Reply With Quote
Troll Forum.
I mean Political Forum.
I've heard enough about this bill to know that I hate it. 190 top economists in the country have denounced this bailout on grounds of fairness, ambiguity, and long term effects. I've talked to other educated persons who agree. This directly effects us - whether you are involved in politics or not. This isn't something that will just go away. No matter what affiliation you have, I think we can all agree that this isn't for us.
The people that so desperately wanted to rush this bill through were also the ones that have played a large role in contributing to this problem - whether passively, actively, or both. Why trust them now, especially when they want this deal of seismic proportions passed in a matter of day(s)? To put this in perspective, this is absolutely of historic measures.
Did you know that the initial proposed bill gave Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson unlimited discretion with no accountability to anyone and no review of his actions by either courts or administrative agencies? That is very scary, but what is more alarming is that the executive staff tried to slip that in and have it passed so quickly.
Is that really democracy? Is that truly representative of what we as a nation want?
I don't think it is. I think those that are for this bill may be understandably fearful of what tomorrow brings or unsure of what other options there are. The obvious answer is to turn to your elected leaders, but what do you do when your elected leaders have failed?
I didn't appreciate President Bush's pass this bill or face crisis speech. If nothing else, it failed to consider the possibility that the bailout didn't succeed and millions of Americans would panic because of his words which would exacerbate economic damage already created.
If anything we should panic because our leaders want to bailout financial ins utions and no longer have the people's best interests at heart.
For those that ask for my alternative plan, it is simply that our money is to be reserved for us and not private ins utions. Surely the money will be more efficiently used when passed directly to the catalysts of the economy rather than indirectly through supposed facilitators. If there is indeed an economic struggle in the days and months to follow, then the disbursement of money should be made to its rightful owners.
If a bill isn't created by early tomorrow evening, I'm calling for a San Antonio protest at 6:00pm. I will update you on the location.
Join me.
Troll Forum.
I mean Political Forum.
mayeb just maybe the feds should bail out the NYK payroll hahahaha
I told him that he could post it here. Many people are concerned.
Gotta love the idea of corporate welfare in an alleged free market.
I study economics extensively and unless the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they should interfere, they should stay out.
Reminded me of this article I read on cnn.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/perso...l?iref=24hours
I watched the Daily show with Bill Clinton and some of the videos shocked me. (actual videos of experts talking, Bush talking etc. )
This administration could not fail any more. Led by a guy who probably does not understand one half of the sitauation.
My sympathies to you guys... Your inflation could skyrocket. (and that also means a bad thing for all of us in the old continent :/ )
so on the panic scale where do you rate this....how safe is the money in the bank...yes I know the FDIC guards at something like 100 Grand....but is it really stupid to pull out your money for what its worth if some happens....or are your cats just leaving your in there...I am seriously thinking about taking a portion out cause I dont like whats happening...and I dont know if the dollar is going to be worth when this hits the fan but I'm lost right now plain and simple
I think dollar will loose a lot ov value.
Didnt a few months ago a small bank went bankrupt and all those fellas who had deposits in them ended up losing it all, the govt did end up givin compensation but it was capped or some . Some old fella loss about 1m from his retirement savings which was spread over 3 accounts in the same bank, got back only 120-150k or some from the govt.
yeah I believe the FIC caps it off at 100,000 dollars...I am far from that amount of money at this point but I still dont feel secure enough to think if its as ugly as people say it is and could be that I would even get my money I have in their now
but again I stress even if I do pull it out and goes ape what goes it really mean at that point when its worth .....its gonna be like the iraqi dinar....
Originally written in 1929.
Post released now.
Dan was a single guy living at home with his father and working in the
family business. When he found out he was going to inherit a fortune when
his sickly father died, he decided he needed a wife with which to share
his fortune.
One evening at an investment club meeting he spotted the most beautiful
woman he had ever seen. Her natural beauty took his breath away. "I may
look like just an ordinary man," he said to her, "but in just a few years,
my father will die, and I'll inherit 20 million dollars."
Impressed, the woman obtained his business card and three days later, she
became his stepmother.
Women are so much better at estate planning than men.
Rightly so.
FDIC can take up to 99 years to pay back your $100,000.
we want to US to come back stronger than EVER and that the US dollar becomes yet again an unstoppable force! Many countries depend on our success to survive!
The original bill was BS and I'm glad that our congresscritters are actually trying to do something about it. Whether the end result will be any better or not is anyone's guess. I do agree that simply throwing money at the ins utions that caused the crisis in the first place isn't in and of itself the way to fix the problem.
That said, trying to help the "people" directly ... $700 billion spread among 200 million or so taxpayers would only come out to $3500 per person, hardly enough to make much difference in the grand scheme of things.
BUT..and this is a big BUT...The FDIC only has around 45 billion in reserves to use to cover any shortages in banks. After that, we the taxpayers will be asked to pony up more.
Now here is what I don't like. Government gives these guys their 700 billion or whatever they say they need. In six months they will be back to their same old shenanigans. The entire system is now set up to cover the big boys asses and to with the people that actually pay the bills of this country.
A lot of you will blame the Republicans..But keep in mind...The politicians don't run this country any longer. The guys that buy them do. It's time for a new day. Kick them all out and start over again. Otherwise we are screwed and they won't even supply a small amount of vasoline.
This is mobster tactics. them up beyond belief, then come back and demand payment before you get ed even harder. You only have 3 days to agree before the end of the world!
WTF haha
For those who oppose the bailout, a pe ion and plan are here:
http://financialpe ion.org/pe ion-nobail.shtml
This pe ion proposes addressing the issue by forcing financial companies to mark their assets to market value (as opposed to mark-to-myth), create a clearing exchange that allows the government to monitor derivatives, and preventing Ben Bernanke from providing under-the-table funds to banks.
Doing so will force banks to honestly address their accounts, and we can move forward as a nation from there knowing that the remaining banks have their books in order. It may not be pretty, but it is an honest solution that will not steal taxpayer money.
Signing this will send faxes to all of your representatives. Now is the time to speak out. The folks promoting this bailout will be pushing to get it done this weekend, piggybacking on concerns of the WaMu bankruptcy.
I should have been more specific by what I meant by directly. I'm not proposing the government divide the money equally among every citizen over 18. My idea is that as needs arise in debt and bankruptcy amongst the people/small businesses, the government pay and/or those people or en ies directly. Possibly give them a federal loan at a very low interest rate so that they can borrow and not create even more debt.
Right now the panic scale should be against this bill and not focused on withdrawing your money. The situation is actually a little perverse in that we are being told we need the bill so as not to create panic and crisis when actually we need to panic that the bill is not passed.
Either way, the economy will suffer. However, the bill is worse in that it will create a sense of calm and tell America that restoration is underway. The truth is this plan is only a temporary band-aid. The US has to change its economic structure and getting things started with having horrible financial risk and behavior fail is exactly what we need to curb our economic ways.
Americans need less credit overall. We have $850 billion in cc debt. So yes the system does need to reform and that starts with people that are bad risks credit not getting it or getting less of it.
This is of course, speaking in general terms, but my point is this bill spends precious money to delay a problem that will mature at some point or another. Whether it's tomorrow or a few years from now, this "solution" is not the answer.
Reform in the economic system is needed. As troubled as our economic system is a massive change in the other direction is needed. Letting these failures occur is that change.
It will be painful - there is no doubt about that. However, this has been a long day coming and we must face the music.
Back to your specific question, I would leave your money at this point. You're right to be concerned and your reaction is good instinct but a mad rush to get your money isn't the answer. Shortage of money isn't the problem right now.
I am interested in the details of your protest plans.
I have church tomorrow at 6 so won't be attending your protest.
Still I am very interested in updates and of course, wish you well.
Oh and look out for amendments to the proposal that lower the amount of upfront money in attempt to appease the public. It should be noted this $700b was only an amount specified for first withdraw. Once this line of credit was depleted, Paulson could simply open up another one so to speak. Realistically the initial proposal was staring down over a trillion dollars of spending.
It looks like a compromise might simply stagger payments in lower amounts. Such a deal would likely be of little consequence other than the fact that more people would approve. What I suspect would happen is only $200b would be approved at first and then once the spotlight and public glare is off, more payments would be siphoned off without the general public being cognizant. In the end the total would be about the same making the amount structure only a cosmetic change.
Also, if you're looking for someone to blame you can point the finger at a lot of people but don't forget our great economic President Bill Clinton. He passed legislation that put banks at a severe disadvantage for not lending to lower income households with the Community Redevelopment Act. While certainly a good cause, it obviously had a horrible impact on the financial market.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
