Reply With Quote
Is that you chris rock?
Theres been alot worse.agreed!BTW, wasn't the stimulus package supposed to help our economy? How'd that work, and for how long? How much more of bushism do you really want? Bush will go down in history as the worst Pres ever. What an idiot. Let wall street bail itself out or go under like a lot of american's have had to do.
Carter, Jimmy
again people, pick up a history book.
Is that you chris rock?
Since you asked, here's why your condescension is ill informed:
If these ins utions are unable to do anything with their defaulted mortgages, the following happens:
Getting credit goes from difficult to impossible. With banks being unable to lend money, nobody can buy a house or start a business. If businesses can't grow and consumers can't buy homes, the economy has no chance of growth whatsoever. Homeownership dwindles substantially, increasing the amount of bad debt and putting more Americans out of their homes.
No new credit on your Visas, Mastercards, etc. Whether most people get this or not, when you buy lunch on a credit card the bank is lending you the money for lunch. Credit limits will be drastically reduced until they find zero because the banks won't have the money to lend and what little money they did have would be unavailable to most people. While in many cases losing credit cards would be a good thing for people, it is undeniable that a very significant portion of American commerce goes through this avenue.
Third, and most important of all, the safety of your money in the bank is put into question. Before you dismiss this as an impossibility, consider this: when a bank has to pay their debts and the only funds available are those funds from customers accounts or the bankers have to give up their personal money to keep the bank afloat, what do YOU think they'd choose? Money from the accounts has to be used to satisfy the debts so that the bankers can escape, and FDIC can take up to 3 years to pay what they insure. In addition, the FDIC cash reserve doesn't have what would be necessary to refund money in that massive amount even if they wanted to.
So to review: Americans have little to no cash, no ability to get credit, and have to rely on what little cash they have saved and from their jobs in order to feed their families and pay their mortgages. What does that sound like to you?
I can list more symptoms of what would happen but hopefully this is enough. If you still aren't convinced I'd be happy to tell you more.
Agreed. However, what is good and what is necessary are not the same thing.
In a related deveopment, Herbert Hoover will be protesting the New Deal.
Don't understand any of this,
but but..
does this mean Andrew Bynum will not get his $20mil/year paycheck?
Great post!
It is amazing how many Americans are ignorant about the enormous consequences of not passing this bail out bill.
If the Americans are already spending $2.0 trillion and counting in and for IRAQ, why would not the lawmakers spend $0.7 trillion in and for the AMERICANS?
You dumb , have you read all the fine print? That is unacceptable. I'd be fine with a revised bill passing that cleaved the fat off this excuse. And I could care less how Bush feels(directed at the media), I don't care if he's dissapointed. Americans are dissapointed with alot of this , if we still had 3 terms possible, they Rs wouldn't even have him as their nominee(unless you have to do that don't know for sure)
No. The Congress is responsible for most of this, not the Bush administration. They have been talking the economy into the toilet in order to get points for the election. Why would we trust someone that would do that to suddenly have everyone's best interest at heart now? Barney "Fanny Mae is fundamentally sound" Frank is the last ing person I'd be asking to take charge of this issue, since he's the primary reason that they were giving loans to high risk borrowers for homes. I suppose we as taxpayers should go ahead and ante up for him to buy his way out of the mess he made, but I don't ing trust him to do it competently. If they say it's going to cost .7 trillion dollars, I guarantee you it'll end up costing three times that before we're done. That money is better off in the taxpayers' hands. I fear that they've completely killed consumer confidence in anything, which is more important than anything else.
You're damn ing right it isn't, and any implication otherwise is hugely irresponsible. The only thing that has helped gas prices in the last year is Bush lifting the moratorium on drilling, which dried up the speculation and lowered the price of oil. Nice of the do-nothing congress to take credit for the drop in gas prices.
This issue has arisen in part because the congress refused to just allow the market to absorb the foreclosures from the bad loans. Those of us smart enough to pay a little extra for the safety net of a hybrid ARM have to pay for those that didn't, and now we're going to have to pay more to bail out those in the government that strong-armed the financial ins utions into playing social engineer in the first place. You start doing the same thing with financial ins utions, and there'll be a foot race for the free money, and you'll see ins utions that were teetering on the edge all collapse at once, and the ones that were anywhere near the edge will cash out and claim collapse because they don't want to be stuck holding the bag.
Again, it's probably too late, as consumer confidence has been all but killed by the rhetoric, and that will do more damage than anyone can fix because it's just too big.
That is the same propaganda that turns everyone off. Economics would tend to disagree with you.
However, most think that SOMETHING needs to be done, so I think they would disagree with you.
Evidently not, because the bill failed. Something does need to be done. The government needs to stay out.
Who gives a blip?
I'm just going to point out the fact that its already difficult to get any type of lending...personal or business related. Passing this may keep the status quo but it won't make things any easier.
The criteria for securing loans isn't going to get any better with or without the bill. We are already headed down the path described above by jdaveah.
The bill is only going to stop the bleeding of the companies that need open ended lines of credit to make ends meet. Although allowing a collapse is a scary thought I don't believe it puts us in any worse of a position that we'd already be in a year or so from now.
This bill can go itself. We need change not hemorrhage control.
Waiting to allow some of the weaker ins utions to fail and then helping the ones that are stronger while the market helps to absorb the damage would be the prudent way of handling this. Again, since there was a version of the bill that rerouted money to Acorn, who bears quite a bit of responsiblility for the problems, I don't trust this congress to do what they say they are going to do, much less to do what the president that they openly despise asks for. If they could actually play it straight and put forth a plan that just holds the bad assets until the market corrects, and then sell them off and use 100 percent of the proceeds to pay the debt, I'd be all for it. We all know that they aren't capable of doing that.
The bailout is like cutting the leaves off of a weed. The solution must be one that addresses the root problem which is a combination of loans to people who could not afford them and an over priced housing market by as much as 30%.
The bailout does nothing for the root problem. The sub-prime loans where a result of regulations that required loans to low income. Noble but short sighted. The over priced value is a build up of greed and tax assessments.
So, if we don't do the bail out then credit dries up. Is that really such a bad thing? I mean we are talking about making America live within its means. Business growth will be determined on facts and not guess work. Homes will still be available because no one is tearing them down. Current home owners who want to move their properties may have to take on the bank's role in lease purchase options and the like. Will it be rough? yes! Will 401K's loose money? Without a doubt. But this one chance to get America back on reality street is too good to pass up. Our children and our children's children need us to stop being so greedy and go through some rough times now so the future will be bright and sustainable based on factual accounting books and not on speculations.
No one's playing the blame game jdaveah. This legislation is simply the wrong action for Congress to be taking. Don't believe me? Ask 200 of our nation's top economists:
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.c...ge_protest.htm
Sure, Paulson and Buffett support it. But were you aware that Paulson has his life savings in Goldman, and Buffet has 5 billion of his in it? Our country doesn't need Goldman Sachs, Wachovia, Indymac, or WaMu to survive in order for our economy to recover.
The money we'd be giving to these broken financial companies would be gone within a few months, leaving us with no benefit. There are better solutions being proposed but Congress is not listening to them. That's why we MUST pe ion and make our voice heard.
http://financialpe ion.org/pe ion-nobail.shtml
Call your congressman or congresswoman today and FIGHT
jdaveah your intentions are in the right place. However each of the issues you bring up (obtaining credit, safety of deposits, lack of cash) would in fact have been WORSENED by the passing of the bill.
1) Obtaining credit
-- There is nothing in the bill that forces banks to provide credit. The bill would just give the banks a dumping ground for their worthless assets and HOPE that they decided to provide loans after dumping said assets. A law built on hope and handouts won't provide credit for the taxpayers.
2) Safety of deposits
-- How will deposits be more safe when instead of bolstering the FDIC, we've dumped 1 trillion dollars into Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup? How about instead of giving 1 trillion dollars to corrupt banks, we give 1 trillion to the FDIC and instruct them to start taking over said banks?
3) Lack of cash
-- After printing 1 trillion dollars (trust me, we don't have it on hand) the value of our dollar will shrink, inflation will spiral, and the price of gas prices will go up. I'll sacrifice a few hiccups in bank transactions if it means the value of my dollars hold steady.
There are no easy or good solutions to these problems. But there are better and worse solutions. The existing bailout plan is the WORST. FIGHT IT, PE ION YOUR CONGRESS:
http://financialpe ion.org/pe ion-nobail.shtml
And if you ever wondered why so many of your Congressmen and Congresswomen were ignoring you, consider this:
"The Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations,
said House members who supported the bailout bill on average received
50 percent more in campaign contributions from the finance, insurance
and real estate sectors during their congressional careers than did
those who opposed the measure. "
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...m-twis/?page=2
If you can do nothing else, follow the money.
And in breaking news, the senate version is loaded with pork. Big surprise...
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4870770.ece
If your country don't pass the bill (I'm glad it just pass), your country's banking system will collapse. The costs of Social unrest would be so serious. The economy of US and the world would be pushed to the edge of global recession and many many people will lose jobs and the retirement benefit savings will be evaporated.
I certainly agree the hate on this bill. Those Wall Street bankers should deserve punishments. Hoepfully, your govenment will have enough time and guts to punish them. But your country have no choice to not going this path.
Their punishment should be getting fired, they've done nothing illegal.
All they did was grant loans to people who shouldn't have gotten them because the Government came in and said "You have to lend to these people"
No credit, nothing, just give em money.
This is the same government people want to run the health care system as well. Goody.
This has been coming for decades. I think CEO's, CFO's, and CIO's should all be brought up on charges of high treason. Outsourcing, offshoring, and H1B's (not to mention illegal aliens) all transfer wealth from America to other countries... all witht eh goal of ensuring huge bonuses for the C's. If you send money out of America, there is less money in our econcomy, which results in more of the above, whic reduces money in American economy which...
Has anyone here read "The rise and fall of the Roman Empire"? We are experiencing it.
one of the smartest posts I've seen you put on here, honestly.
Im not going to comment too much on the bill. Its stupid the way its currently structured.... but those of you (no one in particular) that want government assisted Health Care system are dillusional. I've said it before in another post.... look up those countries that have government health care... let me know how thats turned out for them.
One instance? Canada.... Canadians come to America for health care now... I wonder why?
NO NATION has EVER fared well with goverment Health Care.... what makes ANYONE think that the current administration, or even the next, will fare any better?
sure I've heard the argument "better to have health care for everyone than alot of people with out it" but it just doesnt work that way. If we go with government controlled health care we will be screwed.
Last edited by phyzik; 10-03-2008 at 08:56 PM.
Unbelievable! You don't really think they racked up $700 billion in mortgages because they were prompted by the government do you. You know better than that crap. They had access to a lot of cheap money and started pushing no-down-payment, ARM's. They were bundling the loans and flipping them as ... Never mind; you already know.
Geez, pretending the government twisted their arms to make the loans is ridiculous.
In times like these, I like to ask myself what would Nostradamus do? Search the interweb for the answer...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions