BAILOUT: Yes or No?

[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 . 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. 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.

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?p...d=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...

[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/T...egulation.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.

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.

[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.

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 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/pubI...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.