The $700 Billion Bailout Package

Keith Stone wrote:

[quote]

The mess we're in now is totally due to their greed and desire to get fees and inflated "services" by selling mortgages and equity instruments every unsuspecting schmuck

Bull. Shit.

There are no innocents in this debacle. Everyone from consumers to the CEO's are to blame, with the rating agencies taking a large portion.

Unsuspecting? Unsuspecting?? That statement is so full of shit it's mind boggling. Are you trying to tell me a couple making 100k a year didn't know that buying a 750k house was beyond their means? Are you trying to say people taking lines of credit on their existing home and blowing it on spec properties and second homes didn't know they were playing with fire?

How about the assholes that bought homes, tore them down and built McMansions and are now crying because the didn't refi their mortgage before the blow up? And are now going to expect relief in this bailout?

And don't say those are isolated cases either.

They people who put these phony mortgages out there were dirtbags, but the argument that people were "sucked in" only speaks to a small percentage of the problem.

This never would have happened without each layer of consumers, financial industry, government, rating agencies and federal reserve enabling each other.

Blaming only the easiest target only shows how uneducated you are about the problem.

OldXCguy wrote:

To Sagarin and whoever else:

At the heart of the bailout is the question of whether we need it to save the fundamentals of American life, or is it to save the investment banking industry? Is there a difference?

(Sorry, I didn't read every post on this long thread, so those questions may have already been addressed.)

OldXCguy,

Valid question. The ability of banks to lend money unfortunately drives consumerism. So, if we save the banks are we saving the fundamentals of American life? I think so. Businesses frequently borrow money to help grow their businesses, and that creates jobs, so whether it's right or wrong to borrow money, it is that borrowing of money that helps create jobs (it isn't the only way, but it is currently one of the biggest ways).

It is more than just a feel-good plan though. The wheels of the economy are griding to a halt, and this infusion I think is unfortunately necessary. Most financial experts in the last few days have agreed with that. Ron Paul and some others on the fringe disagree. Doesn't mean the majority is right here though, but I think they are.

On the plus side, a prolonged 70's-esque recession will be the best thing to happen to US long distance running since, uh, the recession in the 1970's.

We'll have Meyers and Fredericks and Slacks coming out our ears.

More and more lately I feel as though I am living in the story of Atlas Shrugged. Anybody else feeling this way?

I had the same thought.

OldXCguy wrote:

To Sagarin and whoever else:

At the heart of the bailout is the question of whether we need it to save the fundamentals of American life, or is it to save the investment banking industry? Is there a difference?

(Sorry, I didn't read every post on this long thread, so those questions may have already been addressed.)

Well one thought is that it's likely both we are saving. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble but we actually do need the big banks to be healthy and if they are not we will have a hard time working through this.

This is a bit on the tinfoil side and I don't know how lucid this is but I'll give you a rundown on an idea that's out there. It goes like this..how does the .gov fund itself? Treasury debt sales to tune of 2 billion +/- per day. Who buys this debt and resells to the world? Primary Dealers or PD... go to

to see who Treasury sells the debt to. Any names look familiar? These names blow up what happens...Treasury can't sell US debt ( I don't think I buy this ) what happens when US can't sell debt...rates rocket north, credit spreads on everything explode to the upside...is that good for Joe and Jane sixpack and their car loan application or their employers expansion plans. How's that good for their 401k with company stock or mutual funds or real estate???

If the US can't find buyers for its debt we are literally screwed...expect massive government cutbacks (which I think we need anyway) and countrywide, statewide economic problems unless you have prepared for it.

I've said before part of me is for the bailout, part of me says no we need to take the medicine now and not kick the problem down the road.

Another thing.. what is 2 billion times 365 days = 730 billion dollars; hmmm how much money does Treasury want??? A bit of tinfoil thinking but that's one theory out there...

I didn't read much of this thread (who has the time....oh, that's right, Sagarin does for sure), but here's my 2 cents:

Carnivore 69 wrote:

I am not a fan of what these Wall Street firms have done. In an earlier post, I mentioned that blame for this mess lay at the feet of consumers first (who can’t or won’t save and love spending 110% of their income) and Wall Street second...

Yup, blame the little guy first. Not surprising in the least that you would.

Carnivore 69 wrote:What the President, Treasury Secretary, and Fed Chairman probably will not tell you is that the bailout plan is not meant to bailout Wall Street. It is meant to bailout the entire country from financial catastrophe, potentially far worse than anything seen during the Great Depression.

This is a bizarre statement. OF COURSE they would plan on telling us that the plan is meant to bail-out the whole financial system, and that is exactly what they've said over and over. And of course they are playing up the scare tactics. Why would they sell it as a plan to bail out only the fat-cats?? And yeah, it is indeed a plan that is intended to ultimately help the whole economy, so why wouldn't they stress that angle? What a strange comment by you.

I am not saying I am against this plan, but it IS HILARIOUS to see conservatives like you and others on this board, not to mention Bernake, Paulson, and other Republicans, embrace it so strongly and say: GOVERNMENT....PLEASE SAVE US ALL. I thought the government was the root of all evil? C'mon, that is EXACTLY what you types have been saying for years! Less government = better government....isn't that your mantra? I thought the government's ONLY role was to fight wars and build roads. How come I never before heard you mention on that list "investment banks bailout" ? When Katrina struck you types bristled at the idea that the federal gov't should get ANY blame for not acting quicker to help people in need. People need to take care of themselves, and it's not the government's role to help them. Wasn't that your viewpoint?

And if people are down on their luck, and hungry, it's not the role of the government to give hand-outs and take from the rich and give to the poor. But now, it's all changed. THIS is different. Suddenly the whole system will fall apart, and now the government should step in. Interesting. I don't think it's because you care about the poor guy getting even poorer under such circumstances (though he would of course). No siree. You are deathly afraid though that the system would crash so hard that quite a few upper middle class people and rich people might suffer and become poor. And THAT is what you are afraid of. When the well off are in danger of truly suffering, THEN the gov't should act. Katrina?? Can't feed your family off of minimum wage?? Fend yourself bitches!

And what if tax rates were as low as you want them to be, and the government as weak as you want it to be?? They'd have no money and no power to make this bail-out happen, and you'd be shit out of luck.

Just admit this. This crisis is the death-blow to your ideology that the government is evil and should not be in the business of helping people and taxing people. Suddenly you've become exactly what you always claim to hate: someone who believes the gov't has a role in helping people, and that we are "all in this together as a country," ie, what you've always referred to as a SOCIALIST PIG. Welcome to the mud.

OK so what happens after the next wave of bank failures? Suppose the bailout keeps Wall Street going for a few more months or years, and then everything comes unglued again. What then? As bad as the situation is now, the government is creating an opportunity for something much worse to happen down the road.

iflyboats wrote:

As bad as the situation is now, the government is creating an opportunity for something much worse to happen down the road.

DING, DING....that is correct. That is why we today (as a nation) must change our whole mindset individually and in our government to be savers and not spend more than we take in...or at least drastically lower our personal debt and government debt so we are not slaves to it...if our goverment doesn't get its act together we will be held hostage by other countries literally owning us. Think of it a financial terrorism. Of course we could default on that debt too and probably not suffer at the hands of others due to our military might but that wouldn't be good either now would it??

jeb

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

I am not saying I am against this plan, but it IS HILARIOUS to see conservatives like you and others on this board, not to mention Bernake, Paulson, and other Republicans, embrace it so strongly and say: GOVERNMENT....PLEASE SAVE US ALL. I thought the government was the root of all evil? C'mon, that is EXACTLY what you types have been saying for years! Less government = better government....isn't that your mantra?

I lean toward the conservative side, and the mantra you mention is a pretty accurate summation of my viewpoint, but I don't think the proposed bailout is a good thing at all. (Neither does a better known conservative voice, Newt Gingrich.) I have strong reservations about putting nearly a trillion dollars in the hands of a non-elected government official, and having the feds control investment banking in our nation. Government is totally out of control already (check out Social Security, for an easy example), and more of it is rarely, if ever, the answer.

Prudence ... will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

mother clucker wrote:

Prudence ... will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I'm with you Tommy Boy; 1776 redux

jeb

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

Tommy

In the biz wrote:

Blaming only the easiest target only shows how uneducated you are about the problem.

Trying to absolve the true target shows you're not fully cognizant of the problem. Hiding the risk is the root cause. Had people not gone through the trouble of hiding the risk by repackaging and creating new "products" then nobody in their right mind would have bought them, meaning the capital wouldn't have been there to offer to the local doofus building their McMansion.

I have no sympathy for the moron that builds their McMansion in the boonies and now is crying about interest and gas prices, but the fact remains that wouldn't have happened without an enabler. If the risk hadn't been hidden by those at the top of the food chain, the bottom feeders wouldn't have been searching for victims in the first place.

The McMansion buyers are already taking it in the shorts anyway. They're going to suffer and suffer plenty and I don't have a problem with that. The developers need to feel the pain too, and the big firms that dump money into these fast buck schemes losing access to credit will facilitate that.

But in the big scheme of things you can't choke every throat. Grabbing the throat at the center of the problem and choking the life out it will send the fear down through the chain and things would right themselves. I'm severely disappointed the Democrats have shown once again they have no spine and caved to the fear mongering. I'm sure mink coat and trophy wife futures are being bid up on Wall St as we speak.

I have to say that for the first time in my life I don't believe in my country any more. I don't believe in Wall street, I don't believe in the government (Dem or Rep) I don't belive in our "leaders" (current or purposed), I don't believe in the media, or even the American people themselves. The USA currently is without a moral, political, or economic compass and it makes me ashamed to see what we've become.

Blame is pointless.

You sound like a person who wanted to crush Germany after WWI. We know how that turned out.

It sucks don't it?

jeb

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

Welcome to the mud.

The board idiot just got off his 60 hour shift at McDs.

(Optional) wrote:

More and more lately I feel as though I am living in the story of Atlas Shrugged. Anybody else feeling this way?

This.

I agree with you. Maybe we need hardships, real hardship to get America back. I hope the bill fails.