The $700 Billion Bailout Package

I don't know how many House Republicans are sincere with their no bailout ideas. I wonder if they are doing some posturing just so they can say I told you so when we still have a decline after the bailout, which is likely to occur.

Sure we would all love private capital to buy the toxic paper. But we all would like Santa Claus to come down and bring us all gifts too.

The whole problem is the lack of confidence in the credit market so hoping and wishing it will change and private capital sitting on the sidelines is magically going to be used to provide liquidity to the credit markes isn't going to make it happen.

* I am confident I'll be able to keep my job whatever happens and I am not going to be in the market for a car loan, mortgage, student loan, and I pay my credit card off each month, so the bailout has no direct effect on me either way. I may lose some in the stock market if there isn't a bailout but I am very well diversified and am not going to retire anytime soon. If do hit a real downturn it would be a buying opportunity for me.

When a consumer doesn't do simple math and rings up their credit cards, the bankruptcy law in this country are very loath to discharge the debt. Consumers have to go through credit counseling. They have to borrow at punitive rates for years and years. Future employers check their credit ratings and are loath to give them jobs.

When Wall Street doesn't do simple math, the government falls all over themselves to get them a handout. It is disgusting.

Every mom-and-pop landlord knew that real estate was getting out of hand in many parts of the country back in 2001. Yes-- 2001. The lenders kept on lending were either driveling idiots or willfully ignorant. Please tell me why these fools deserve any better than any other deadbeat who rings up too many charges on their credit cards?

You keep on presenting this as an either-or proposition. It is a nice rhetorical trick but simply put, there are other options. It is not simply a choice between door A- bailout and door B-catastrophe.

There is a door C in which the interests of the taxpayers are protected-- in which the price paid for those assets is the current market price. In which taxpayers get equity in the fools whom they are bailing out. In which compensation for these fools is commensurate with their skill.

Look Warren Buffett just negotiated a deal with Goldman Sachs. Etrade sold their mortgage portfolio-what-- a year ago or so? So long as the taxpayers get similar terms from any party from whom they buy debt, then I fully support the bailout...

Once again-- this a bullpucky. Say it takes 100 hours to look at the data and figure out what someone can reasonably borrow. Who should bear the burden of spending that 100 hours. Every individual one of 1000's or 10,000's of borrowers, or the one lender who deals with those borrowers?

Put another way-- if wall street was too lazy to figure out who could afford which mortgage, why the heck are you blaming consumers?

Surprise, surprise-- a wall streeter thinks that it would be great if the gov't just wrote a blank check and then gout out of the way. I bet most deadbeat consumers think that it would be great if credit card companies just wrote a blank check and then got out of the way.

No-- the government should own these firms when all is said and done.

Yes. Choosing in simple and is basic common sense. The big firms are no different that drug dealers (same morals, etc). In a drug transaction both the sell and buyer are at fault, but the fact remains without the drug in the first place there would be no transaction. Is it more appropriate to choke the throat of the dealer or the buyer? Vastly more efficient and appropriate to choke out the dealers.

Typical corrupt financier nonsense. The same crooks are hat in hand in Washington going for a capital gains tax cut, so they're certainly trying to have their cake and eat it took. I say solve that problem by stripping them of all the ill begotten gains, then they won't have to worry about taxes.

Carnivore 69 wrote:

Some people have said that no bailout should happen, that we should let the whole thing crash down and pick up the pieces later. That’s OK, as long as you realize that the little guy, the consumer, will be hurt far worse than with a bailout. Massive unemployment, exceeding Depression levels, would be the norm. IRAs wiped out, 401ks down 70-80% in some cases. The FDIC would likely fail and there would be a race to pull out deposits, causing most of the rest of the banks to fail. The counterparty risk I mentioned yesterday is at the heart of this matter, not bad mortgages. Letting the collapse happen would put the Dow in the 3000-5000 range. A bailout may keep it at 8000 or above.

As long as detailed as your post was, it's that part alone that makes me think chicken little. As one that feels the bailout should not only fail, but that the sources of this should be wiped from the face of the earth, I see the "dire" warning as pretty much a load of crap. A lot a bad s**t is going to happen no doubt, but I don't consider a bunch of stock brokers in soup lines a bad thing. I consider it just rewards. If the chickens don't come home to roost the crooks that caused this mess will be rewarded and encouraged to do it again. The "rah rah" period was deliberate and criminal. Punishment is certainly in order.

Oddly enough I find myself rooting for the renegade Republicans in the House. As distasteful as I find them, and I have this feeling it's nothing but grandstanding, I surely hope they succeed in derailing this. The Democrats are certainly too spineless to do it.

With regard to the "100 hours of research" point - I believe he is trying to say that many consumers failed miserably studying the only deal that mattered to them - their own house. For 95+% of Americans, their house represents the largest single purchase of their lives. To not think about whether they could afford it is stupid. Nobody expects consumers to study more than one single house and one single loan on that house.

photofinish wrote:

With regard to the "100 hours of research" point - I believe he is trying to say that many consumers failed miserably studying the only deal that mattered to them - their own house. For 95+% of Americans, their house represents the largest single purchase of their lives. To not think about whether they could afford it is stupid. Nobody expects consumers to study more than one single house and one single loan on that house.

Really???

-How many consumers have access to *generations worth* of historical default records?

-How many consumers have have the ability to model the likelihood of a job loss/major medical expense in their lives?

-How many consumers have access to *generations worth* of house appreciation information? Of rental to purchase costs? Of earned income records?

-How many consumers have the mathematical tools and time to consider these things?

Did you really study these things before buying your home or did you go by some "rule of thumb"--like don't borrow more than three times your income?

In the "good old days" before Wall Street got involved with mortgage securitization, all of these things were considered before any loan was written. Wall street decided that they were smarter than the banks who used to write mortgages and that this information didn't matter.

They were wrong.

This mess was caused by communists (a.k.a Democrats) who forced banks to make bad loans and created opportunities for consumers and lenders to gamble on real estate!

The CRA (community reinvestment act) was the Democrats' way of siphoning money to their buddies who do community organizing (isn't that one of the candidate's resume highlights?). Groups like ACORN.

The mafia is envious of the Democrats right now. They could never have devised such a well planed scheme that robbed so many hard working Americans of their hard earned money AND not be even mentioned as suspects.

Fannie and Freddie are government entities that insured all of these bad loans. Can you guess for which candidate two of these organization's top executives work? Can you guess which party recieved quite a bit of donations from these two organizations?

McCain (a RINO, liberal who I can't stand, so don't even start with the tired refrains) tried to reign in Fannie and Freddie, but he was blocked by Dem's. He was demonized, along with other GOP officials for "scaring" people about "unlikely" financial turmoil.

But, of course, it's much easier to put blame on the party that promotes free enterprise and use an example of what happens when the government tries to engineer free markets to blame free markets for failing. While at the same time calling for the goverment to do MORE.

To paraphrase Homer Simpson: "Government, the cause and solution to all our problems."

What stupendous logic.

And before simple minded liberals start blathering about "oh, so government is evil". No government is not evil. Government that over steps its bounds to line its pockets to the detrimant of hard working average Joes and Joans is evil!

The CRA was what set this ball rolling, everything after, though wrong as it may have been (consumers over spending, lenders over lending) were only made possible by your friends and mine (not really)...The Dumbocrats!!!

Nevermind.

i find it extremely ironic that obama's whole campaign has been about a CHANGE in washington and that he is running against McSame. But, in obama's first big politic test he sides with wall street and president bush.

this stance of the democrats and obama goes against everything they have been railing against McCain.

McCain directly opposes Bush and the demoncrats. wild.

this race just got that much more exciting.

I am a Independent and will never vote for McCain but let me agree Obama just screwed up big time, he got played like a tool. Obama didn't fall for Bush during the WMD fiasco how could he miss this?

We heard earlier this week if we didn't have a deal by Friday chaos would occure, well it's Friday and the sky hasn't fallen and we are hearing now we have a few weeks.

These guys tried to BS the American people and it failed.

Whenever anyone comes to you and says you have to sign this today, only today and if you don't the sky will fall you say NO !

Obama may have just lost the election, if the Republicans get a bill with alot less taxpayer input McCain wins.

What are you guys talking about? McCain hasn't "done" anything except to erraticly fly all over the place on his positions, grasping at straws that he will end up grabbing the "right" (ie, popular) position (** see below for summary of his recent actions**). The man who has said about himself that he "doesn't know much about the economy" is going to be the one to make this groundbreaking deal happen?? Sure. The deal was ready to happen until Repubs backed away giving McCain a chance to "save the day." I am not saying it doesn't have potential to pay off for him, but like most of McCain's erratic recent gambits, it will probably blow up into his face.

This ("halting" his campaign) is nothing more than a political stunt on McCain's part, pure and simple, similar to his choosing Palin as his VP (and that is already starting to crash and burn for him). It has NOTHING to do with putting country first, or doing the "right thing," but is about trying to get elected, period.

------

**

" Nearly two weeks ago, as the crisis dominated the news, McCain claimed that the fundamentals of the economy were "strong,” then quickly corrected himself, saying the economy was "in crisis." This week, he defended his running mate, Sarah Palin's, suggestion that America risks another Great Depression.

After initially opposing the $85 billion bailout of insurance giant AIG, he backtracked and supported it.

Then he called for the firing of SEC Chairman Chris Cox, claiming he had "betrayed the public's trust" – only to later soften those comments and call him a "good man."

In an interview on "60 Minutes" last Sunday, McCain surprised fellow Republicans by saying he would replace Cox with New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat who has investigated Wall Street corruption.

Then came the big, roll-the-dice moves this week.

On Wednesday, McCain announcing he'd "suspend" his campaign to deal with the crisis and called for the postponement of the first presidential debate, scheduled to take plan in Oxford, Miss. Friday night."

----

Of course NOW, he says he might do the debate even if no deal is reached.

MAKE UP YOUR FRIGGIN' MIND McCAIN.

"It has NOTHING to do with putting country first, or doing the "right thing," but is about trying to get elected, period."

Which is true for both candidates and both parties.

You keep on presenting this as an either-or proposition. It is a nice rhetorical trick but simply put, there are other options. It is not simply a choice between door A- bailout and door B-catastrophe.

There is a door C in which the interests of the taxpayers are protected-- in which the price paid for those assets is the current market price. In which taxpayers get equity in the fools whom they are bailing out. In which compensation for these fools is commensurate with their skill.

Look Warren Buffett just negotiated a deal with Goldman Sachs. Etrade sold their mortgage portfolio-what-- a year ago or so? So long as the taxpayers get similar terms from any party from whom they buy debt, then I fully support the bailout...

Both the Etrade/Citadel deal and the Buffett/Goldman deal were private transactions. Should the government go to each troubled company (hundreds, if not thousands) and work out an individualized deal? Or should they set up a reverse auction, as proposed by Paulson?

The plan has to help get the private market for this mortgage backed paper reopened, along with the credit markets in general. That would truly help the entire system since every company and taxpayer, directly or indirectly, relies on functioning credit markets.

If Paulson worked out private deals with each company would that be enough to get the credit markets working again? Banks need to make money, and to a large degree that means loaning money. Getting the bad paper off their balance sheets would give them incentive to get back to loaning money, and makinig profits. On the other hand working out that many private deals would take a long time.

The reverse auction type proposal, to some degree, leaves market forces to determine the price paid by the government for the paper. This seems to scare some critics of the plan because it doesn't provide assurance that the taxpayers will get the lowest possible price. My guess is that it would get the bad paper from the banks to the feds faster than getting individual deals with the troubled firms. If successful, it would also get the credit markets functioning sooner. Maybe adding warrants to that type of plan would be the best solution to protecting taxpayer interests and attempting to solve the problem quickly. The critics of warrants don't want any form of "nationalizing" the banks. Seems like we've gone a little too far down the socialist road already to worry about that.

messed up the quotes in the above post. First three paragraphs were from an earlier post by 4runner.

Keith Stone wrote:

I don't consider a bunch of stock brokers in soup lines a bad thing. I consider it just rewards. If the chickens don't come home to roost the crooks that caused this mess will be rewarded and encouraged to do it again. The "rah rah" period was deliberate and criminal. Punishment is certainly in order.

Oddly enough I find myself rooting for the renegade Republicans in the House. As distasteful as I find them, and I have this feeling it's nothing but grandstanding, I surely hope they succeed in derailing this. The Democrats are certainly too spineless to do it.

False. What makes you think it will be stock brokers in soup lines? Have a job that you need to keep in order to pay the bills? You might be in the soup line. Have savings that you are relying on in case you lose your job. You might be in the soup line. No one is going to come out of this clean if this blow up.

Wall St. and Main St. - what a joke. Credit is what is at stake here, and credit is not just for the overextended. It is for anyone with a house, any small business.

This is a typical response from the average, ignorant American. This is why you should have no place in government.

Keith Stone wrote:

[quote]:

The same crooks are hat in hand in Washington going for a capital gains tax cut, so they're certainly trying to have their cake and eat it took.

You are a complete, naive idiot. You have no understanding of the problem. You only cling to the child like, phony blue collar "the man is sticking it to us" martyr act.

You conveniently ignore the fact that everyone from consumers to executives had a hand in this mess, and will each suffer greatly if this isn't resolved but the "main street" whose values you supposedly defend would likely suffer even more. You have no idea of how the credit markets work or how if they were to seize, would hurt "main street" before anyone else.

But that's what you want, then you can roll out your simple minded argument again and blame someone instead of understanding the problem.

I will not respond to anymore of your ignorance, but in closing, why don't you try this.

If you ever have a fire on your property, why don't you call the building inspectors first so they can list any violations that were on the property and petition to change the codes. Then after they are finished, call the fire department to put out the flames.

Let us know how that works out.

A lot of people do not understand that this isn't only about bad mortgages.

A lot of the toxic paper is a toxic because it tied short term investment vehicles to long term liabilities (mortgages in particular).

This is a dangerous game because the second liquidity dries up the house of cards falls and 2. these "assets" being marked to market which means that every day they had to reasess the value of the assets and had to keep up their liquid capital (which is mandated) to certain levels.

If on a certain day the marked to market value dropped...they were forced to get new liquid assets on their books somehow.

Really, the structure is a problem. However, it's not like 100% of mortagages are going to default or be paid out. What will happen is that the short term notes will be rolled into long term notes...seperated based on risk...and resold.

These assets do have worth...but should have been structured as longer term notes in the first place.

September wrote:

Both the Etrade/Citadel deal and the Buffett/Goldman deal were private transactions. Should the government go to each troubled company (hundreds, if not thousands) and work out an individualized deal? Or should they set up a reverse auction, as proposed by Paulson?

Wasn't the reverse auction something that came up after people started complaining about Paulson's original plan? The same thing with oversight and accountability-- Paulson only came around to the need for oversight after the initial outrage.

No company outside of the financials has declared bankruptcy because of the credit markets. Yes-- I fully admit that such bankruptcies are a possibility and that the possibility should be addressed. However, we're not at the point where the government needs to start handing out blank checks without due process and without someone aggressively seeking to protect the taxpayers...

This money grab is not working, no way this bill passes, this is one of the great hoaxes EVER attempted. Earlier this week we were told we HAD to pass a bill this week, no time for waiting, now we are hearing 3 weeks. This is total BS, we just had a huge bank go down and not one penny of the consumers money had to be spent. The stock market is doing fine, this is total bs, this was one hell of a hoax and it almost worked.