result of deregulation of the financial markets, not regulation. The fact that they were not checking credit scores or income was deregulation. This was private failure enabled by pro-business, deregulation policies. This was not private victimhood brought on by too much regulation.

And, if you want to make this all about homeownership regulations regarding Freddie and Fannie, and blame it on the Dems... well, you guys controlled all three branches for nearly 8 years. But you were too busy with your ownership society.

I love how the defense of Republicans today, especially the McCain campaign, is "well we've been talking about the need for reform in the housing market for awhile now." Yeah, well, you did nothing with 7 and change years in control of government about it, so we know what your words were worth, right?

[Spino]

You've got to admit that her speech was insanely incendiary. I don't believe that it caused the house Republicans to vote no, but it certainly didn't inspire them with the bi-partisan sentiment necessary to get the bill through.

I can understand why she said those things... She's probably still bitter about the fact that nobody bought her recent book. :laugh4:

Nothing makes an egomaniac more bitter and resentful than when they're being blatantly ignored.

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #28,245

http://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Power-Americas-Daughters/dp/0385525869/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222794427&sr=8-2

[Koga No Goshi]

Nothing makes an egomaniac more bitter and resentful than when they're being blatantly ignored.
http://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Power-Americas-Daughters/dp/0385525869/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1222794427&sr=8-2

Certainly explains McCain, and Bush too for that matter. Spino, is there any political opinion you have that doesn't boil down to, some half-baked psychological deconstruction which seems exclusively reserved for people not on your side of the aisle? Someone listens to too much Michael Savage.

[Mangudai]

then let's get into the ownership society. Whose deal is that?


It's both parties. The "ownership society" has been promoted by both parties.

1994 changes in regulation of employee stock options were a major cause of the 2002 downturn. We had incentives in place to inflate stock prices rather than actual earnings. Dems favored generous employee stock options, to give workers a share of their company. Republicans liked the idea too in 1994, they finally fixed it.



According to US generally accepted accounting principles in effect before June 2005, stock options granted to employees did not need to be recognized as an expense on the income statement when granted, although the cost was disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. This allows a potentially large form of employee compensation to not show up as an expense in the current year, and therefore, currently overstate income. Many assert that over-reporting of income by methods such as this by American corporations was one contributing factor in the Stock Market Downturn of 2002.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_stock_option



http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Who was pushing home ownership beyond any rational limits?

[Koga No Goshi]

It's both parties. The "ownership society" has been promoted by both parties.

1994 changes in regulation of employee stock options were a major cause of the 2002 downturn. We had incentives in place to inflate stock prices rather than actual earnings. Dems favored generous employee stock options, to give workers a share of their company. Republicans liked the idea too in 1994, they finally fixed it.


I agree Clinton was crap. "Centrist" as the Republicans would say, or "Republican" as my brand of Dem would say, on economic issues. But, that was 14 years ago. 1994 was FOURTEEN YEARS AGO, even if Clinton feels like yesterday to people. So I still fail to see how posters like CR can legitimately convince themselves that after 2 terms of FULL Republican control, this is all the fault of Democrats, or even primarily so would be a stretch in my mind. The bar here seems to be, the Dems need to do everything correctly the first time, and fix anything wrong that the excesses of greed or corporate influence that inhabit the Rep party might try to slip in here and there, because we can't count on the Reps to do crap but line pockets and pick their nose. That is the message I'm getting out of people like CR who claim to be SO against the conditions that enabled all of this, while his political party sat in control for the last 8 years. Clearly he and his party have a difference in opinion as to whether or not regulation or deregulation was needed.

Again, goin back to page 1... deregulation has been the mantra of the GOP since Reagan. All these fake protests now, after the fact, about how McCain or the Republicans or the GOP or this or that or so and so's friend George "talked about better control of the financial industry" isn't worth the paper it was never printed on.

[Ronin]

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/vincent_pt/sinfest_money.jpg


it´s funny....because it´s true :book:

[Spino]

Certainly explains McCain, and Bush too for that matter. Spino, is there any political opinion you have that doesn't boil down to, some half-baked psychological deconstruction which seems exclusively reserved for people not on your side of the aisle? Someone listens to too much Michael Savage.

Or Franks, or Obama, or Biden, or Stevens, and so on and so on and so on. Pelosi is like Bush, she's far too easy to pick on but you do it anyway because you can't help yourself. You're reading waaaay too much into my comedic drive-by. Feel free to let one loose at a Republican congressmen/senator of your choosing.

Savage? Bah. I don't listen to talk radio, there's far better things I can do with my time... like playing computer games or flaming in my favorite forums.

You see Idaho has shown me the light. I'm all about the drive-bys now. I've decided to cash in my partisan bickering wheels for a dee-lux pimped out gangsta coach with phat rims and a Tec-9 stashed under the seat. I offered to ride shotgun for Idaho but he said no way, I might ruin his custom Corinthian leather upholstery... :sad: :no:

[Koga No Goshi]

You see Idaho has shown me the light. I'm all about the drive-bys now. I've decided to cash in my partisan bickering wheels for a dee-lux pimped out gangsta coach with phat rims and a Tec-9 stashed under the seat.

I wasn't aware you ever did much more than that in political discussions anyway, but suit yourself.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Any finger you want to point at the Dems, three more are pointing back at you. The fact that we were even in a housing bubble is in large part because of heavily (not exclusively, but dominantly) Republican policies of deregulation, tax incentives for outsourcing, and the gutting of many major domestic industries. The last big cash cow was the housing market, and people's ability to pull big credit out of a house to pay for things their jobs didn't afford them but the economy depended on people buying (no matter how much we want to lecture about individual responsibility.) The fact that subprime loans were popping up like Starbucks was the result of deregulation of the financial markets, not regulation. The fact that they were not checking credit scores or income was deregulation. This was private failure enabled by pro-business, deregulation policies. This was not private victimhood brought on by too much regulation.

And, if you want to make this all about homeownership regulations regarding Freddie and Fannie, and blame it on the Dems... well, you guys controlled all three branches for nearly 8 years. But you were too busy with your ownership society.

And the dems control congress and can't pass the bailout. But when that happens, you call it a bipartisan failure.

I'm not saying the FNMA collapse was brought on by too much regulation. I'm saying there was too little.

It was the GSEs that got special privileges and bonuses from the government. They bought up sub prime loans, which encouraged banks to give those loans which encouraged more people to buy homes, which increased the price of homes. This has little to do with late 1990s deregulation.

Fannie and Freddi enabled this, and they are not private companies. And that's without mentioning their accounting scandals.

As for blaming political parties, perhaps I've been a bit soft on the GOP. But they never had 60+ in the Senate, and democrats were against this regulations because it meant regulating a GSE instead of a private firm. And the GOP failed getting all sorts of other legislature conservatives wanted passed. So it was not pure GOP aversion to regulating Fannie and Freddie that stopped regulations in '04 and '05.

I'm sorry, but with that post you seem to be piling on the democrat talking points.

CR

[Decker]

First off I'm not exactly the smartest or most informed person on this subject. I'm really trying to be... in a sense and following it when I can. But school is a nice little nag :wall:. So please excuse me if my question is a bit ignorant or already been answered in some way shape or form...

My question is,
Since it appears that the US will borrow 700 billion from foreign banks and such, how will this, in the long run, help the US economy and those around the world who are connected to our economy? It will put us further into debt, and the more I think about the current bail out plan (and from what I've heard and read, as I have yet to see the actual details about it), it will just make everything "feel" good now, but bite us harder in the future. I feel like we should have let it collapse and then build it back from the ground up. I know it may takes years and maybe even decades, but I'm looking at how this will work out for future generations.

[Koga No Goshi]

And the dems control congress and can't pass the bailout. But when that happens, you call it a bipartisan failure.

It is. The Republicans are almost ALL against it. And a lot of the Dems are. This is a very unpopular bill, what do you want? You are operating on a total double standard, you say you are not for the bailout, but then you want to declare a Democratic failure to pass one. If you don't want the bailout, then not passing it is a victory. Simple as that.


I'm not saying the FNMA collapse was brought on by too much regulation. I'm saying there was too little.

No, you keep repeating that the only reason any of this happened was the government "forcing" home loans for people who couldn't afford them, purportedly as part of some pet project to help minorities or poor people that only the Dems espoused. Even though, as already pointed out, both parties have been part of the "Ownership society", with our current Republican President being quite enthusiastic for it.


It was the GSEs that got special privileges and bonuses from the government. They bought up sub prime loans, which encouraged banks to give those loans which encouraged more people to buy homes, which increased the price of homes. This has little to do with late 1990s deregulation.

Dude. Do you even KNOW anyone who works in finance? Ask anyone why these banks wanted to give out subprime loans. They didn't need "encouraging" from anyone. Commission fees, and very nice commissions for the loan agents who brokered them. This became the financial equivalent of used car salesmanship. Everyone, BANKS INCLUDED, believed the housing market was continuing upwards for a very long time. So they didn't worry (and the law did not require them to worry, or even do basic checking on loan applicant information) because by the time subprime borrowers got crunched, their housing value "should" have increased to the point where they could either a) sell at a profit and get out of the loan b) take equity out for more on hand cash.


Fannie and Freddi enabled this, and they are not private companies. And that's without mentioning their accounting scandals.

Freddie and Fannie were not private? You just pulled a Sarah Palin.


As for blaming political parties, perhaps I've been a bit soft on the GOP. But they never had 60+ in the Senate, and democrats were against this regulations because it meant regulating a GSE instead of a private firm. And the GOP failed getting all sorts of other legislature conservatives wanted passed. So it was not pure GOP aversion to regulating Fannie and Freddie that stopped regulations in '04 and '05.

I'm sorry, but with that post you seem to be piling on the democrat talking points.

CR

If you "don't want to get into the blame game", then stop making every other post a little snippet about how this is all the Democrats. And the Dems don't have 60+ in the Senate either, and you have been more than happy to heap blame on the "Democratic Congress" for not fixing an economic and political trend of laissez faire Christmas Day for Investor Class capitalism that has been going back to Reagan in a couple of months. Oh, and don't even give me a "they didn't have a big enough majority to pass things they wanted to" excuse for the Republican Congress, which changed the rules of the House and Senate and threatened the nuclear option left and right. So if you don't want a fight about whose party sat in power for years and either enabled, or advocated, and put their stamp on, A LOT if not most of the policies hurting us at the moment from Iraq to the economy, then stop starting one.

[Lemur]

A bunch of high-grade economists discussing where we are and what may happen (http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj_JNwNbETA). Long, but worth it.

[Strike For The South]

The dollar is up, oil is down. Im sick of this fear mongering and pessimism. I use to think people who thought the world was controlled by a select few were crazy but now Im not so sure.

[Koga No Goshi]

The dollar is up, oil is down. Im sick of this fear mongering and pessimism. I use to think people who thought the world was controlled by a select few were crazy but now Im not so sure.

Oil came down just before the 2000 election, just before the 2004, and just before the 2008. It's not a coincidence. Just like how the color-coded alert system disappeared right after Bush won in 2004. "Wait, weren't we on orange alert yesterday? What? They don't show me the pretty colors anymore? Then I don't know how scared to get!" We just had Ike, and yet prices are still steadily going down. If Ike had happened five weeks after the election it would be an excuse for prices to jump a dollar for five months.

[Strike For The South]

Hopefully people wont buy into this propaganda. I refuse to bail out the powerful I refuse to have a king. I will not see my republic turned into an oligarchy.

[Husar]

How about raising wages to make poor people afford a house instead of playing with the loan market?

That way the rich wouldn't be as rich anymore(since rich is always relative) so that's obviously a pretty bad idea.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, you keep repeating that the only reason any of this happened was the government "forcing" home loans for people who couldn't afford them, purportedly as part of some pet project to help minorities or poor people that only the Dems espoused. Even though, as already pointed out, both parties have been part of the "Ownership society", with our current Republican President being quite enthusiastic for it.

By forcing you must mean the government laws that say banks have to give out loans not just to the safest customers, and the laws that allow special interest groups to hold up bank mergers and the like if the special interest groups don't think the banks are helping out minorities enough by giving out subprime loans?


Dude. Do you even KNOW anyone who works in finance? Ask anyone why these banks wanted to give out subprime loans. They didn't need "encouraging" from anyone. Commission fees, and very nice commissions for the loan agents who brokered them. This became the financial equivalent of used car salesmanship. Everyone, BANKS INCLUDED, believed the housing market was continuing upwards for a very long time. So they didn't worry (and the law did not require them to worry, or even do basic checking on loan applicant information) because by the time subprime borrowers got crunched, their housing value "should" have increased to the point where they could either a) sell at a profit and get out of the loan b) take equity out for more on hand cash.

Those banks made those loans because they knew Fannie and Freddie would buy about risky subprime loans, so they could make money without the risk.


Freddie and Fannie were not private? You just pulled a Sarah Palin.
:laugh4:
Oh, I'm sorry, do private corporations have huge lines of credit with the US treasury? Do private firms have the benefit of the Federal Reserve purchasing their debt? Are private firms exempt from local and state taxes?

Here's an article by Ron Paul five years ago:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul128.html


If you "don't want to get into the blame game", then stop making every other post a little snippet about how this is all the Democrats. And the Dems don't have 60+ in the Senate either, and you have been more than happy to heap blame on the "Democratic Congress" for not fixing an economic and political trend of laissez faire Christmas Day for Investor Class capitalism that has been going back to Reagan in a couple of months. Oh, and don't even give me a "they didn't have a big enough majority to pass things they wanted to" excuse for the Republican Congress, which changed the rules of the House and Senate and threatened the nuclear option left and right. So if you don't want a fight about whose party sat in power for years and either enabled, or advocated, and put their stamp on, A LOT if not most of the policies hurting us at the moment from Iraq to the economy, then stop starting one.

Funny thing; McCain gave a speech in support of the tougher regulations on Fannie and Freddie. Obama was completely silent.

Finally, an article about how deregulation has nothing to do with this mess:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_wallison&sid=a6M1QA55PB9Y

Sept. 30 (Bloomberg) -- In the debate on Sept. 26, Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama argued that the current crisis in the financial markets is the result of Republican deregulation.

The advertising from his campaign has been saying the same thing, and this claim is becoming a fixed element in the talking points of Democratic candidates this year.

The credibility of the charge depends on ignoring several important facts:

-- There has been a great deal of deregulation in our economy over the last 30 years, but none of it has been in the financial sector or has had anything to do with the current crisis. Almost all financial legislation, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Improvement Act of 1991, adopted after the savings and loan collapse in the late 1980s, significantly tightened the regulation of banks.

-- The repeal of portions of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 -- often cited by people who know nothing about that law -- has no relevance whatsoever to the financial crisis, with one major exception: it permitted banks to be affiliated with firms that underwrite securities, and thus allowed Bank of America Corp. to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. to buy Bear Stearns Cos. Both transactions saved the government the costs of a rescue and spared the market substantial additional turmoil.

None of the investment banks that got into financial trouble, specifically Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., were affiliated with commercial banks, and none were affected in any way by the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

EDIT: Fannie and Freddie were also exempted from some of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, passed to force disclosure of more accounting information after Enron failed.

CR

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Hopefully people wont buy into this propaganda. I refuse to bail out the powerful I refuse to have a king. I will not see my republic turned into an oligarchy.

Then say "hello great depression II" and a very troubled future. I hope I'm wrong, but that's my opinion based on the facts I've read/heard.

EDIT: Though as I've stated I don't know how much, nor do I know what regulations should be put on the banks. And the link doesn't work to Bloomberg from what I've tried...:embarassed:

[Mangudai]

Shrub probably didn't understand the problems with Fannie and Freddie. Most of the public and the politicians didn't understand it either. That's OK, not everybody is expected to be an expert on these issues. Only the Senators and Congressmen on particular committees are expected to understand details like banking regulation.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_c...eature=related

It's pretty clear that a group of Republicans wanting reform would have to persuade the rest of their party who didn't understand the issues, at a time when the war of terror was everybody's focus. Then they would have to force a purely partisan bill through both houses. The democrats would be screaming that these measures discriminate against the poor and racial minorities.

Spread the blame, that's fine with me. But, lets be honest about who had the right ideas, and whose ideas were wrong.

[Mangudai]

Again, goin back to page 1... deregulation has been the mantra of the GOP since Reagan. All these fake protests now, after the fact, about how McCain or the Republicans or the GOP or this or that or so and so's friend George "talked about better control of the financial industry" isn't worth the paper it was never printed on.


You're oversimplifying in the extreme. Nobody is against all regulation, and nobody is for every conceivable regulation. The main divide is that republicans favor only regulation to protect the public safety, democrats also favor regulation to distort price incentives to promote the interests of the underprivileged.

Reagan style deregulation was extremely successful. Here are two important examples:

http://www.econlib.org/Library/Enc/TruckingDeregulation.html


The Motor Carrier Act of 1935 required new truckers to seek a "certificate of public convenience and necessity" from the ICC. Truckers already operating in 1935 could automatically get certificates, but only if they documented their prior service, and the ICC was quite restrictive in interpreting proof of service. New trucking companies, on the other hand, found it extremely difficult to get certificates.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_Deregulation_Act


Since 1937, the federal Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) had regulated all domestic air transport as a public utility, setting fares, routes, and schedules. The CAB promoted air travel, for instance by generally attempting to hold fares down in the short-haul market, to be subsidized by higher fares in the long-haul market. The CAB also was obliged to ensure that the airlines had a reasonable rate of return. It also earned a reputation for bureaucratic complacency; airlines were subject to lengthy delays when applying for new routes or fare changes, which were not often approved.


We used to have crap like that in all sorts of industries. Thanks to Reagan style deregulation most of it is gone now.

India's economy was known as the "permit raj" because it required licensing for all sorts of activities. India has "liberalized" (republican style) their economy, and they are taking off.

China is totally different. Their regulation has more to do with personal relationships and less to do with written codes. Their model sucks.

[Koga No Goshi]

By forcing you must mean the government laws that say banks have to give out loans not just to the safest customers, and the laws that allow special interest groups to hold up bank mergers and the like if the special interest groups don't think the banks are helping out minorities enough by giving out subprime loans?

This is absolutely not true. Unscrupulous subprime lenders were frequently totally separate from regional banks. There is no overarching law saying thou must give bad loans to everyone who asks. The banks that didn't mess around with subprime are doing okay. Companies specifically set up for that ran out and did it to earn commission fees, NOT to follow some government mandate to "help minorities", but because they believed it was viable because of expected continuing inflation of the housing market. And most of them made a ton of money until the housing market caved in.


:laugh4:
Oh, I'm sorry, do private corporations have huge lines of credit with the US treasury? Do private firms have the benefit of the Federal Reserve purchasing their debt? Are private firms exempt from local and state taxes?

How do you do a Federal intervention on something that was already Federal and not private?


Funny thing; McCain gave a speech in support of the tougher regulations on Fannie and Freddie. Obama was completely silent.

McCain has been in the Senate for 26 years and Palin "will have to get back to you" via Katie Couric as to whether any single instance can be found in his entire record of voting on the side of more regulations as opposed to less. I'm not interested in what McCain lip flapped about and then went and voted the opposite way on. (There's an awful lot of that, like veterans, torture, tax cuts..)

And my advice, CR.... if I were following my party's "talking points", I would be in support of this bailout. I'm not. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw around stones. This is nothing but a weak and ill-supported ideological attempt to insist there has been nothing wrong with the Reaganomics school of deregulated free market that has been consistently applied by the GOP for the last three decades, that the problem is Democrats hiding in the ricebowl here, or minorities trying to invade your gated community over there. More scare tactics, more smoke and mirrors, yes there were problems with the structure of the regulations and financial markets, most of that revolving around almost no regulation whatsoever. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if there was even a baseline-- not a socialist, not a strict, not an overly controlling, but even a COMMON SENSE level of regulation-- that for instance, a bank had to check on your reported income before stamping approved. So, if you want to run around swallowing every talking point and every right-wing spin on this whole situation, and your best answers are "banks were forced to do this cause of civil rights crap" and "McCain TALKED about regulation, while his campaign manager and twelve other members of his campaign staff are or were paid Fannie and Freddie deregulation lobbyists", then don't go around lobbing accusations of who is mindlessly swallowing their party's talking points.

[Koga No Goshi]

You're oversimplifying in the extreme. Nobody is against all regulation, and nobody is for every conceivable regulation. The main divide is that republicans favor only regulation to protect the public safety, democrats also favor regulation to distort price incentives to promote the interests of the underprivileged.


I absolutely am not, in the context of Republican control for the last 8 years and CR's insane piecemealed tack-on arguments to say this is all the fault of Democrats and minorities and "liberal pet projects." If Republicans believe there can be good regulation (debatable, especially considering the GOP's voting record), and also believed that Freddie and Fannie and the financial market needed it, nothing stopped them from sitting on their hands for 8 years and then, when the whole thing exploded, blaming it on Democrats. What great leaders on this issue.

And, your characterization of the differences is very inadequate. The kinds of regulations various different Democrats may support can run the gamut and frequently DO cover issues like safety and public health, rather than just some imaginary oppress-the-whites pro-minority advocacy you seem to be implying. The only consistency, whatsoever, to what Republicans seem to support when it comes to corporations, laws, and regulation, is what's profitable for corporations who have significantly contributed to the current GOP congress, the GOP politicians up for re-election, or the present GOP administration. Iraq, for instance... stories about septic contamination of water the troops are receiving from private contractors connected with Cheney. Yes, I see the attention to care and safety there that you say Republicans support regulation for. Everything else, from checking social security numbers of employees to try to catch illegal immigrants, to minimum wages, to safety inspections (mine cave-in's of the last few years), is very expendable depending on who didn't want it, whose profit it hurts, and if that industry happened to give a lot of money to GOP politicians.

[Strike For The South]

http://www.daveramsey.com/common_sense_fix.txt

[Alexanderofmacedon]

http://www.daveramsey.com/common_sense_fix.txt

Okay, I mistook your post to mean you didn't want ANY sort of meddling. I agree regulations need to be posed and a better number is possible. With no market for these assets, 700 billion seems to be a hefty number pulled out of their ass.

[gaelic cowboy]

http://www.daveramsey.com/common_sense_fix.txt

How would you know what value to insure the loans and debt at the policy would have to be hugely weighted because of no one really having a clue what to value them at. You couldnt value them at the old price only todays price.

[Strike For The South]

Okay, I mistook your post to mean you didn't want ANY sort of meddling. I agree regulations need to be posed and a better number is possible. With no market for these assets, 700 billion seems to be a hefty number pulled out of their ass.


How would you know what value to insure the loans and debt at the policy would have to be hugely weighted because of no one really having a clue what to value them at. You couldnt value them at the old price only todays price.

lol. I was just posting another option. The type didnt show up. I say let it all burn.

[gaelic cowboy]

lol. I was just posting another option. The type didnt show up. I say let it all burn.

Well it looks like you may get your wish.

[Strike For The South]

Well it looks like you may get your wish.

Be one of the few times they get something right

[Papewaio]

Here is Russell Crowe's plan to bail out the US:


RUSSELL Crowe has an Oscar and is co-owner of the Sydney Rabbitohs rugby league team, but maybe his next job should be US treasury secretary.

The New Zealand-born actor announced, during a US TV talkshow appearance, a plan to cure America's financial crisis.

"I have been intently watching the political process,'' Crowe told talkshow host Jay Leno.

Crowe believes the US Government should give each American $US1 million ($1.26 million).

His reasoning was that the US has a population of about 300 million, and a $US300 million ($377.05 million) outlay was a fraction of the $US700 billion ($879.78 billion) financial bailout package rejected by politicians in Washington DC yesterday.

"I was thinking,'' Crowe said.

"If they want to stimulate the economy and get people spending so they can look after their mortgage ... give everyone $US1 million.''

He should have thought a little harder though - a $US1 million handout to 300 million people would cost $300 trillion.

I always love how when he stuffs things up (like getting whipped in a bar fight) the Aussie press mentions that he was born in New Zealand and skip over him being an Aussie citizen. When he does win something it is described as 'Aussie Actor Wins' and no mention of NZ. :laugh4:

[HoreTore]

nvm, it's 5 in the morning here and my head and math skills are hurting...

[Koga No Goshi]

Yeah a few pages back I put up Time's list of things you could do with 700 billion. In individual payouts, it would work out to roughly $2,300 per person in the U.S.

[Redleg]

After I read this article I am more convinced that everyone in congress has lost their ever loving minds.

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

The Senate wants to force the House to reach a decision - so they load a bill intent on spending 700 billion with tax cuts........

Watch out here comes the surpise after the election cycle

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Here is Russell Crowe's plan to bail out the US:



I always love how when he stuffs things up (like getting whipped in a bar fight) the Aussie press mentions that he was born in New Zealand and skip over him being an Aussie citizen. When he does win something it is described as 'Aussie Actor Wins' and no mention of NZ. :laugh4:

Great actor though.

[CountArach]

Yeah a few pages back I put up Time's list of things you could do with 700 billion. In individual payouts, it would work out to roughly $2,300 per person in the U.S.
I think that the 2000 McDonalds Apple Pies (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=185195&title=Debt-to-America!) for every citizen in the US is a much better option (At about 38 seconds).

[Strike For The South]

At what point are we supposed to be all naked and starving? Ive been going hard in the gym the past couple of months and have some killer hammies to show off.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This is absolutely not true. Unscrupulous subprime lenders were frequently totally separate from regional banks. There is no overarching law saying thou must give bad loans to everyone who asks. The banks that didn't mess around with subprime are doing okay. Companies specifically set up for that ran out and did it to earn commission fees, NOT to follow some government mandate to "help minorities", but because they believed it was viable because of expected continuing inflation of the housing market. And most of them made a ton of money until the housing market caved in.
*sigh*
Those bankers going after the commission fees got the loans, and then the loans were bought by Fannie and Freddie. Thus they could sell all sorts of risky loans and not face the inherent risk.

Fannie and Freddie were following the 'give loans to the poor who can't afford them' principles.

Liberal special interest groups like ACORN brought pressure on banks that didn't lend to enough poor people who couldn't afford the loans (among other criminal activities for ACORN.)


How do you do a Federal intervention on something that was already Federal and not private?
They are GSEs: Government Sponsered Enterprises, hideous Frankenstein concoctions of firms started and given special advantages by the government.


McCain has been in the Senate for 26 years and Palin "will have to get back to you" via Katie Couric as to whether any single instance can be found in his entire record of voting on the side of more regulations as opposed to less. I'm not interested in what McCain lip flapped about and then went and voted the opposite way on. (There's an awful lot of that, like veterans, torture, tax cuts..)

He didn't vote against it. The dems prevented it from getting a floor vote.


And my advice, CR.... if I were following my party's "talking points", I would be in support of this bailout. I'm not. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw around stones. This is nothing but a weak and ill-supported ideological attempt to insist there has been nothing wrong with the Reaganomics school of deregulated free market that has been consistently applied by the GOP for the last three decades, that the problem is Democrats hiding in the ricebowl here, or minorities trying to invade your gated community over there.


*sighs*

I'll link the article again, but deregulation has nothing to do with this.
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.28701,filter.all/pub_detail.asp


-- There has been a great deal of deregulation in our economy over the last 30 years, but none of it has been in the financial sector or has had anything to do with the current crisis. Almost all financial legislation, such as the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Improvement Act of 1991, adopted after the savings and loan collapse in the late 1980s, significantly tightened the regulation of banks.

-- The repeal of portions of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999--often cited by people who know nothing about that law--has no relevance whatsoever to the financial crisis, with one major exception: it permitted banks to be affiliated with firms that underwrite securities, and thus allowed Bank of America Corp. to acquire Merrill Lynch & Co. and JPMorgan Chase & Co. to buy Bear Stearns Cos. Both transactions saved the government the costs of a rescue and spared the market substantial additional turmoil.

Alright? Is that clear? Can we get off the 'deregulation is the problem'? rail?

CR

[Big_John]

At what point are we supposed to be all naked and starving? Ive been going hard in the gym the past couple of months and have some killer hammies to show off.hammies?!? son, you need to stay focused on the bench press. like a real man.

[Shaka_Khan]

I'd rather endure a global recession so that the US can start all over with a better performance.

[KukriKhan]

First off I'm not exactly the smartest or most informed person on this subject. I'm really trying to be... in a sense and following it when I can. But school is a nice little nag :wall:. So please excuse me if my question is a bit ignorant or already been answered in some way shape or form...

My question is,
Since it appears that the US will borrow 700 billion from foreign banks and such, how will this, in the long run, help the US economy and those around the world who are connected to our economy? It will put us further into debt, and the more I think about the current bail out plan (and from what I've heard and read, as I have yet to see the actual details about it), it will just make everything "feel" good now, but bite us harder in the future. I feel like we should have let it collapse and then build it back from the ground up. I know it may takes years and maybe even decades, but I'm looking at how this will work out for future generations.

Your question: "...how will this...help...?" is a fine one, Decker, and one actually not adequately addressed by either the right or left, here, on TV, or in Congress/Administration.

My answer is just my personal opinion: it might not help at all. They're basically gambling that we can spend our way out of the mess by covering (that is: removing from play) bad paper and holding it for awhile, until things (the housing and credit and monetary markets) get better on their own; then slowly re-introducing that bad paper into the system, a little at a time - sort of like an immunization plan for a patient with cancer, who took too much of an anti-cancer wonder drug, but saw his liver and kidneys fail from too much of a good thing. The "doc" has to roll back the dosage, and make the treatment more long term, so the patient survives, AND the cancer goes away, over time. He hopes.

If he fails, and either the cancer, or the drug side-effects, win, the patient dies. And in this case, we go into Great Depression v2.0. No jobs, no credit, no capital, etc.

As to "how it will work out for future generations": you and your kids will be paying for this for about 40 years+. Because if government intervention really is the only way to fix this (and I'm not convinced yet that it is), then $700bn isn't gonna be enough. They pulled that number out of thin air anyway. My ignorant blue-collar best guess would be more in the neighborhood of $2 Trillion. That amount should be about enough to buy up all mortgages that have 2 or more missed payments - which I would define as 'bad paper', and include properties going to auction next week.

Net effect: U.S. Gov't becomes the biggest property-holder, bank, landlord, and insurance company on earth. And how it's all paid for depends on whether we elect the "tax and spend" Dems, or the "borrow and spend" Rep's. Either way it's spending OPM (other people's money - that hasn't been earned yet).

And finally, none of this refers to anything in the Constitution, except that there is some semblance of voting going on.

[Don Corleone]

I'm just wondering if in 3-4 pages of unflinching confrontation, CR & Koga ever considered the possibility that they're BOTH right. That Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac WERE incentivizing people to make loans to people that might not be the most secure risk, but that loan officers were off on a tear and doing well more than anything being asked of them by FM/FM?

Seriously, guys, take it down a notch. Take the 10,000 foot view for a second:

-You have Democrats arguing that in order to save the economy, we must subsidize Wall Street's bad investments. Privatized profits, socialized losses. Does that sound like a Populist stance to any of you?

-At the same time, I would argue, in an even greater departure from their avowed principles, you have Republicans arguing that the only way our credit markets can be resolved is to socialize them. Hmmm....

Similarly, the bill didn't pass for 2 reasons: 1) too many House Republicans dug their heels in and showed some spine (65%) 2) some Democrats showed commitment to their prinicples too, and voted against redistributing wealth upwards (I'd peg that at about 25%).

And yes, I think to a limited degree, Nancy Pelosi getting up and saying "By voting for this bill, you wisely and publicly agree that Republican fiscal policies are a failed joke" was about 10% responsible. That was one of the dumbest political stunts I've ever seen. Or was it? I wonder if she didn't speak to her true feelings and try to sabotage the bill while simultaneously voting for it.

By the way, while we're all patting ourselves on the back and talking about how the responsible taxpayer is going to get shafted by the irresponsible fatcats, how about a little bit of sobering reality for all of us?

-We have a 9.6 trillion national debt.
- The average American taxpayer holds over $12K in unsecured debt (credit cards, educational loans, car loans).
-Over 70% of the government's money comes from the top 10% of wage earners.
-About 40% comes from the top 1%.
-When people talk about "giving" $2300 to each American, that's exactly what it is. Pure redistribution of wealth. The bottom 50% pay less than 3% of their income in taxes.

Seriously folks, let's get real. For all our "soak the rich" talk, we already are. And we're not talking about paying this bill ourselves. We're talking about screwing our kids. We've over consumed the wealth our current 2 generations can produce, and we're now eating into our kid's future earnings. I'm not going to pay for this bailout, Jillian and Allison will, and they're 3 years and 6 mos, respectively!

Any plan that restores us to fiscal conservatism, balanced budgets and $0 debt is good in my book. Which is why I'm thrilled to death that the bailout bill went down, even though it personally cost me about 20% of my retirement savings. And if Koga wants to give me and the other evil Republicans credit for it, I'll at least proudly take my 65% of that credit. :bow:

Seriously folks, we should go to Frankfort and study how successful markets are run. While we've been busy playing world cop, the Germans have quietly and successfully transformed themselves into the largest exporter as a percentage of GDP (greater than China!). That used to be what we did.

[HoreTore]

Very good post, Don :2thumbsup:

But this:


Seriously folks, let's get real. For all our "soak the rich" talk, we already are.

It's sad that certain people still haven't figured out that we can't pay our way out of everything by taxing the rich. If we're going to get anywhere, if we're going to raise any decent amount of money, then sorry, the regular guy has to pay. And by looking at your debt, I'd say you ought to start taxing yourselves... Very soon.

[Don Corleone]

It's sad that certain people still haven't figured out that we can't pay our way out of everything by taxing the rich. If we're going to get anywhere, if we're going to raise any decent amount of money, then sorry, the regular guy has to pay. And by looking at your debt, I'd say you ought to start taxing yourselves... Very soon.

Who are you, and what have you done with my socialistist friend, Hore Tore? :inquisitive:

What I forgot to mention in my earlier post, while I was on my rant about how we're all irresponsible...

I want to invoke an image for you. One that's not all that unrealistic.

BankOfAmerica, who's just gobbled up some banks hit by the sub-prime lending losses, actually realizes they over ambitiously absorbed too much loss. Regulators, poring over their books, issue a call for more liquidity of assets against their outstanding loans. Nervous, BankOfAmerica calls on a couple of larger corporate loans they have outstanding. The client bank announces that they have to default, for at least a quarter. Waves of nervousness ripple around the market, and the credit markets tighten even more. The regulators really start putting the screws to BofA, telling them they better produce $18 billion in liquid assets within the next week or start facing some stiff penalties. BofA response? They call the note on unsecured loans they have outstanding. Translation? Your credit card bill comes due. In its entirety. Right now, all credit card balances you hold, come due.

Did you just take a big gulp? Then stop whining about irresponsiblity in the markets, because you are in fact part of the problem. And in the interest of full disclosure, so am I. Which is why Mrs. Corleone and I are making some moves towards liquidity to get all unsecured debt retired within the next 12 months. I strongly and vehemently urge all of you to do what you can to move down the same road. If you have a rainy day fund, well, it's coming down pretty hard right now...

[KukriKhan]

Funny you should mention that, Don. The Kukri household has begun a similar move as of last Friday, on top of moving TSP (the Federal 401(k)) funds into 'safe' Treasuries, and away from stocks.

If we really do have some cash laying about in 6 months (by no means a sure bet), we'll have to decide whether to invest in storeable food, or trying to buy some Federal "fire-sale" foreclosed property. :)

[Lemur]

I live entirely debt-free, and not because I make millions per year. It's a lifestyle thing, trying to consistently live below your means. I can't be the only American who pays his cards down to zero every month, can I?

[KukriKhan]

Nope, you're not alone. We're just trying to get the latest auto loan paid up ahead of time, cuz we wanna keep the car in case we have to escape to the hills or something. :)

[Don Corleone]

Well, I would argue that my current debt is neither smart nor bad debt. It's more of a cash flow thing....

I bought a pellet stove and enough wood pellets to last though the winter. So, in a sense, I already have a savings for that... my budgeted amount for fuel oil this winter will pay off the stove. Add to that some auto repairs and our outstanding car loan (which is still unsecured mind you), it's not like we're going on vacations every month.

If you can pay cash up front for a car, that's great Lemur. I got the best used car rate I'd ever heard of, even less than my mortgage. It was 6.00%, on a USED car. :dizzy2:

All of my debts "make sense" on the surface, or at least they did 2 weeks ago. But right now, with the threat of a bank calling the notes on one of them, it doesn't seem all that smart, hence my new found resolution to only pay cash for cars.

[Lemur]

Hmm, if we get to the point where retail banks are calling in performing loans, we'll have bigger problems to worry about. Like how to discourage the leather-clad cannibal biker gangs led by the Lord Humungus.

I think your scenario is extreme.

[gaelic cowboy]

Picked up my free Irish Independant in college today and this greeted me €400 billion bailout of our Irish banks and instituitions. Ireland is 75 time samaller in population terms than USA and yet only this separates the bailout.

Universal Currency Converter© Results
Using live mid-market rates.
Using live mid-market rates. More currencies...
Printed from the XE Universal Currency Converter at: www.xe.com/ucc
Memo: .................................................................................................... ...................................................................

.................................................................................................... ...................................................................

Live rates at 2008.10.01 14:21:17 UTC

400,000,000,000.00 EUR = 560,772,093,676.09 USD

Euro United States Dollars

1 EUR = 1.40193 USD 1 USD = 0.713302 EUR



THE Government last night battled for sweeping powers to allow it to step in and prevent troubled banks from going under.

Following a long day of drama, the full details finally emerged of Taoiseach Brian Cowen’s unprecedented €400bn guarantee to safeguard the country's six banks. But the wide-ranging new laws go far beyond just guaranteeing loans.

New legislation to back up €400bn worth of loan guarantees for banks, introduced to the Dail late last night, gives Finance Minister Brian Lenihan the ability to step in “as he sees fit” to help out with financial support, including loans, guarantees, exchange of assets, and buying up shares.

In effect, the legislation stops just short of nationalising a bank, if the Government thinks it is necessary, as it allows for a stake to be bought up. It also provides for the overriding of competition laws if a merger of a bank is required, similar to a recent case in Britain.

The action taken by the Government in giving €400bn worth of guarantees to six of the main banks prompted a bounce back on the domestic financial market.

However, the numerous delays in introducing the legislation to the Oireachtas were described as a “farce”, and the scale of the legislation sparked concerns on the opposition benches, especially since no reference is made in the law to the pay of chief executives of banks availing of the guarantees. There was also little detail on the level of scrutiny involved or on the amount the banks had to pay to get their loans guaranteed.

The day began with the Government decision to safeguard the Irish banking system being announced at 6:45am and ended with the Dail debate adjourning at midnight.

Mr Lenihan said the move was “in no way a bailout for the Irish financial system”.

“This guarantee is not ‘free’ and the taxpayer who ultimately underwrites this support will be remunerated for the value of the support provided. The terms and conditions on which the guarantee is provided will ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money,” he said.

Fine Gael, Labour and Sinn Fein backed the passing of the law in principle, but wanted their concerns addressed in this morning's debate.

Fine Gael said the specific powers it wanted in relation to regulation of banks was not dealt with. The party also wanted to ensure the legislation was robust and would pass the scrutiny of European Union directives.

Fine Gael finance spokesman Richard Bruton said the Government was seeking to play down the exposure of the taxpayer and the rules were being changed.

The Labour Party said it was alarmed by the lack of detail on how much the banks would have to contribute and wondered if deposits will flood towards Irish banks because of the added guarantees.

Labour finance spokesperson Joan Burton said there was no indication if any limitations would be put on the pay packets of executives in the banks who avail of the guarantees.

“This bill is an extraordinary blank cheque to the Minister for Finance, the Financial Regulator and the Central Bank to offer terms and conditions of support to banks,” she said.

Mr Cowen insisted there would be no exposure of the taxpayer in helping out the banks.

He said the stability of the Irish banking system would have been put at risk if he had done nothing in the face of the liquidity crisis facing Irish banks. The new law, the Credit Institutions (Protection) Bill 2008, was intended to be signed off on by the Dail and Seanad and signed by President Mary McAleese last night.

But debate on the legislation will continue today in both the Dail and Seanad, due to the delays in the drafting of the bill. The bill passed the second stage of the legislative process in the Dail last night and will be completed today.

The Government was forced into crisis talks after a sell-off across the four listed banks on Monday, following a raft of bailouts across Europe over the weekend.

Anglo Irish Bank, whose share price had tumbled 46.2pc on Monday, had borne the brunt of the collapse in confidence, and was understood to be main focus of the talks to avert an implosion in the system. The lender's stock rocketed 67.1pc higher yesterday in light of the Government lifeline.

One trader reported that Ireland may well be seen as the safe haven for European cash and investments after the Government's decision to underwrite the Irish banks.

However, among concerns raised were those voiced by the Financial Services Authority in Britain which suggested that the Irish action had resulted in depositors draining funds from British banks to place with Irish institutions.

There were also concerns that the Government guarantee could fall foul of the European Commission which last night said it would study the details of the guarantees to see whether they constituted illegal state aid.

[gaelic cowboy]

I forget where spoiler tags are cant see em on the thing could anyone take pity

Done. ~Kukri

[Ser Clegane]

I live entirely debt-free, and not because I make millions per year. It's a lifestyle thing, trying to consistently live below your means. I can't be the only American who pays his cards down to zero every month, can I?

Generally I follow the same lifestyle - however, buying/building a house without taking any debt is somewhat difficult (which is why we also have BIG debts now, a couple of months after buying a house).

[Lemur]

Wow, gaelic cowboy, that's some messed-up formatting. The easiest "hide text and give me a button" tag is . I'll use it below, so that if you're confused, you can just hit "quote" on this post and see how it works.

[ex]Hidden text.

[gaelic cowboy]

Thanks man been years since I posted regularly on the board but now I am in college with the free WiFi why the hell not take advantage:beam:

[HoreTore]

Who are you, and what have you done with my socialistist friend, Hore Tore? :inquisitive:

He's still in favour of taxes ~;)


If you can pay cash up front for a car, that's great Lemur. I got the best used car rate I'd ever heard of, even less than my mortgage. It was 6.00%, on a USED car. :dizzy2:

I've never had a car-loan and I've always paid my cars in cash. And I'm a student.

Is this where I don't mention that the 3 cars I've owned is an '86 audi 80, '87 mazda 626 and currently a '92 toyota carina II?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Did you just take a big gulp? Then stop whining about irresponsiblity in the markets, because you are in fact part of the problem. And in the interest of full disclosure, so am I. Which is why Mrs. Corleone and I are making some moves towards liquidity to get all unsecured debt retired within the next 12 months. I strongly and vehemently urge all of you to do what you can to move down the same road. If you have a rainy day fund, well, it's coming down pretty hard right now...

Well, we're all being told off. I have listened to several economists recently pointing out that the rich are withdrawing a lot of investment funds which makes the problem worse by reducing liquidity. I have certainly reduced a great deal of exposure to the stock market and moved capital to safer havens. As noted earlier, we did take a very profitable but entirely surprising punt on bank shares before the bailout plan, but that will go some way to paying inheritance taxes in two countries.

I can see this is not the typical problem, but are politicians really expecting large fund-holders to stay in the market?

Anyway, I agree with Lemur - it'll be a very nasty day when responsible loans are called in - not least because by then, you won't need to pay them back to the hollowed husk of a finance system unless it be in sea-shells.

[drone]

I live entirely debt-free, and not because I make millions per year. It's a lifestyle thing, trying to consistently live below your means. I can't be the only American who pays his cards down to zero every month, can I?

I can't say I'm entirely debt-free (I have a mortgage), but I have always paid off my credit cards every month and haven't had a car payment in 12 years. Could I be living in a McMansion with a BMW and an Escalade in the driveway? Probably, but I despise debt. My grandfather lived through the depression, and passed that experience to my father, who passed it to me. I've been railing on my SO to pay down her credit cards, she had a huge balance. Then I computed her annual interest charge and she saw the light.

There is a huge amount of credit card debt out there, and that's probably going to be the next big problem. If the unemployment rate keeps going up, that debt (some securitized as well) will need a "bailout" too. The mortgage bailout is just a dutch boy running out of hands.

If a bailout is going to happen, I'd prefer one like this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/30/AR2008093002316.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
The theory underlying the bailout plan stalled in Congress is that rescuing the finance industry will restore market stability and that the benefits will eventually trickle down to average Americans. Thus, solving the subprime mortgage crisis has morphed into a much larger challenge: reassembling the architecture of the financial markets, which seemingly requires giving the Treasury secretary nearly a trillion dollars and extraordinary latitude to pick winners and losers.

There is an easier and more politically palatable fix: Pay off all the delinquent mortgages.

The financial crisis is a liquidity crisis, yes, but it is ultimately a product of homeowner failures to pay. Unless this fundamental problem is fixed, we will continue to see -- and need to treat -- the symptoms. The proposed bailout ignores this. Yet the sum being demanded from taxpayers is almost certainly more than sufficient to pay off all currently delinquent mortgages.
No way should the government be buying derivatives. Go to the source, and actually buy something tangible, instead of some virtual stock.

[HoreTore]

Hmmmm.... Just out of curiosity, how common are credit cards over there?

I've never had one, and I've only wanted to have one once really, when my paycheck was delayed a week....

[Don Corleone]

The problem with that approach, Drone, is that it throws gas on a fire. Homeowners that are delinquent that have the government swoop in and pay their mortgage for them will not all of a sudden find religion. If anything, their neighbors may emulate their behavior. And the banks, that made the bad loans in the first place, won't learn either.

It's the same fundamental solution, it only differs on the methodology for the cash infusion.

As for Banquo and Lemur's comments, I agree that banks calling loans that they are servicing properly is unlikely. It's in their interest to leave that money in your hands (no pun intended). I'm just saying that it's a possibility, and one that's not as far-fetched as it might have been 3 weeks ago.

[Koga No Goshi]

Did you just take a big gulp? Then stop whining about irresponsiblity in the markets, because you are in fact part of the problem. And in the interest of full disclosure, so am I. Which is why Mrs. Corleone and I are making some moves towards liquidity to get all unsecured debt retired within the next 12 months. I strongly and vehemently urge all of you to do what you can to move down the same road. If you have a rainy day fund, well, it's coming down pretty hard right now...

I still think that people are perhaps overestimating how much of this was single home owners and not giving consideration to the fact that a lot of people have ALREADY walked from investment homes they had mortgages on they knew they could never swing long-term. They wanted to just hang on for six months while the house increased in value 10 or 15% and then sell. Those people have already walked and I think even if all the remaining people trying NOT to walk away from a mortgage pulled in every resource and did the responsible thing, the crisis would still exist.

(This is not to say, at all, that what you are doing is not very responsible and admirable, Don Corleone. I just think people like you were not the real source of this problem; you might have been part of it, but the greed and the belief that everyone could make quick short-term turnaround profits on this, not worrying about the long-term, was more of the source.)

[Spino]

I live entirely debt-free, and not because I make millions per year. It's a lifestyle thing, trying to consistently live below your means. I can't be the only American who pays his cards down to zero every month, can I?

You're not... The planets must be in alignment because aside from computer games that's another thing we have in common. Since I paid off my modest student loan in my mid 20s I have been debt free ever since and I also am the furthest thing from a millionaire. Furthermore the only time I have ever carried a balance on my credit card is when I forget to pay on time (I can be quite absent minded about such things). As far as our generation is concerned we are truly rare birds. For all my talk of the evils of Baby Boomers the fiscal irresponsibility of our fellow Gen-X'ers postively puts them to shame.

I'm one of those rare Gen-X'ers who buys most of their food at the supermarket and cooks it at home. I rarely buy anything unless it's on sale, coupled with a rebate or for some reason is selling at an unusually low price. I also refrain from indulging in money draining frivolities like binge drinking at the local pub every Friday & Saturday, gambling or paying for snazzy tech I admire but would admittedly never use, etc. I chalk it up to being raised in no small part by my grandparents, members of the Depression era generation who turned coupon clipping and thriftiness into an art form. Being raised in a Greek household played its part as well... seriously, we rival Jews and Scots for our ability to squeeze the life out of an innocent penny.

I've squirreled away so much cash over the last 20 years that my mattress looks like it's about to give birth to a bank... Interesting that with the looming financial collapse my friends (who live paycheck to paycheck) who previously chastized me for my cheapness have toned down the sermons about 'not being able to take it with you' or 'living in the moment'.

[Koga No Goshi]

You're not... The planets must be in alignment because aside from computer games that's another thing we have in common.

Me too. I got raped by the 18% interest rates using a credit card here and there in college, and getting in trouble. (I was not out buying luxury dinners and electronics with it, I was buying stuff like books and little daily things when I didn't have time to take the bus to the bank for cash.) Since then I live off-debt, my one credit card gets zeroed every month.



I'm one of those rare Gen-X'ers who buys most of their food at the supermarket and cooks it at home.

This part is off topic Spino but this made me really curious. I know this depends a lot on where you live, and everything. But for me, I never found myself, at least for one person, saving any significant amount of money grocery shopping as opposed to eating out. Especially when you take waste/loss/food going back before you eat it into account. I mean, if you go to some bulk membership place, yeah, you save money, but a single person usually can't store or eat all that before it's bad. I tried the buy and cook as a single person, and I just never saw any real savings. I mean you go and spend $7-9 for enough chicken for two meals, (or $20~ for a bigger bag I barely had freezer room for and would get frostbitten halfway through). Now, when money was tight I did live on mac & cheese, pancake mix (creative applications) and top ramen. You can live very cheaply that way, practically like a day laborer. But, you get black circles under your eyes and you're tired and hungry all the time. (I was totally broke my last five or six months of college, as soon as paycheck would come in, it would be gone for necessities.)


I've squirreled away so much cash over the last 20 years that my mattress looks like it's about to give birth to a bank... Interesting that with the looming financial collapse my friends (who live paycheck to paycheck) who previously chastized me for my cheapness have toned down the sermons about 'not being able to take it with you' or 'living in the moment'.

Another way you and I are alike. I have been teased and made fun of for years, called "Scrooge McDuck", because I always cash about half my paycheck and keep it out of the bank. That does mean, that I have an obscene amount of cash money hidden. People made fun, and made fun, and made fun. And now they're not anymore, in fact, now they're saying financial "planners" are telling people to keep about 25% of their money in cash, take it out of CD's, stocks, investments, and keep some on hand in case your bank is locked down for a week while the Feds take it over. No one's making fun of me anymore. :) But I've always had Cassandra syndrome, I haven't trusted the U.S. financial systems in years and I've been saying that I don't see how it can possibly stay stable the way it's running, and everyone called me an alarmist and ignored me for years.

[Mangudai]

You're oversimplifying in the extreme. Nobody is against all regulation, and nobody is for every conceivable regulation. The main divide is that republicans favor only regulation to protect the public safety, democrats also favor regulation to distort price incentives to promote the interests of the underprivileged.

And, your characterization of the differences is very inadequate. The kinds of regulations various different Democrats may support can run the gamut and frequently DO cover issues like safety and public health, rather than just some imaginary oppress-the-whites pro-minority advocacy you seem to be implying.

Your logic is inadequate. I said something like Alice only likes apples, and Bob also likes bananas.
Bob might like apples, oranges and pears. Alice does not like anything except apples.

[Spino]

Me too. I got raped by the 18% interest rates using a credit card here and there in college, and getting in trouble. (I was not out buying luxury dinners and electronics with it, I was buying stuff like books and little daily things when I didn't have time to take the bus to the bank for cash.) Since then I live off-debt, my one credit card gets zeroed every month.



This part is off topic Spino but this made me really curious. I know this depends a lot on where you live, and everything. But for me, I never found myself, at least for one person, saving any significant amount of money grocery shopping as opposed to eating out. Especially when you take waste/loss/food going back before you eat it into account. I mean, if you go to some bulk membership place, yeah, you save money, but a single person usually can't store or eat all that before it's bad. I tried the buy and cook as a single person, and I just never saw any real savings. I mean you go and spend $7-9 for enough chicken for two meals, (or $20~ for a bigger bag I barely had freezer room for and would get frostbitten halfway through). Now, when money was tight I did live on mac & cheese, pancake mix (creative applications) and top ramen. You can live very cheaply that way, practically like a day laborer. But, you get black circles under your eyes and you're tired and hungry all the time. (I was totally broke my last five or six months of college, as soon as paycheck would come in, it would be gone for necessities.)



Another way you and I are alike. I have been teased and made fun of for years, called "Scrooge McDuck", because I always cash about half my paycheck and keep it out of the bank. That does mean, that I have an obscene amount of cash money hidden. People made fun, and made fun, and made fun. And now they're not anymore, in fact, now they're saying financial "planners" are telling people to keep about 25% of their money in cash, take it out of CD's, stocks, investments, and keep some on hand in case your bank is locked down for a week while the Feds take it over. No one's making fun of me anymore. :) But I've always had Cassandra syndrome, I haven't trusted the U.S. financial systems in years and I've been saying that I don't see how it can possibly stay stable the way it's running, and everyone called me an alarmist and ignored me for years.

Checking out the store circulars for weekly deals works for me and I use the supermarket cards to accumulate points that I can cash in to get free food when they have special deals. A few packages of chicken breasts or whole legs, a few packages of vegetables, etc. I scoop up as much as my freezer can handle and stuff it in there for use over the course of the month. I'm not a foodie so even now that I can afford to indulge my palate I generally eat the same thing every other night. To break up the monotony and take a brief vacation from cooking I usually eat out or order out once during the weekends.

I was joking about hiding a ton of cash in my house. A mad money/rainy day fund hidden in the mattress is fine but keeping too much cash on hand is irresponsible in light of the interest (however small) it could be earning in a bank (hopefully a reliable one). I have a nice chunk of change tied up in Roth IRA's with a few high cap/low risk mutual funds with stellar track records but the bulk of my assets are liquid and are in CDs or high return savings accounts in banks that are not in danger of going belly up.

[Koga No Goshi]

I was joking about hiding a ton of cash in my house. A mad money/rainy day fund hidden in the mattress is fine but keeping too much cash on hand is irresponsible in light of the interest (however small) it could be earning in a bank (hopefully a reliable one). I have a nice chunk of change tied up in Roth IRA's with a few high cap/low risk mutual funds with stellar track records but the bulk of my assets are liquid and are in CDs or high return savings accounts in banks that are not in danger of going belly up.

You're one of the people making fun of me! Stop it, stop it! ;)

I don't make a ton of money. And the cash I keep around does have a turnover where I use some of it for out of pocket expenses. So we're not talking about 600,000 in my mattress. Savings account interest though is a joke, to me. And CD's, well, I'm young enough that I don't like tying up my money for 6-24 months in an untouchable place. I like to keep my options open. I have less money (marginally) than someone with the same income as me who put it all in CD's or savings, but, I don't panic or stay up at night worrying what will happen if my bank crashes. It won't affect me for awhile, cash wise.

[Lemur]

Checking out the store circulars for weekly deals works for me and I use the supermarket cards to accumulate points that I can cash in to get free food when they have special deals. A few packages of chicken breasts or whole legs, a few packages of vegetables, etc. I scoop up as much as my freezer can handle and stuff it in there for use over the course of the month.
I cheated -- I married a professional chef. And we grow a lot of our veggies and fruit in our yard, so we get fresh stuff about eight months of the year for the cost of seed.

We bought a second freezer and have been harvesting/vacuum packing/freezing as much stuff as we can. Trying to stretch it out so that we're eating our own produce 12 months of the year.

[Big_John]

And yes, I think to a limited degree, Nancy Pelosi getting up and saying "By voting for this bill, you wisely and publicly agree that Republican fiscal policies are a failed joke" was about 10% responsible.
any representatives who changed their vote based on her speech need to be deported.

[Don Corleone]

any representatives who changed their vote based on her speech need to be deported.

Changed, no. But dragged kicking and screaming to vote for something they don't agree with, then have her fling pooh like that?

[Koga No Goshi]

Changed, no. But dragged kicking and screaming to vote for something they don't agree with, then have her fling pooh like that?

If this really had any effect on the vote, at all, then Republicans have no room to ever accuse anyone of petty partisanship and playing politics.

But, I think it more likely they just didn't want to vote for it before re-election and used her as a scapegoat for the vote.

[Don Corleone]

Come on. If George Bush had stated "And because the Democrats left the White House so woefully unprepared to prevent such an attack, and their failed foreign policy invited Al Queda to breed in Afghanistan, we must now go in and drive their Taleban hosts out of Kabul", do you really think a single Democrat would have voted for the Afghanistan resolution?

If I agree to go along with something I don't like, and somebody stands up and says "And by going along, you're admitting just how wrong and stupid you were for disagreeing in the first place", I'm going to take issue.

Now, I view the failed vote as a GOOD thing, so I don't feel a need to defend them. But I do think you guys are expecting an awful lot of people. They have to vote for something they don't like AND publicly lick Nancy's boots?

Like I said, I think she did it on purpose.

[Lemur]

I find it very hard to believe that Pelosi's speech had a major imapact on the vote. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the big dividing line was between people who are up for re-election in tough districts and those who aren't. This was all about Congresscritters who were more afraid of you and me than they were of their own leadership. Which is as it should be.

Here's what kills me — it's possible that the bailout was a good plan. But nobody made a case for it. If we had a President whom more than 15% of the population trusted, it might be a different story. But hey, if you want us to fork over a sum of cash equal to the Gross National Product of the Netherlands, you have to make a case. You have to sway us.

Nobody did that, so tough on them.

[Koga No Goshi]

Come on. If George Bush had stated "And because the Democrats left the White House so woefully unprepared to prevent such an attack, and their failed foreign policy invited Al Queda to breed in Afghanistan, we must now go in and drive their Taleban hosts out of Kabul", do you really think a single Democrat would have voted for the Afghanistan resolution?

If I agree to go along with something I don't like, and somebody stands up and says "And by going along, you're admitting just how wrong and stupid you were for disagreeing in the first place", I'm going to take issue.

Now, I view the failed vote as a GOOD thing, so I don't feel a need to defend them. But I do think you guys are expecting an awful lot of people. They have to vote for something they don't like AND publicly lick Nancy's boots?

Like I said, I think she did it on purpose.

Don, come on. The Democrats have been called out as everything from traitors to "wanting to extend therapeutic understanding to our attackers" to being against the troops. And that did not stop them from voting in significant numbers in support of all kinds of things Bush and his admin insisted were absolutely important or necessary for our security, even if they turned out to be bad laws in retrospect. Even when the Dems ever did try to put their foot down and say no on something the President wanted, his rubber stamp, lockstep Republican Congress just changed the rules of Congress and started threatening the nuclear option to cloture and silence any filibuster. And any Democratic led opposition or subcommittee meetings on any issue got banished to sub-basements. So let's not get into whose party plays petty politics.

Don't give me this garbage that the Dems vote lockstep against Republicans on petty grounds. It isn't true. Way more of our party has voted with Bush on things we wish they hadn't than we care to think about.

[Big_John]

Changed, no. But dragged kicking and screaming to vote for something they don't agree with, then have her fling pooh like that?
you vote on the issue. completely inexcusable for a congressman to do otherwise in this case. someone that was 1) cowed into voting for something they didn't want and then 2) flipped because mean ol' nancy gave a dime-a-dozen partisan speech is doubly reprehensible. i wouldn't want that type of person in charge of trimming my shrubs.

[Big_John]

I find it very hard to believe that Pelosi's speech had a major imapact on the vote. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the big dividing line was between people who are up for re-election in tough districts and those who aren't. This was all about Congresscritters who were more afraid of you and me than they were of their own leadership. Which is as it should be.

Here's what kills me — it's possible that the bailout was a good plan. But nobody made a case for it. If we had a President whom more than 15% of the population trusted, it might be a different story. But hey, if you want us to fork over a sum of cash equal to the Gross National Product of the Netherlands, you have to make a case. You have to sway us.

Nobody did that, so tough on them.the case made for the bailout was astonishingly bad. your average cable news financial guru could have made a strong case in about 2 minutes of airtime (most of them did), but no one seemed to notice in congress that 80% of america 'don't want no bailout for wallstreet!'. the white house's only attempt, beyond having public enemy #1 get on tv, was to ask the news networks to stop calling it a "bailout" and start calling it a "rescue plan". can't blame them for thinking simple semantic tomfoolery would work, though.

[Don Corleone]

Kogo: Never said Democrats voted along party lines against the best interests of the country. I'll actually give them credit for passing more resolutions than I would have expected them to (and probably more than they should have). But W didn't stand there like a gate-keeper and say "bow and admit you were wrong" on the way by either...

Big John: I'm not arguing that they're in the right. I'm arguing that it's human nature. Let me try putting it another way. Let's say your boss comes to you and says "alright, I've mismanaged the funds around here. In order to stay solvent, you're going to have to sign a document the HR manager will pass around in which you'll voluntarily take a 10% paycut". As the HR rep comes around, they announce "and by signing this document, you admit that you're lazy and stupid and only deserve 90% of what we're currently paying you".

Do you still think you'd sign?

Again, I'm happy the bill failed. I'm trying to get you guys to see that if you really wanted the bill to pass, you should be ticked at Nancy for failing to keep her fool mouth shut.

[Koga No Goshi]

Kogo: Never said Democrats voted along party lines against the best interests of the country. I'll actually give them credit for passing more resolutions than I would have expected them to (and probably more than they should have). But W didn't stand there like a gate-keeper and say "bow and admit you were wrong" on the way by either...

Big John: I'm not arguing that they're in the right. I'm arguing that it's human nature. Let me try putting it another way. Let's say your boss comes to you and says "alright, I've mismanaged the funds around here. In order to stay solvent, you're going to have to sign a document the HR manager will pass around in which you'll voluntarily take a 10% paycut". As the HR rep comes around, they announce "and by signing this document, you admit that you're lazy and stupid and only deserve 90% of what we're currently paying you".

Do you still think you'd sign?

Again, I'm happy the bill failed. I'm trying to get you guys to see that if you really wanted the bill to pass, you should be ticked at Nancy for failing to keep her fool mouth shut.

There are people besides Kush who wanted it to pass? *Doesn't know anyone*

Maybe try blaming the President who basically ruined his own credibility and then went out and stumped for this without explaining it, and admitting the number was pulled out of thin air. Instead of blaming us that the case made for this bailout was so incredibly poor that 90% of the calls to Congressional offices were "hell no"s.

[Big_John]

Big John: I'm not arguing that they're in the right. I'm arguing that it's human nature.then we are talking past each other. i never said no one would have done it (though i am inclined to believe scapegoat argument much more, since i imagine those fragile dears hear similar talk everyday in congress). i simply said anyone that did change their vote not based on the issue but based on pelosi should be deported (and i was being kind, in that).


the Let me try putting it another way. Let's say your boss comes to you and says "alright, I've mismanaged the funds around here. In order to stay solvent, you're going to have to sign a document the HR manager will pass around in which you'll voluntarily take a 10% paycut". As the HR rep comes around, they announce "and by signing this document, you admit that you're lazy and stupid and only deserve 90% of what we're currently paying you".

Do you still think you'd sign?that's a weird and bad analogy. but if the choice is between accepting a smudge on your honor (which may or may not be deserved), and watching your livelihood collapse....


Again, I'm happy the bill failed. I'm trying to get you guys to see that if you really wanted the bill to pass, you should be ticked at Nancy for failing to keep her fool mouth shut.i guess i think thick-skinned professional politicians are 1) thick-skinned enough to withstand a partisan tirade and 2) professional politicians enough to quickly seize a scapegoat when it presents itself.

[Koga No Goshi]

As many pundits have said... Nancy Pelosi gave a partisan speech. This is news, how?

Besides, there wasn't a darn untrue thing about what she said, but that's a whole other barrel of worms. I concede it wasn't politic, but it was still true.

[Strike For The South]

And one from the peanut gallery

Its all because of testosterone (http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=is-testosterone-to-blame-for-the-fi-2008-09-30&loc=interstitialskip)

[Big_John]

And one from the peanut gallery

Its all because of testosterone (http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=is-testosterone-to-blame-for-the-fi-2008-09-30&loc=interstitialskip)
lets assume the worst for a moment. if testosterone is the root of the collapse of the world economy and ushering in of a madmax-style dystopia... that would be so super awesomely hilarious.

[Don Corleone]

Yeah, if it turns out to be true... or even vaguely true... I'll never see the Corleone checkbook again.

Because regardless of whether testoserone leads to riskier financial behavior or not, there is unparalled evidence, through millenia of study, that shows that estrogen plants the phrase "I told you so" on the lips. :laugh4:

[Xiahou]

So here I was watching MSNBC, where they were interviewing Senators about the new bailout bill when I hear one mention one of the good things in the bill is subsidies for "alternative energy". What???

So I do some googling around, and yeah, it looks like the Senate has still never seen a bill that they aren't willing to tack pork (http://senateconservatives.com/) onto.




Here are some of the special-interest provisions that are now part of the Wall Street bailout legislation. The bill started at 3 pages, grew to 106 pages, and is now 451 pages.

* Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
* Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
* 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)
* Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
* American Samoa (Sec. 309)
* Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
* Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
* Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
* Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
* Railroads (Sec. 316)
* Auto Racing Tracks (317)
* District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
* Wool Research (Sec. 325)

[KukriKhan]

Fine work. That ought to just about kill it for good.

Best input I heard all day was Barney Frank, after someone off-screen observed that failing banks were being bought up by other banks, and the stock market was apparently recovering from the first "No Bailout" vote, and Warren Buffett was buying up tons of GE stock (paraphrasing; he trying to be sarcastic) "Well, good, maybe I should just go home for the rest of the year!"

Fine advice, I think.

-edit-
I googled youTube for the clip, but haven't found it yet; I thought I saw it on CNN.

[Koga No Goshi]

So here I was watching MSNBC, where they were interviewing Senators about the new bailout bill when I hear one mention one of the good things in the bill is subsidies for "alternative energy". What???

So I do some googling around, and yeah, it looks like the Senate has still never seen a bill that they aren't willing to tack pork (http://senateconservatives.com/) onto.

Most of that list isn't pork. Pork is like, funding for a sewing club. Not mining safety equipment or railroads.

[Papewaio]

No it is pork.

When the amendment has nothing to do with the act and it is there purely to buy the vote of the Rep who then uses the amendment to buy votes for themself.

If it was an act for say a decrease in mine taxes with an amendment for mine safety it would not be pork.

[Koga No Goshi]

No it is pork.

When the amendment has nothing to do with the act and it is there purely to buy the vote of the Rep who then uses the amendment to buy votes for themself.

If it was an act for say a decrease in mine taxes with an amendment for mine safety it would not be pork.

You are right. I think the common perception, though, is that pork is sheer waste. Whenever politicians trying to rile up a crowd against pork bring it up, they mention things like "genetic testing on polar bears." They don't mention that a lot of important things tend to get included through what is technically pork too.

And, getting about 400+ people to all vote on something just cause it's the right thing to do.... eh well none of us are children anymore are we? :) We could get serious about campaign finance reform so that politicians didn't have to spend half their terms fundraising for the next re-election campaign, and suckling up to special interests and corporations. But no one, in general, seems enthusiastic to do campaign finance reform, least of all the ones most benefitting from it.

[Xiahou]

Here's an article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081001/ap_on_go_co/meltdown_stakes_analysis) from the AP that touches on a similar theme:
The White House and congressional leaders already have made up their minds. Confronted with the defeat of an earlier measure in the House this week and increasingly urgent warnings of economic hardship, they've begun rounding up votes the old-fashioned way.

They're buying them.

A revised bailout bill includes tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks for the middle class, for homeowners who don't itemize their deductions, and for property owners in Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming.

Add on the $3 billion funding dollop for rural school programs over the next five years. And another $8 billion over the same period in disaster aid, much of it for Midwestern states. And toss in unrelated legislation, far-reaching in its own right, requiring insurance plans to provide better benefits for mental health.I heard an (unconfirmed) figure that claims the unrelated addons to the bailout bill could themselves top $100 billion over 10 yrs. Bear in mind, the bill still has to make it through the House, where the members will no doubt want their taste too before they'll promise their votes. :sweatdrop:

[Hosakawa Tito]

Pork and/or unrelated add-ons = buying votes. Unfortunately that seems to be the system we are stuck with.

As unpalatable as paying for the sins of others may be for those of us that didn't foolishly buy more house than we can afford or leverage the family budget beyond the max with credit card debt for material bling bling; in other words lived within one's means...I guess the one saving grace in this mess is that we are in a much better position to weather this storm, and in the long run should even profit from it.

[CountArach]

All this pork that has been added to the bill to get it to pass makes me thankful I live in a Parliamentary system... things get done because the party is (Almost always) unified.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So here I was watching MSNBC, where they were interviewing Senators about the new bailout bill when I hear one mention one of the good things in the bill is subsidies for "alternative energy". What???

So I do some googling around, and yeah, it looks like the Senate has still never seen a bill that they aren't willing to tack pork (http://senateconservatives.com/) onto.Good grief. :wall:

Financial disaster looms over America, and these special interest-bots spend their time porking up the bill.
I did not fully understand what Americans meant by 'pork' until just now. My oh my.

Gah! Americans should get on their horses, ride to Washington, and hang the lot of them on the nearest trees.

[Kadagar_AV]

Have the US started to question their political system yet?

No?

Ok, I'll check back later:)

[drone]

Have the US started to question their political system yet?

No?

Ok, I'll check back later:)

We always question our political system. The real question is "when are we going to do something about it?"

[Spino]

Good grief. :wall:

Financial disaster looms over America, and these special interest-bots spend their time porking up the bill.
I did not fully understand what Americans meant by 'pork' until just now. My oh my.

Gah! Americans should get on their horses, ride to Washington, and hang the lot of them on the nearest trees.

That's a tall order when you consider that our nation's elected leaders come from the same tide pool that spawned their constituency. The percentage of Americans who exhibit any semblance of common sense is shrinking with every passing day. I daresay such folks are clearly in the minority nowadays.

If any action is taken by the populace it will be too late to save the existing system. Historically the mob has a bad tendency to take action only when the crisis has proceeded beyond the point of no return.

[GeneralHankerchief]

Bailout passes in Senate (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081002/D93IDFEG1.html).

Looks like it's gonna get passed in the House, too. I hope there's a bloodbath come November.

[Spino]

In all my haste to disseminate doom & gloom predictions and launch tirades against my favorite generation in this forum I forgot to mention this sweet little gem which was recently passed by Congress and signed by the President...

In the midst of reckless spending spree of the last six months I present to you the $25 billion dollar 'not a bailout' subsidy bailout for US automakers...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081002135906.fjk5sk99&show_article=1

Government loans awarded to three major US automakers are justified as they need them to meet new environmental regulations, Ford chief executive Alan Mulally said Thursday.
"This is not about a bailout," the Ford chief executive told AFP in an interview at the Paris auto show.

"It was very insightful what they did with the recent credit tightening, otherwise it would have really slowed down all efforts to being new technology into fuel-efficient vehicles."

Critics have alleged the US firms received an unwarranted subsidy.

US President George W. Bush signed a new energy bill Tuesday after it received approval from Congress.

It includes a 25-billion-dollar (17.8-billion-euro) loan package to help Ford, General Motors and Chrysler adapt to new emissions regulations.

Mulally said the cost of meeting new regulations could be as much as 110 billion dollars.

The money will be used to retool and adapt factories to make smaller, more fuel-efficient cars. Mulally said the extra cash could also be used to develop cars that will be sold in Europe.

"When we make a 'global' car for the United States, they will also be vehicles that will be sold in Europe," he said.

The former Boeing chief executive rejected the argument that Ford had focused too heavily on larger, gas-guzzling vehicles and failed to anticipate the developing trend towards smaller cars.

"We weren't pushing these larger vehicles, we were just building what our customers wanted," Mulally said.

Although SUVs and larger cars are less fuel-efficient, they carry bigger profit margins that can significantly boost an automaker's bottom line.

This is because they can charge more for larger vehicles, better covering development costs.

The Ford chief executive said that the challenge for his company was to make sure that every vehicle in its lineup makes money.

While the three big US companies have requested government cash, Japanese automakers Nissan, Honda and Toyota have said they would not seek to access funds from the 25 billion dollar package.

Ford however badly needs the cash injection. In the second quarter of 2008, it posted a net loss of 8.7 billion dollars, down from a net profit of 750 million dollars for the same period in 2007.

Its Detroit rival GM lost 15.5 billion dollars in the second quarter of 2008, compared with a profit of 891 million in 2007.

Chrysler is now owned by private equity group Cerberus and is no longer obliged to make its results public.

Ford announced its latest US sales figures on October 1.

New car sales plunged 35 percent in September to 116,734 vehicles, down from 176,204 in September 2007. Sales for the year to date fell 17.3 per cent to 1.5 million vehicles.

The former Boeing chief executive rejected the argument that Ford had focused too heavily on larger, gas-guzzling vehicles and failed to anticipate the developing trend towards smaller cars.

"We weren't pushing these larger vehicles, we were just building what our customers wanted," Mulally said.

Ya, blame your misfortunes on the customer you short sighted ninny.

Remember kids, it's not a gift... it's a loan which will help these private corporations meet those emissions standards they knew were coming down the pike for an eternity. That's all well in fine but you gotta love our elected leaders for being so quick to fork over another check backed by funny money.

[Gregoshi]

Financial disaster looms over America, and these special interest-bots spend their time porking up the bill.
I did not fully understand what Americans meant by 'pork' until just now. My oh my.

And now Louis you also understand the true meaning of the term "buypartisanship".

[Koga No Goshi]

Pork is nothing new to get a bill passed. It's tradition going back to the beginning of the country. If we want to get angry about pork, don't get angry at the system. The system is just doing what the voters allow it to do. Blame the fact that 90% of people out there are far more concerned with American Idol and picking up a latte before work than checking the papers (past headlines) to see who's voting on what, and vote in or out the relevant Congresspeople accordingly. Most people don't know, and don't care. And wouldn't change how they live or think or vote even if they did know.

[Xiahou]

Pork is nothing new to get a bill passed.Well, I think, in the US, the concept goes back to the 1800's, but if the people who were complaining about pork-barrel legislation then had an inkling of how blatant it would be today, I suspect they would've dropped dead on the spot. :beam:

[Koga No Goshi]

Well, I think, in the US, the concept goes back to the 1800's, but if the people who were complaining about pork-barrel legislation then had an inkling of how blatant it would be today, I suspect they would've dropped dead on the spot. :beam:

Well cutting pork is the cornerstone of McCain's economic plan. And he couldn't get the Reps on board to vote for a bill he stumped for, but they will vote if pork is added affecting the AMT tax and such.....

Does this pass the smell test? :)

[Don Corleone]

Well cutting pork is the cornerstone of McCain's economic plan. And he couldn't get the Reps on board to vote for a bill he stumped for, but they will vote if pork is added affecting the AMT tax and such.....

Does this pass the smell test? :)

Actually, no it doesn't. The AMT hasn't been adjusted for inflation in it's 38 years, so you listing it's adjustement as "pork" smells pretty bad. The original AMT only covered 155 households, BY DESIGN. Now approximately 20% of all households qualify. It's not supposed to be another "gouge the not-so-rich, but richer-than-me" kick to the groin.

The IRS themselves have identified it as the single worst thing about the U.S. tax code. Last year, the exemption was passed on 12/20/2007, requiring the IRS to reprint and redistribute the 2007 IRS tax forms, to the cost of about $40 million.

I will agree with you that it has nothing to do with the financial bailout bill, but it's not pork. Paying people $3.5million to study wool modification, that's pork. Silly me, i thought we had the spinning wheel nailed down, oh I don't know... 3000 years ago?????

[Koga No Goshi]

Actually, no it doesn't. The AMT hasn't been adjusted for inflation in it's 38 years, so you listing it's adjustement as "pork" smells pretty bad. The original AMT only covered 155 households, BY DESIGN. Now approximately 20% of all households qualify. It's not supposed to be another "gouge the not-so-rich, but richer-than-me" kick to the groin.

The IRS themselves have identified it as the single worst thing about the U.S. tax code. Last year, the exemption was passed on 12/20/2007, requiring the IRS to reprint and redistribute the 2007 IRS tax forms, to the cost of about $40 million.

I will agree with you that it has nothing to do with the financial bailout bill, but it's not pork. Paying people $3.5million to study wool modification, that's pork. Silly me, i thought we had the spinning wheel nailed down, oh I don't know... 3000 years ago?????

Well, if we're defining pork as just "things I don't like", then yes.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Aren't there hyperpluralist provisions like "Tax breaks for people who buy BMW hybrid vehicles"? I know there are some rediculous ones.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think its time we all followed this man's (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3123516/Wall-Street-trader-becomes-a-monk.html) example. :clown:

[Gregoshi]

I think its time we all followed this man's (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3123516/Wall-Street-trader-becomes-a-monk.html) example. :clown:
Yes, it could be the beginning of a new Fed monastery policy. ~D

[Ronin]

sinfest puts the finger in the wound yet again

EDIT: Put in spoiler tags because the cartoon contains language that breaks forum rules. BG

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/vincent_pt/sinfest_banksta.gif

:laugh4::7ninja:

[Ice]

Yes, it could be the beginning of a new Fed monastery policy. ~D

ba zing!