PDA

View Full Version : Bank bailout and US economic woes


Jae Onasi
09-19-2008, 10:25 AM
This morning I heard that Congressional leaders got together with Ben Bernanke (Fed Chairman) and the Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson to discuss the bank/financial institution bailout. They want a systemic plan in place instead of having to deal with this issue on a case by case basis and have the market go crazy every time.

The upshot of the plan: US taxpayers are going to bail out the financial institutions by taking all their bad debt, while they get to keep their good debt to stay in business.

Do I like this? Absolutely not. I'm going to be stuck paying the taxes to pay for this bad debt, caused by nothing more than pure, unadulterated greed on the part of both lenders and borrowers. The lenders gave loans they shouldn't have given to people who couldn't afford to pay them back. Borrowers took on debt they knew they couldn't really afford. I'm stuck paying it back for them now, however indirectly, while the banks get off scott-free to give their CEOs even more massive salaries.

I also blame Congress and both Bush's and Clinton's administration for allowing the changes in banking laws that allowed this disaster to happen. Clinton made some of the changes to make it easier for lower-income people to get loans, but there should have been better oversight of that so they would only take on people who had a reasonable chance of actually paying it back. Bush didn't do anything to change it, even when we had warning signs at least a year ago that things were falling apart. Congress could have moved sooner--God forbid we do any kind of bi-partisan actions in this Congress, however. Greed, for lack of a better word, is good--as long as you're not the one having to pay it back.

Achilles
09-19-2008, 12:07 PM
The crux of capitalism is risk. If you take a risk and succeed, you profit and that's a good thing. If you risk and fail, then you lose and hey, better luck next time.

On one hand, I recognize that due to a lack of sufficient oversight, many of these companies are key to continued solvency of our economy (and I don't just mean the U.S. economy either), therefore I think we're going to have to choke down that bitter pill regardless of whether we want to or not.

On the other, I am at the same time deeply resentful that this has been allowed to happen. This is precisely what free markets are supposed to do and this is precisely what you risk when you sneer at oversight and regulation and tout "free markets". But now the time has come to pay the piper and some people want to be able to eat their cake and eat it too.

El Sitherino
09-19-2008, 12:52 PM
How about they drop the companies and open the mortgages and properties to sell-offs?
Eminent domain and what not.

Naturally not take people out of their houses, however open proprety and mortgages can be met with some sort of agreement to allow financial gain for economic growth. It's better than when they use it to take someones house to open an IRS building.

Achilles
09-19-2008, 12:58 PM
Not sure I follow. Open up private citizen mortgages and properties? Sell them to who?

If I'm reading this right, it sounds like you're suggesting that the gov't should seize homes and then sell them off (at a discounted rate due to current interest rates/state of the economy) to people that can afford them (i.e. the wealthy). You don't seem to be the type to promote class warfare, so I'm sure I have to be missing something.

KinchyB
09-19-2008, 01:25 PM
Do I like this? Absolutely not. I'm going to be stuck paying the taxes to pay for this bad debt, caused by nothing more than pure, unadulterated greed on the part of both lenders and borrowers. The lenders gave loans they shouldn't have given to people who couldn't afford to pay them back. Borrowers took on debt they knew they couldn't really afford. I'm stuck paying it back for them now, however indirectly, while the banks get off scott-free to give their CEOs even more massive salaries.

QFT

And another upside...for those that actually took the risk (although I don't see much risk in it as this was the most logical outcome for everything) if you bought any stock in Fannie May, Freddie Mac, or ...what was the other one... can't remember, oh well...anyway you could have double or tripled your money in a matter of weeks (All were trading at about or over 100% gains when the market opened today). So I guess at least some people made some money... wish I were one of them. :(

El Sitherino
09-19-2008, 01:58 PM
Not sure I follow. Open up private citizen mortgages and properties? Sell them to who?

If I'm reading this right, it sounds like you're suggesting that the gov't should seize homes and then sell them off (at a discounted rate due to current interest rates/state of the economy) to people that can afford them (i.e. the wealthy). You don't seem to be the type to promote class warfare, so I'm sure I have to be missing something.

I mean the bank owned properties. Probably not the best idea, but it may be worth a look into alternatives than taxing to bail out.

Quanon
09-19-2008, 02:13 PM
Sell them to who?


Us the europeans :p

This week there was an item in the news about folks around here that go and buy large mega delux houses in Miami and other southern states.

EDIT: ahum fixed the € , I was thinking in Belgian Cents again :lol:
Because for a 10.000 to 50.000 € you can buy some nice estate in the US, though I find it kind of sick to do it... but on the other prices around here are getting rediculus high for very small house.

I just hope the USA can prevent any further decline of this, cause I don't think the world can spend another 180 billion to feed a "dying" AEG.

Litofsky
09-19-2008, 06:19 PM
This is crazy. I was watching the news this morning (the Today show, to be specific), and in the beginning minutes, they mentioned that the Government has given over $1,100,000,000,000 ($1.1 trillion) over the past few weeks to affected companies (linky linky (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26787984/)).*

Not only that, but if you divide that amount by the people in the US (304,000,000, approx.), each person will end up having to pay $3,600.

Sure, we had a choice, but I don't think that standing by and letting the companies collapse would have been a better choice. As Achilles said, it's just another event that shouldn't have happened- but did.

We could sit here and point fingers, but at this point, it's probably better to accept it and move on. By "accept it and move on," I mean analyze the crud out of Obama and McCain, and find out which one will end up doing more good than harm. That's for the campaign thread, though.

Either way, we're in trouble. The debt keeps climbing, and Congress and the President seem to be doing nothing to help. Perhaps this explains there >20% approval ratings?

*NOTE: The article only mentions $500,000,000,000 in aid, so the calculations may be off by half. However, $1,800 is still a lot to pay.

Achilles
09-19-2008, 08:06 PM
I mean the bank owned properties. Probably not the best idea, but it may be worth a look into alternatives than taxing to bail out.Thanks for clarifying. Unfortunately, the question remains: who's going to buy? Other companies? Then you have to worry about regulation, etc. Not a game stopper, but certainly something that will ensure that the fix will take a very long time to implement. Foreign investors? Assuming that they are willing to buy, would we want the cornerstones of our economy owned by people in other countries? Domestic investors? Now we're just taking companies, discounting them, and then selling them to the already wealthy. If there are other options that I'm missing here, please feel free to point them out.

Rev7
09-19-2008, 08:40 PM
This is crazy. I was watching the news this morning (the Today show, to be specific), and in the beginning minutes, they mentioned that the Government has given over $1,100,000,000,000 ($1.1 trillion) over the past few weeks to affected companies (linky linky (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26787984/)).*

That is absolutely crazy if you ask me. That is coming out of our pockets, really. America is going downhill.

El Sitherino
09-19-2008, 09:57 PM
I suppose there are worse tax investments we've made with worse pre-planning.

Count this as another reason outward capitalistic greed ruins the country. Should've been taxing those corps and kept them in line.

Litofsky
09-19-2008, 10:14 PM
Count this as another reason outward capitalistic greed ruins the country. Should've been taxing those corps and kept them in line.
I do. I'm getting sick of giving these companies billions of dollars and footing the bill (completely ignoring the fact that most of 'em make billions of dollars a year).

mimartin
09-19-2008, 10:58 PM
I thought we settle this with the bailouts of the Savings and Loans industry in the 1980s. We deregulated the Banking Industry allowing them to branch out into more risky endeavors such as the stock market and the Insurance Industry and we could not foresee this happening? Those markets breed the mentality of being risk takers and getting higher returns on your investments. Higher returns mean more risk! This type of mentality does not mix well with the banking industry. With this country’s common practice of living paycheck to paycheck, the Banking Industry is what kept us grounded, but over the past 10 to 15 years, the Banking Industry became just as spend happy as the rest of America. Giving 100% principle variable rate loans to someone that can barely afford the current interest rate is not only irresponsible, but it is unethical.

The only option is to bail out the banks, but I believe the bailout should be depended on the banks being under new management with more regulation.

Achilles
09-19-2008, 11:23 PM
I thought we settle this with the bailouts of the Savings and Loans industry in the 1980s. I suppose that McCain just happens to be running for office right now is some sort of cosmic convergence or something (Keating Savings and Loan scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five))

The only option is to bail out the banks, but I believe the bailout should be depended on the banks being under new management with more regulation.QFT

Litofsky
09-19-2008, 11:29 PM
I suppose that McCain just happens to be running for office right now is some sort of cosmic convergence or something (Keating Savings and Loan scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five))
-10 respect points for John McCain. *Calculates current respect points for Senator McCain*

I've got -9 respect points for Mr. McCain.

However, the topic is about the Federal Government bailing out these banks, spending our money when we won't see a penny of it returned (although, its positive effects have yet to be seen).

Does anyone have a count on our debt, currently?

mimartin
09-19-2008, 11:33 PM
Does anyone have a count on our debt, currently?
U.S. National Debt (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)

What is another Trillion dollars or two?

Achilles
09-19-2008, 11:34 PM
Does anyone have a count on our debt, currently?Brace yourself before clicking (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)

EDIT: Nice link, mimartin. :rolleyes:

Litofsky
09-19-2008, 11:44 PM
Thanks, mimartin and Achilles, for the link. I nearly cried when I refreshed the page three times to see that the debt had increased ten thousand dollars.

Rev7
09-19-2008, 11:51 PM
Outrageous :disaprove

Det. Bart Lasiter
09-19-2008, 11:59 PM
Thanks (?) mimartin and Achilles. I nearly cried when I refreshed the page three times to see that the debt had increased one thousand dollars.fun game: see if you can refresh fast enough so that the amount the number increases is equal to or less than how much you have your bank account keeping in mind that it will increase roughly $21,296.30 per second based on the figures on that page

Arcesious
09-20-2008, 11:00 AM
More proof that the government is stupid, lol.

They pay these banks to get them going again, but of course, the government loves its temporary solutions.

I feel sorry for everyone who now has defaulted morgages...

In a month of two, I'd expect them to crash again... They pay more money to these banks, and that means they need more taxes from us now. And these CEOs and rich people are getting all the benefit. What about the American people, huh?

A capitalist economy is a tricky thing. It's going to have its ups and downs.
The problem is, whenn you try to keep it level, that makes it more unstable, since by printing and investing more money lowers the value of the dollar yet again...

They have to let a capitalist economy have its ups and downs, but not too big of ones. I bet all this extra spending for war and all the other rediculous stuff is one big source of it. China's going to buy us out if we don't get back on our feet soon. But then again, the people in China are people too, just like us, fellow humans. And the Americans do have it better than most of the Chinese...

We can't just let it run its course though, we have to get things more under control.

Jae Onasi
09-24-2008, 10:50 AM
therefore I think we're going to have to choke down that bitter pill regardless of whether we want to or not.I agree--I don't like this bailout one bit, but the alternative might be worse.

The only option is to bail out the banks, but I believe the bailout should be depended on the banks being under new management with more regulation.Totally agree. If we're going to take over some failing banks, we should get rid of the leadership that caused such spectacular failures.

Anyone appreciate the irony of a Republican trying to implement a plan that's the complete antithesis of all Republican principles?

mimartin
09-24-2008, 01:26 PM
:firemad: I almost threw the remote through the Television screen watching the news last night. When Mr. Bushís appointee U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson balked at the bipartisan plan to restrict golden parachutes for CEO subject to the bailout, I almost came unglued. Only in America can you run a company into the ground and then expect a golden parachute.:fist:

SD Nihil
09-24-2008, 02:18 PM
Here's my take on the bailout. It's because of our overspending on roads to nowhere, green bean museums, ear marks, companies taking loans for more than they can pay back. You go into debt. Your business suffers. We are not sure how big the debt is.

I believe it's in the trillions. Not Billions. If you spend more than you take in you go into debt.We outsource like crazy. Too many things in my opinion are made in China. A country I think we should stop trading with.

Toys with the date rape drug, dog food contaminated,and just recently baby milk in China being poisoned I don't want to buy from someone who has products that can hurt us.

Also our energy crisis is costing the market heavy too. Solutions need to be made now. Bailouts is just throwing money at the problem. At the most it's a stale. We need to change how much we are spending.

Natural gas, drilling here, I don't care about the caribou. Find other alternatives too. Do what will cost us less in the long run.

The bailout won't fix it. Other countries see us and we are barrowing more than we can pay back. Our dollar's worth goes down.

You may be able to make and print more money, but that money in the world market is worth as much as what you can pay back. If you say you'll pay it back, but never do and owe so much your word means less to others.

We sell out all to the Europeans. America is for sale it's like. Companies outsourcing all because it's cheaper than to keep jobs here. Before you know it we won't be able to remember how to make a sock because it will be made in China.

Our economy needs fixing and we need to change the amount we are spending on frivolous stuff.

El Sitherino
09-24-2008, 02:36 PM
That doesn't really address the bankers improperly salvaging funds.

Astor
09-24-2008, 02:41 PM
We sell out all to the Europeans. America is for sale it's like. Companies outsourcing all because it's cheaper than to keep jobs here. Before you know it we won't be able to remember how to make a sock because it will be made in China.

Our economy needs fixing and we need to change the amount we are spending on frivolous stuff.

Outsourcing isn't solely an American problem - it's happening all across the western world.

But I do hope the US can sort out this before it gets worse - what happens on Wall Street affects most of the world.

SD Nihil
09-24-2008, 05:26 PM
Outsourcing isn't solely an American problem - it's happening all across the western world.

I never said it was. I said it's one of our problems though that is contributing to the problem. It's one of the factors.

Yes I hope we can fix it too. I agree with you Astor.

Web Rider
09-24-2008, 06:06 PM
Honestly, I think this bailout should operate in the same manner that happens when any other company buys a failing company. Because thats what we should be doing, we shouldn't just give the money, we should BUY them.

Any company who can't make it and needs the government to help(not minor help, but massive help like this) should become property of the government. The people who ruined it would be fired and prohibited from working in the new business, it would be set up so it could NEVER be deregulated. And the government would fix it.

Look at Japan, why can they undercut our prices? Because the government subsidizes everything they produce, and in turn, the government has a say in how they operate. if you need government money, then just like if a private person/company gave you money, they now will have a say in how you operate that company. And the first thing they will tell you is to stop being stupid.

Yar-El
09-24-2008, 06:16 PM
Obama rejects McCain call to delay debate (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26872907/)
Republican plans to return to Washington to help deal with credit crisis.

What is more important? The race to become president? Or, the financial crisis that will affect our very existance?

What would you have done?

-------------

I believe McCain is dead on this issue. He is making his way to Washington, and Obama is sitting pretty on the campeign trail. We don't have 40 days. We need to act quick, responsible, and now!

Web Rider
09-24-2008, 06:30 PM
I believe McCain is dead on this issue. He is making his way to Washington, and Obama is sitting pretty on the campeign trail. We don't have 40 days. We need to act quick, responsible, and now!

We need to be responsible, yes, and responsibility does not happen on a 3 page plan that says "Give us ur monies and wez be breaking teh lawz and not having teh oversite."

Giving them the money on the terms they want is everything BUT responsible.

Yar-El
09-24-2008, 06:36 PM
We need to be responsible, yes, and responsibility does not happen on a 3 page plan that says "Give us ur monies and wez be breaking teh lawz and not having teh oversite."

Giving them the money on the terms they want is everything BUT responsible. I agree with that. Caution is definitely required.

My extension (not Web Rider's) --
Heading back to Washington would be a wise move for two reasons. 1 - To show everyone that Democrats and Republicans can join together in a crisis. 2 - To get the details of what is going down. Why? If there is a piece of legistlation that is shortsighted and faulty, we have to stop it before anything happens.

Web Rider
09-24-2008, 06:43 PM
Yeah, in that respect I do agree that Obama should join in 'cause ever democrat needs to fill his seat and grill the Secretary of the Treasury on this fail-full plan. I dunno what Obama gains except maybe for saying that he's not complicit in giving out the money.

mimartin
09-24-2008, 06:44 PM
What is more important? The race to become president? Or, the financial crisis that will affect our very existance?
The next president without a doubt is more important than anything one senator can do to affect this crisis. 50 years ago I'd agree with you, but with today's communication technology I don't see it is important to be in Washington except when it is time to vote. Can’t a senator go out drinking with lobbyist in Dallas just as easy as Washington?

SD Nihil
09-24-2008, 07:27 PM
It kinda is both. We are wanting to elect a president to help us get out of our problems with the economy. It's really up to the person who thinks which will be best.

But if you are voting for a president mirely on say race or that he looks good and care more about that rather than getting us out of our mess in my opinion your decision making process is flawed.

Astor
09-25-2008, 08:07 AM
Okay, I saw this this morning, and I think it sums things up pretty well -

The State of the Economy... (http://threepanelsoul.com/view.php?date=2008-09-22)

:)

Lance Monance
09-25-2008, 09:02 AM
Only in America can you run a company into the ground and then expect a golden parachute.:fist:

You can take solace in the fact that this is common practise over here too (Austria). :D

Web Rider
09-26-2008, 02:33 AM
I've got a general question for you all: You all have savings of some kind I assume and some of you probably have investments, are you planning to pull out your money before the "crash" or do you think that it will get fixed soon enough to not make that necessary.

I just got my paycheck for the mid-month and I'm tempted to just cash it. Yeah, that's a lot of money to have on my person at one time, but I don't want to suddenly find that all the money I've saved is gone come monday.

Achilles
09-26-2008, 03:43 AM
I don't have enough in any one account to exceed what's covered by FDIC, therefore I'm not too worried. What will absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt sink us would be if everyone made a run on the bank (i.e. withdrew all savings and took their money out of circulation). The economy is the free flow of cash and credit. If that stops, the economy stops.

Web Rider
09-26-2008, 04:00 AM
of course, running and taking it all out is bad, and that's not something I intend to do, even though something is "covered" by the FDIC, that's sorta like Katrina checks, in the 5 years it takes for it to get to me, I am long since screwed.

Achilles
09-26-2008, 07:43 AM
Since you have it all figured out, why did you bother to ask?

Jae Onasi
09-26-2008, 11:06 AM
The likelihood of someone breaking into my house to steal my wad of money taken out of the bank is a lot higher than the chance of the entire banking system collapsing and the FDIC not covering what I have in my accounts. I'm not worried about it not being covered. While the banking situation is very serious and needs to be addressed immediately, I don't think individuals' funds are in any danger.

SW01
09-26-2008, 11:49 AM
The Times, today (26.09.08)

'it is thought that the Treasury will have the right to seize stakes in banks that benefit from the bailout in order to protect the interests of the American taxpayer.'

A step towards nationalisation?

The same article gave an interesting statistic - the cost of this $700 billion deal to the individual American taxpayer: $5300

Web Rider
09-26-2008, 03:20 PM
Since you have it all figured out, why did you bother to ask?

because I wanted to know what other people thought. That's why it's a QUESTION. And not everyone may agree that keeping the banks going is a good idea, there are people who would like to be rid of the banking system we have an would do something to contribute to our collapse.

There are people who are the opposite of Jae who think their bank is more likely to steal their money or somebody rob their bank than for somebody to break into their home.

Jae Onasi
09-26-2008, 03:25 PM
I'm not saying it _can't_ happen, Web Rider, but I think the probability is that the safety of my money in the bank is far greater than at my home.

Web Rider
09-26-2008, 08:00 PM
I'm not saying it _can't_ happen, Web Rider, but I think the probability is that the safety of my money in the bank is far greater than at my home.

I know, I only said that some people think the opposite. I was curious if anyone here did. I imagine though due to our general knowledge of politics and how economics works, I find it doubtful many will express disparate opinions, still, I was curious.

mimartin
09-26-2008, 08:59 PM
of course, running and taking it all out is bad, and that's not something I intend to do, even though something is "covered" by the FDIC, that's sorta like Katrina checks, in the 5 years it takes for it to get to me, I am long since screwed.1. The homes in Mississippi and Louisiana that suffered flood damage and had flood insurance did not have to wait 5 years to receive their checks from FEMA. The problem with most the homes in Mississippi was they were in a preferred flood zone (zone X or zone B) those zones do not require flood insurance by the mortgagee companies. Therefore, the mortgagee companies (the same people we are bailing out here) and insurance agents told some of these homeowners they were not in a flood zone. This is not true everyone eligible for flood insurance is in a flood zone. If you are not in a flood zone then either your community has not been surveyed or you are already knee deep in water. Homes that flood so often that the government offers a buyout are no longer in a flood zone and cannot purchase flood insurance. The people who had to wait five years for their check did not have flood insurance and either had to sue the insurance agent, their mortgagee company or are getting a low interest loan from FEMA. If you do not have insurance FEMA may still help, but you have to pay them back. They also tried to sue the insurance companies, but since flood is an excluded coverage (court tested), they had to look elsewhere. I offer flood coverage to every homeowner I write coverage for and make them sign a rejection if they do not wish to purchase the coverage. I did this long before Katrina.

2. Keep large amount of cash in your home is unwise. Most states insurance policies cover $500 to $1,500 for cash or gift cards and is subject to the homeowner’s policy deductible.

3. If I have large amount of cash in hand…Well let us just say a fool and his money soon will part. :D

4. The bank is safer. I'm not really worried about my money disappearing. I'm worried about the actual buying power of that money being devalued.

tk102
09-29-2008, 04:27 PM
House of Representatives rejected the $700 billion bailout plan today. The Dow Jones has lost dropped almost 7% as a result. This is getting scary. Not really sure why Congress feels like playing chicken with this crisis at the moment with 10%+ unemployment and crippled GDP. I'd rather not see this turn into another depression.

Jae Onasi
09-29-2008, 05:03 PM
Why did they reject it?
*Jae would grumble about missing the news if she weren't grateful to have the job even if that's causing limited net access*

ChAiNz.2da
09-29-2008, 05:07 PM
Why did they reject it?
*Jae would grumble about missing the news if she weren't grateful to have the job even if that's causing limited net access*

here's an excerpt from CNNmoney. Of course, it's more "play the blame game" semantics. :rolleyes:

The measure, which is designed to get battered U.S. credit markets working normally again, needed 218 votes for passage. But it came up 13 votes short of that target, as the final vote was 228 to 205 against. About 60% of Democrats and fewer than 33% of Republicans voted for the measure.

President Bush, who earlier in the day said he was confident the bill would pass, is "very disappointed" by the House vote. He said the administration would continue to attack the nation's economic problems "head on."

The Treasury Department, which will work with regulators and "use all the tools at our disposal, as we have over the last several months, to protect our financial markets and our economy," according to a Treasury spokeswoman.

Paulson will be consulting with Bush, Bernanke and congressional leaders on the next steps, the spokeswoman said.

Republican leaders who had pushed their reluctant members for the bill blamed Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., saying that her speech during the floor debate drove away about a dozen Republicans they thought they could get to support the measure.

"I do believe we could have gotten there today if it had not been for this partisan speech the speaker gave on the floor of the House," said Boehner.

Speaking to reporters, Pelosi said that both Democratic and Republican leaders had pledged to get more than half their members to support the package and that only the Democrats had lived up to that promise. She said the lines of communication with administration and Republican House leadership to try to pass the measure.

"The legislation may have failed, the crisis is still with us," she said.

Earlier, speaking on the House floor, Pelosi said "$700 billion [is a] a staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies - policies that were built on budget recklessness ... combined with an anything goes economic policy, [that] have taken us to where we are today."

- Source (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailout/index.htm?cnn=yes)

Yar-El
09-29-2008, 05:54 PM
BREAKING NEWS: Dow Plunges 777.68 Points
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/

Sarcasm - I would hate to be the next president. :lol:

Other related links -
Bailout bill defeated (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26884523/)

Bailout failure throws banks into disarray (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26946046/)

Jae Onasi
09-29-2008, 05:55 PM
Oh, Tip O'Neill, we miss you....
Yeah, I heard Pelosi's jab earlier and winced. It was a foolish thing for her to say and yet another reason why I can't stand the woman. She knows how to play Democratic politics like there's no tomorrow, but she's failed miserably as Speaker in trying to work with and actually lead both sides of the House. However, 40 pct of Dems voted it down, so I think the bill's failure is from far more than just Pelosi being a completely ineffective idiot.

As a home-owning taxpayer, I do not like the idea of paying for others' screwups. I don't want to pay for people who foolishly took out more of a loan than they could afford. I don't want to pay for big banks to get off scott-free by giving the bad debt to me via increased taxes, while they get to keep the cream and give their executives multi--million dollar salaries. I don't want to pay via taxes for companies that failed due to their own bad business practices, perhaps even fraudulent practices. Some of these home loans were made to people with completely inadequate or no income or assets. Are we supposed to be surprised when those loan goes into default? I don't have a business degree, but I have mastered the concept that making loans to people who don't have any way to pay the loan back is just Dumb with a capital 'Duh!'

The government wants me and my children to foot the bill for 700 billion with few checks and balances on the treasury sec'y or adequate regulations on banks to keep this from happening again, and lawmakers wonder why 40 pct of Dems and 66 pct of Repubs voted it down.

mimartin
09-29-2008, 06:04 PM
Why did they reject it? It was rejected by House Republicans in a political play to make themselves be seen as the conservatives saving America 700 billion by refusing to bailout Wall Street. Were the **** was this new found conservatism when they were voting on the pork of the last eight years? They get a backbone at the onetime America needs them to be their usual spineless selves.


If they are going to make this bailout political, we are in for a world of hurt. :(

tk102
09-29-2008, 06:06 PM
The article I read cited Pelosi's highly-partisan closing speech criticizing the plan and Bush as another factor in the bill's demise.

^^ edit: yeah that's the one Chainz. :p

mimartin
09-29-2008, 06:18 PM
Well if it was Pelosi’s comments that made 12 Republican Representatives, then they are as big of idiots as she is. That is like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Ron Paul’s gold standard sounds pretty good about now. I don’t even have to look, I know he voted against it.

Corinthian
09-29-2008, 08:41 PM
Does Ron Paul vote in the positive for any bills he doesn't propose?

mimartin
09-29-2008, 08:50 PM
Does Ron Paul vote in the positive for any bills he doesn't propose?
He votes against those too. :xp:


addon:
Oversight, equality, forbearance, protection and responsibility – I see why the Republicans got so upset; it goes against the Bush doctrine. Thanks for the link Achilles.

Achilles
09-29-2008, 09:28 PM
Anyone that wants to hear the comments themselves can find a clip here (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/220712.php).

Yar-El
09-29-2008, 10:37 PM
So, when they were going to vote for this bill, people were all upset and enraged. Now, since a majority voted against the bill, people are ticked off that it didn't pass.

I don't get it. :migraine:

Agent_Katarn00
09-29-2008, 10:47 PM
Well the economy is turning into well...:worms:

Yar-El
09-29-2008, 11:25 PM
Bail Out 2: Analysts Say Big 3 Need Loans Quickly (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26948081/)
Chrysler LLC, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Corp

I think they are trying to avoid a massive bail out. If they bail out the banks, everyone else will be looking for help. I would rather watch everything go through the floor. I'm beginning to think this whole mess is psychological.

If you gamble your money away, why should anyone pay for your losses? You don't learn. No one is going to help me when I'm down.

Web Rider
09-29-2008, 11:32 PM
If you gamble your money away, why should anyone pay for your losses? You don't learn. No one is going to help me when I'm down.

It's a false comparason. If you take on a lot of debt and can't pay off your car, how badly does it hurt the economy? Does anyone lose their home? Does anyone get fired? Aside from you and possibly your family, the effects aren't going to be felt beyond 3 or 4 people.

The effects of a US economic crash could seriously damage the economy of not just the US, but of the entire world. There's a big difference between you being foolish with your money and a lending company being foolish with their money.

Yar-El
09-29-2008, 11:36 PM
It's a false comparason. If you take on a lot of debt and can't pay off your car, how badly does it hurt the economy? Does anyone lose their home? Does anyone get fired? Aside from you and possibly your family, the effects aren't going to be felt beyond 3 or 4 people.

The effects of a US economic crash could seriously damage the economy of not just the US, but of the entire world. There's a big difference between you being foolish with your money and a lending company being foolish with their money. A bulding is only strong as its pillars. Allowing these companies to fall will bring about stronger companies. Strength and leadership is formed out of the ashes of hardship. Our foudations are broken, and now we need to rebuild them. Newer pillars that can handle harsher storms need to replace them.

Web Rider
09-30-2008, 12:28 AM
A bulding is only strong as its pillars. Allowing these companies to fall will bring about stronger companies. Strength and leadership is formed out of the ashes of hardship. Our foudations are broken, and now we need to rebuild them. Newer pillars that can handle harsher storms need to replace them.

Those sayings are quaint and all, certainly a good propaganda spin, but the thing that drug us out of the Great Depression was centralized government actions and a second World War. So, unless you're advocating a more centralized government, which I know you're not, you really don't want that "new, stronger system".

And you're right, pilars are only as good as each other, but, pillars are linked together by a cap at the top. Those are the rules and regulations that keep all the pillars in line. As other nations have shown, stronger linkage between the pillars can be very beneficial.

Yar-El
09-30-2008, 12:45 AM
I came close to sounding like a politician. Lol..

Web Rider - You do have some good points. I have never seen effects of a regulated financial system before, so I don't know what the benifits or harms it may have.

Brain thunder moment --
Is not George Bush a reformed Republican with Democrat philosophies. What do they call it? Compassionate Conservative? It sounds like someone with a gun rack in a volvo. What the hell happened to the Republican party? Did they do a brain and body swap during the Clinton years?

George the big spending, war fighting, and tax cutting Republican. No wonder our government is messed up. The whole system is flawed. We have Republicans acting like Democrats, and we have Democrats acting like Republicans.

Yep, this bank bail out is going to be the death of us all. :lol:

El Sitherino
09-30-2008, 01:59 AM
I have never seen effects of a regulated financial system before, so I don't know what the benifits or harms it may have.


Yes you have. Remember that huge surge of money in the '90's?

Yar-El
09-30-2008, 02:02 AM
Yes you have. Remember that huge surge of money in the '90's? After the deficit? Late 90s?

Jae Onasi
09-30-2008, 02:32 AM
It was rejected by House Republicans in a political play to make themselves be seen as the conservatives saving America 700 billion by refusing to bailout Wall Street. Were the **** was this new found conservatism when they were voting on the pork of the last eight years? They get a backbone at the onetime America needs them to be their usual spineless selves.


If they are going to make this bailout political, we are in for a world of hurt. :(

Where were 13 more Democrats of the 93 that voted against it? Oh, yes, the ones who were Dem committee chairs and ranking leaders who wanted to keep their seats by telling their constituents "Oh, I voted against it". Pelosi couldn't even keep her own party in line--40% voting against a bill she's trying to hammer through is a huge number. If she'd been smart, she would have made sure to have secured the necessary votes before letting her pets vote no to save their political butts. Obviously she missed out on the LBJ school of counting votes.... If she can't rally more than a lukewarm support from her own party, how is she going to rally support in the opposing party? After she ripped their heads off with her oh-so-bipartisan speech saying they were "causing the problem with Bush's failed economic policies" just prior to the vote, what was she expecting? Sweet roses and Sunshine Care Bears to fall from the sky along with those votes?

I hear a lot about how Republicans should have ignored the comment and done what was right for the country, and they could have had the courage to do that, and failed. They could have voted for it and then gotten together to make a joint statement about how they were able to rise above her petty attacks to do what should have been done. However, she should have never made the inflammatory comment to begin with. She's the Speaker of the House trying to push a tough bill through. She can't just blow off half of the members of Congress without there being some ramifications. Calling anyone who didn't vote for the bill 'unpatriotic' did not help matters. I don't care if I do vote Dem a lot of the time, I can't stand two-faced political rats like her who care more about playing petty politics in order to get elected and keep their little Congressional fiefdoms than about doing what's right, but she wasn't the only one guilty of that today. Both parties had people who were the epitome of everything that's wrong in Congress voting today.

Achilles
09-30-2008, 03:38 AM
I hear a lot about how Republicans should have ignored the comment and done what was right for the country, and they could have had the courage to do that, and failed. They could have voted for it and then gotten together to make a joint statement about how they were able to rise above her petty attacks to do what should have been done. However, she should have never made the inflammatory comment to begin with. I'm sorry, "I wanted to vote my conscious and do what's right for this country, but Nancy Pelosi hurt my feelings, so I couldn't"? No, not buying it.

First, I watched the video. Nothing "inflammatory" there.

Second, are these "statesmen" so thin-skinned that all it takes to change their vote is some alleged school-yard ribbing?

Third, are these "statesmen" so incompetent that all it takes to change their vote is some alleged school-yard ribbing?

I'm not buying any of this. What does strike me as having a hint of truth is that either a) they didn't want to vote for it and decided to use this as an excuse not too or b) they saw a chance to throw the Democratic party under the bus and jumped on it at the expense of economy.

Their job is to vote. They're saying that they couldn't do their job because someone said something they didn't like and rather than hold them accountable, we're going to mob the person that hurt their feelings. You may have your opinions about what's wrong with Congress, but I have my opinions about what's wrong with this country.

Yar-El
09-30-2008, 10:35 AM
Wall Street set for rebound after huge drop (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/)
Its all psychological. We are going to open with a slight rebound. I don't think the crisis is long lasting. People are just nervous about the election year. Question in everyone's mind is, "What will the world look like after the new president arrives?" Obama and McCain have previously spoken about reforimg almost everything. Elections always stirs things up on Wall Street. If you add in the housing market issues and bad credit, you have a world of complete uncertainty. We will come out on top soon. There is no reason for a bail out.

Look back at the past eight to nine years, and you will see several similar psychological events.

Y2k - "All computer technology will stop, and planes will fall from the sudden lack of power. Quick grab your money, and store food and water. Technology is going to kill us because it cannot read 2000."

Internet Bubble - "Money, money, money. Buy, buy, buy. Sell, sell, sell. Wow! People are really buying into the internet. Buy a computer and get online. It will set you free! Endless advertising revenue, lack of laws, and tax free merchandise! Yahooo!"

Housing Bubble - "Money, money, money. Buy, buy, buy. Sell, sell, sell. Wow! We can get a house for free! I can get a house with two dollars in my pocket! Yes! What is that? I can buy a $500,000 home, and I can do it with a job that makes $15 an hour! What a great idea, and we can just ignore the whole, "This is an adjustible rate" clause."

Iraq - "The Redcoats are coming! The Redcoats are coming! Don't tell George but I think he is getting wars mixed up. Hey! I got a great idea. We can vote for this war now, but we can live in denial for the next fifty years. What a great idea! We can also plaster a mission success banner on an aircraft carrier, and then the president can declare victory! Thats even better! People won't even see the explosions and violence of an out of control Iraq! Lets do it."

We do this all the time. However, this time we stoped everything before overreacting. We are learning about how some politicians (ourselves included) have the ability to feed into extremes.

Consumer confidence unexpectedly improves (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26956158/)
Stocks open higher a day after huge drop (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/)

Jae Onasi
09-30-2008, 12:06 PM
I'm sorry, "I wanted to vote my conscious and do what's right for this country, but Nancy Pelosi hurt my feelings, so I couldn't"? No, not buying it.Yes we all know it was butt covering.

First, I watched the video. Nothing "inflammatory" there.Perhaps we weren't watching the same speech where Pelosi talks about how much the bailout will cost and then makes the comment that it costs less than Bush's failed politics. If you're trying to gain bipartisan support one of the most stupid things you can do is make a blatant political attack on the party you're trying to get support from and do it -before- the vote on top of it. It had all the tact of a dead toad, and shows just how little she actually wanted bipartisan support.

Second, are these "statesmen" so thin-skinned that all it takes to change their vote is some alleged school-yard ribbing?I'd hope so but with the utter incompetance of this Congress, I would't be surprised. Disappointed, frustrated, and angry at their stupidity, yes, but not surprised.

Third, are these "statesmen" so incompetent that all it takes to change their vote is some alleged school-yard ribbing?As incompetant as Pelosi making that bonehead comment. I don't have a lot of faith in their competence. I''ve seen more stupid things done this Congress for completely petty oneupmanship reasons rather than what's good for the country that I''m quite disgusted.

I'm not buying any of this. What does strike me as having a hint of truth is that either a) they didn't want to vote for it and decided to use this as an excuse not too

or b) they saw a chance to throw the Democratic party under the bus and jumped on it at the expense of economy.Then explain why 13 of the 93 Dems that voted against it did so against their leader''s wishes. Pelosi didn't need those Repubs when she had a pool of 93 Dems to work with. The Repubs couldn't have thrown the Dems under the bus since the Dems hold the majority in both the House and the Senate, and enough Repubs had voted for the bill to secure passage.

Their job is to vote.Their job is to represent their constituents. In my district, Ryan said he got 10 to 1 calls and emails against vs. for this bill.

They're saying that they couldn't do their job because someone said something they didn't like and rather than hold them accountable, we're going to mob the person that hurt their feelings. I'm going to hold the Speaker and both the Dem and Repub leadership accountable for not doing her job.

You may have your opinions about what's wrong with Congress, but I have my opinions about what's wrong with this country.
Those are 2 different things. What's wrong with Congress is allowing petty politics to get in the way of doing what's right. What's wrong with the country in regards to this issue is greed, foolishness, and complete lack of appropriate oversight be regulatory agencies. Greedy companies made loans they knew the buyers couldn't afford. Greedy CEOs milked their companies for millions, quite likely fraudulently. Government agencies either didn't recognize fraud or chose to look the other way. Home owners did not do their homework to make sure they could afford what the lenders said they could afford, willingly abdicating their financial responsibility to predatory lenders.
All that needs to get fixed and I don't know if this congress and this administration is up to the task.

Web Rider
09-30-2008, 01:12 PM
Wall Street set for rebound after huge drop (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/)
Its all psychological.

That's what I've been telling people for the last year. If you stop acting like we're all going down the tubes, pretty soon we won't be. Yeah, okay there's some major companies folding, but maybe, FINALLY the housing market will drop back down to reasonable prices.

mimartin
09-30-2008, 01:24 PM
Then explain why 13 of the 93 Dems that voted against it did so against their leader''s wishes. What does the 13 Democrats have to do with it? They never changed their minds. They did not pledge their support and then pull it because the mean lady spoke unkind and hurt their little feelings.

Their job is to represent their constituents. In my district, Ryan said he got 10 to 1 calls and emails against vs. for this bill. Should they really listen to their constituents when their constituents are going against their own best interest. If banks fail and the stock market crashes whom do you think the constituents are going to blame? Hint: Most will not be blaming themselves. A representative’s job is to serve the best interest of his constituents and the country. That does not mean always doing what is most popular.

Personally, I’m against the bailout too. I just don’t see any real alternative. This couldn’t happen at a worse time being an election year.

Caius Fett
09-30-2008, 04:26 PM
Oh Puhleaseee. This whole Bailout is nothing but a political ploy by both sides on capitol hill to make it look like they're doing something to "fix' what THEY broke in the first damn place. I wouldn't trust any of them to fix my tiolet let alone the ecomomy.

mimartin
09-30-2008, 05:56 PM
Well if it is a political ploy then the Bush Administration is doing everything possible to sabotage John McCain’s campaign. Guess they forgot he was a Republican too.

There is no political gain to the Bush Administration to bring this to Congress. All it does is hurt the incumbent’s party in the upcoming election. No, this does not work as a political ploy and if it could have waited the Republican Administration would have waiting until after November 4th to bring this to the nation’s attention.

That does not mean that member of Congress and those running for the White House will not try to use this crisis to their advantage.

Arcesious
09-30-2008, 06:30 PM
There was a funny political cartoon I saw somewhere.... I can't seem to find it, so I'll describe it:

Fat guy with a nice suit and and all kinds of fancy accessories walks down an alleyway dragging a wheelbarrow filled with tons of bags of money in a wheelbarrow. There is scrawny poor person whom is digging in a trashcan to find food. The fat guy asks the scrawny guy: "Spare some cash?"
The poor person says "You're kidding, right?"

:p

Caius Fett
10-01-2008, 12:21 PM
Nice Arc.

My point mimartain was that GOVERNMENT is more than half to blame for this current economic situation. It was under the Clinton administration that there was de-reuglation of the housing market as well as applying pressure to financial institutions to expand high risk loans. Everyone is decrying the greedy banks and investors and yes there is blame to be had there. However almost nobdy is mentioning how the federal govern ment has had a hand in this mess. And now they expect us to believe they have all the answers to fix what they f'ed up in the first place.

As for it being a ploy by both parties first consider the person who orriginated this travesty. GW. Almost imediately house Dems jumped on the bandwagon. Republicans too I'll grant that. So now there are members from both parties pushing for this trying to look like they have half a clue. All to buy votes. In the end they'll get what they want of course and just make a bigger mess.

I say let the market fix itself. Re-istitute the regulation that was abolished under clinton and if they absolutely MUST pass some bill to resue the economy why not do something like allowing home owners to refinance at a low fixed rate around 3.5% and give financial help to those who qualify under the old rules.

Just my 2 cents.

mimartin
10-01-2008, 01:30 PM
My point mimartin was that GOVERNMENT is more than half to blame for this current economic situation. How do you figure the government is more than half to blame? I don’t dispute that the government should share in the blame, but how do you figure they are responsible for a majority of the problem? I believe the financial markets, the government and the consumers are all to blame. I just don’t know how to proportion the blame.

It was under the Clinton administration that there was de-reuglation of the housing market as well as applying pressure to financial institutions to expand high risk loans. So blame Clinton. Wasn’t it a Republican Congress that passed this deregulation? All the President can do is sign or veto the bill presented by Congress.

Deregulation was a problem, but not because Congress or the President made mortgagee finance 100% variable rate loans. The deregulation allowed them to do it, but no one forced the companies or the consumers to do it. The banks did it to compete with Government back loans. The government offered these loans to people that could not get financed by private institutions. Although the banks would not originally loan money to these clients, since the government was now in the market, the banks decided to now take on riskier clients in the search for higher profits. Even if it is not illegal, giving 100% variable rate loans to someone that can barely afford the current interest rate, it is still unethical. This is just part of the problem. The financial crisis is beyond just this. It also involves mistakes in the real estate sector and these same lending institutions making a financial instrument out of these high risk loans and then playing musical chairs with them.

I don’t see where anyone jumped on the Bandwagon. Bush asked for 700 Billion with no strings attached. He wanted Henry Paulson to control the fund with no congressional oversight. Bush wanted Mr. Paulson to have complete unquestioned digression.

As to the members of congress having half a clue, I doubt that many of them have any more of clue than the rest of America about the true fallout of what will happen if they act or if they fail to act. The “so-called” expert economists are just as unsure although their guess is more educated than Rush Limbaugh or anyone on FoxNews.

Caius Fett
10-01-2008, 04:23 PM
If the government hadn't poked their nose in where it was none of their buisness and started offering those loans this situation would likely have never happened. However all of that is water under the bridge as far as I'm concerened. The question then is where do we go from here?

Personaly I don't happen to beleive the answer is yet more government intervention on behalf of the same financial institutions that have played fast and loose with the housing market. Do I pretend to have those answers? No. And I'm not sure anyone does at this time.

As for the band waggon thing, wasn't it Pelosi and other House Dem leaders who innitially got behind the plan before the details had even been released? And isn't it the Dems who have tried to get all manner of riders and provisions added that would nearly double the cost of the plan? If that isnt bandwagon jumping I don't know what is.

Again just my 2 cents

mimartin
10-01-2008, 04:33 PM
You do understand, regulations is the government sticking their nose into others business. :D

Yes, let’s get the government out of the loan business. No more student loans, no more disaster relief loans, no more VA loans…:rolleyes:

Was Bush's bill the one that got defeated the other day? Then I fail to see the bandwagon. Congress wanting to do something to offset the real and perceived fallout from this is not jumping on the bandwagon, it is trying to offset disaster.

I just don’t understand why the administration waited so long to request help, other than the oblivious reason of trying to hold off until after the election on November 4th.

This is being sold by a few taking heads as bailing out Wall Street, but this could have serious affect on every street. This could cause serious unemployment, extremely high interest rates, money to be devalued and retirement funds to disappear.

Again I do not support the bailout; I merely do not see any alternative because doing nothing has too many negative consequences that could go beyond Wall Street and even America itself.

My .000000002 cents ;)

GarfieldJL
10-01-2008, 06:32 PM
Not sure if anyone else has posted this but the Democrats tried to sneak a bunch of funds for Acorn into the bailout bill.

Acorn is a leftwing activist organization, that has gotten in trouble for voter fraud.

Oh and Barack Obama was not only their lawyer, but also served in a leadership role.

Posts on ACORN were moved to this thread. (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2532403&posted=1#post2532403). Please reserve this thread for the bank bailout issues. --Jae

Jae Onasi
10-01-2008, 11:46 PM
The Senate just passed a major bailout bill with votes almost 2 to 1 in favor. I think they've started to make a better case to Americans explaining what's going to happen with all the bad assets the gov't is going to buy, and they took great pains to show bipartisanship, I noticed. Pelosi was smart and didn't say anything negative in her press release tonight.

mimartin
10-01-2008, 11:48 PM
I believe the case was made Monday afternoon when people’s retirement fund suddenly shrunk.

Web Rider
10-01-2008, 11:51 PM
Ah, yes I love it, "don't bail them out, let them suck eggs!"

*401k implodes*

SAVE THEM SAVE THEM!

Ah, the American populace, always trust them to make the right decisions....as soon as their ass is on the fire.

GarfieldJL
10-02-2008, 10:35 AM
I wonder what goodies the Senate Democrats added to the bill though, remember the first bill was going to funnel millions if not billions of dollars to pet projects and Democrat activist groups.

I listened to a congressional representative from my state on Tuesday talk about this, even got to ask him some questions.

This may be an opinion piece but it's sources check out:
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/surprise-obamas-legal-career-consisted.html

It talks about Obama's ties to Acorn as well as his direct involvement in events leading to the current financial disaster.

Web Rider
10-02-2008, 01:04 PM
It talks about Obama's ties to Acorn as well as his direct involvement in events leading to the current financial disaster.
you know, you can shout that from the hills till your throat is dry, but you still havn't provided any proof for it.

Jae Onasi
10-02-2008, 01:40 PM
There was no legislation in that bill that involved Acorn--various news agencies have taken great pains today to point that out.

GarfieldJL
10-02-2008, 01:46 PM
There was no legislation in that bill that involved Acorn--various news agencies have taken great pains today to point that out.

Referring to the previous bill that the Democrats tried to jam through the House of Representatives, and I'd have to see the bill in order to believe what they say.

As Fox News has said they no longer take the Associated Press at face value.

mimartin
10-02-2008, 01:59 PM
As Fox News has said they no longer take the Associated Press at face value.
Iím sure that sentiment is mutual. :xp:

GarfieldJL
10-02-2008, 02:08 PM
Iím sure that sentiment is mutual. :xp:

I really don't care what the AP thinks, especially when the National Enquirer these days has higher standards than the New York Times.

And Obama got his 10,000 press secretaries.

What still hasn't been addressed is the fact that Obama sued banks to force them to issue Sub-Prime Mortgages which is what led to this fiasco.

mimartin
10-02-2008, 02:23 PM
What still hasn't been addressed is the fact that Obama sued banks to force them to issue Sub-Prime Mortgages which is what led to this fiasco. :lol: You think Obama representing a group that sued banks to force them into issuing Sub-Prime Mortgages led to this fiasco! 700 billion is extreme amount for such a minor problem.

Did Obama also sue the banks into issuing variable rate loans? Did Obama sue them into make this sub-prime loans into investment securities? Did Obama sue the banks into giving multiple loans to those wishing to profit from the housing market? Etc, etc…

There is no one thing that led to this mess, so there is no one person to blame.

GarfieldJL
10-02-2008, 03:48 PM
:lol: You think Obama representing a group that sued banks to force them into issuing Sub-Prime Mortgages led to this fiasco! 700 billion is extreme amount for such a minor problem.


No but but where was he when McCain tried to get this problem fixed back in 2007? He was taking kickbacks from Fanne/Freddie.


Did Obama also sue the banks into issuing variable rate loans? Did Obama sue them into make this sub-prime loans into investment securities? Did Obama sue the banks into giving multiple loans to those wishing to profit from the housing market? Etc, etc…


Point is he was involved in it, also he had a chance to stand up and support McCain's call for it to be fixed.


There is no one thing that led to this mess, so there is no one person to blame.

Actually, you can place blame on the Democrat Party, though the media is taking great pains to avoid mentioning it.

President George W. Bush tried to get more regulations in that would have prevented this mess. (Least the one involving Freddie/Fanny)
Result: Democrats fillabustered the bill.

John McCain and some other Republicans tried to get this fixed TWICE! Once in 2005-2006, and then tried again in 2007.
Results:
2005-2006 Dem's fillabustered it
2007 Democrats shot the bill down saying there wasn't a problem.

Even Former President Clinton has blamed Democrats for this.

mimartin
10-02-2008, 04:23 PM
Even Former President Clinton has blamed Democrats for this.
But not the Republican Congress that passed the deregulation for Clinton to sign in the first place? Was McCain a member of that Congress? :)

GarfieldJL
10-02-2008, 04:26 PM
But not the Republican Congress that passed the deregulation for Clinton to sign in the first place? Was McCain a member of that Congress? :)

I believe he voted against that part of the deregulation. Not sure, but even if he voted for it he moved to add the regulations back in twice.

mimartin
10-02-2008, 04:30 PM
I believe he voted against that part of the deregulation.Right, that figures McCain isn't a true conservative he believes in big government.

GarfieldJL
10-02-2008, 04:35 PM
Right, that figures McCain isn't a true conservative he believe in big government.

No he's for small government, but he's also for common sense, seeing as Freddie/Fanny already had Government ties.

Jae Onasi
10-02-2008, 04:41 PM
Referring to the previous bill that the Democrats tried to jam through the House of Representatives, and I'd have to see the bill in order to believe what they say.

As Fox News has said they no longer take the Associated Press at face value.

Well, I heard it from both Fox News and AP sources, if that makes you feel any better.

GarfieldJL
10-02-2008, 04:58 PM
Well, I heard it from both Fox News and AP sources, if that makes you feel any better.

Yeah, but the bill still might be voted down, the last one according to the congressman I met on Tuesday September 30th even without the earmarks was still trash.

mimartin
10-02-2008, 04:59 PM
No he's for small government, but he's also for common sense, seeing as Freddie/Fanny already had Government ties.
Then why did Senator McCain vote for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? You know the bill that deregulated the Banking Industry.

Let’s also not forget Mr. McCain voted for the The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act in 1982. What makes that vote disturbing is it was the deregulation of the Saving and Loans Industry. Mr. McCain learned nothing from that vote and again voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. :D

GarfieldJL
10-02-2008, 05:06 PM
Then why did Senator McCain vote for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? You know the bill that deregulated the Banking Industry.

Letís also not forget Mr. McCain voted for the The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act in 1982. What makes that vote disturbing is it was the deregulation of the Saving and Loans Industry. Mr. McCain learned nothing from that vote and again voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. :D

Maybe however if that's the case he moved to fix his mistake in 2005-2006 and 2007 as he watched it being abused he moved to fix it.

The Dems were too busy getting money from it.

Yar-El
10-02-2008, 05:32 PM
Article: Give me a break, a tax break — or else (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26993487/)
How windmills help explain the politicking over the Wall Street bailout

Tax earmarks in Senate bailout
The following "tax earmarks" were added to the Senate bailout legislation:

New tax earmarks:
~ Film and television productions (Sec. 502)
~ Wooden arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
~ 6-page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)

Tax earmark “extenders”:
~ Virgin Island and Puerto Rican rum (Section 308)
~ American Samoa (Sec. 309)
~ Mine rescue teams (Sec. 310)
~ Mine safety equipment (Sec. 311)
~ Domestic production activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
~ Indian tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
~ Railroads (Sec. 316)
~ Auto racing tracks (317)
~ District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
~ Wool research (Sec. 325)
Small update to the bail out events of the day. :) See link above for more details.

----- Added -----

Article: BREAKING DOWN THE BAILOUT VOTE (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/10/01/1478253.aspx)

By a vote of 74-25, the Senate has approved its version of the financial recovery package that was voted down by the U.S. House on Monday. Senators Biden, McCain, and Obama, as promised, returned to the Hill to vote "aye" on the measure. Did everyone agree to not vote for a bill filled with earmarks? McCain? McCain? Are you there? I guess things have changed since the debate.

GarfieldJL
10-02-2008, 06:38 PM
McCain had said in the debate basically that out of two evils an earmark isn't as big of an evil as the entire economy collapsing.

Yar-El
10-03-2008, 03:08 PM
House, in second effort, passes bailout bill (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26987291/)

This is why you don't bail out companies:
Oil prices rebound on hopes of bailout package (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/)

Its all psychological. We should have just cutback on spending.

Web Rider
10-03-2008, 04:25 PM
Its all psychological. We should have just cutback on spending.

Or maybe NOT given tax breaks in the first place. Or not started expensive wars.

Cutting education, roads, and social services isn't going to save us anything.

Yar-El
10-03-2008, 04:31 PM
Do you know why the oil demands are high? Shhh... Its a big secret. Every time we have a oil shortage, we are in the throws of fighting a war. It allways happens. Once the wars are done and over, the demand and price of oil will fall drastically. Shhh... :D

:headbump I knew the bail out would be negative.

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 04:40 PM
Or maybe NOT given tax breaks in the first place. Or not started expensive wars.


1. Why'd revenues increase when we cut taxes then?

2. Don't start on the expensive war crud, you also saying we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan too?

Litofsky
10-03-2008, 06:18 PM
2. Don't start on the expensive war crud, you also saying we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan too?


I wonder what we could do with $12,000,000,000 a month... (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=4418698) And that's just Iraq.

I don't support either wars, but I understand why we went into Afghanistan: a group of radicals had just killed 3,000 of our citizens, and the group responsible was hiding in Afghanistan (as far as I know). However, Iraq was completely unnecessary. We (being the US) went into there due to suspected weapons of mass destruction (none have been found to date).

GarfieldJL
10-03-2008, 07:16 PM
I've done some digging and found information on Senate Bill S-190, posted this in another thread but it applies to both.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s109-190

This will give co-sponsors
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-190

Sen. Elizabeth Dole [R-NC]
Sen. John McCain [R-AZ]
Sen. John Sununu [R-NH]

Web Rider
10-03-2008, 07:50 PM
Do you know why the oil demands are high? Shhh... Its a big secret. Every time we have a oil shortage, we are in the throws of fighting a war. It allways happens. Once the wars are done and over, the demand and price of oil will fall drastically. Shhh... :D

:headbump I knew the bail out would be negative.

I don't recall saying anything about oil. I was responding to the suggestion that we should cut spending. I gave examples of two examples of where we have excessive spending. Generally when you make cut you cut excessive spending, not things that are already just skin and bones.

1. Why'd revenues increase when we cut taxes then?
Considering we're still cutting spending, cutting jobs, and prices are going up, I'd be curious to know what revenues you're talking about.

2. Don't start on the expensive war crud, you also saying we shouldn't have gone to Afghanistan too?
The $100 billion+ a year stuff didn't start till the war in Iraq. EVERY major power that's launched a war in the last half of a millennium knows that a war with 2 fronts FAILS.

Specifically, our massive military force isn't what's effective against people hiding in caves. What's effective against them is small covert-ops missions. And that's a whole heck of a lot cheaper than "shock and awe".

Tommycat
10-04-2008, 02:16 AM
Specifically, our massive military force isn't what's effective against people hiding in caves. What's effective against them is small covert-ops missions. And that's a whole heck of a lot cheaper than "shock and awe".
Yeah but "Shock and Awe" looks cooler:D

We could cut spending in a lot of areas. CAGW has a pretty good list.

GarfieldJL
10-04-2008, 09:33 PM
Yeah but "Shock and Awe" looks cooler:D

We could cut spending in a lot of areas. CAGW has a pretty good list.


Watching Fox News investigation on TV, and it seems to me that the Democrats are primarily responsible for this entire mess. It even mentioned McCain's attempts to fix this thing.

jrrtoken
10-04-2008, 10:42 PM
Watching Fox News investigation on TV, and it seems to me that the Democrats are primarily responsible for this entire mess. It even mentioned McCain's attempts to fix this thing.Of course, that's coming from Fox News, and they can say that Obama is actually a radical Muslim and everyone who watches them would believe it. Best to actually look for the truth rather than hear it out of a pundit's mouth.
Fox has gone to great pains regularly to point out that Obama is NOT a radical Muslim. --Jae

Tommycat
10-04-2008, 11:09 PM
Watching Fox News investigation on TV, and it seems to me that the Democrats are primarily responsible for this entire mess. It even mentioned McCain's attempts to fix this thing.

Negative. Look I'm a Republican, but pinning this all on the Dems or even primarily on the dems is pretty unfair. Both parties are to blame. Two presidents are to blame(Clinton and Bush). Lets face it we the people are partly to blame. Banks are to blame. Deregulation, believe it or not, actually softened the blow(according to economists and of course Clinton who signed it into law after a Republican majority congress passed it). Greenspan is to blame for continuing to lower interest rates. Realtors are to blame. and I'm sure I missed a few other people that share some blame for the economic situation we're in right now.

McCain signed on to the bill when the crisis was about to hit. The housing market was about to collapse. It had nearly reached it's peak when he signed on to the bill. Which never came to the floor for a vote. It wasn't even fillibustered. It never even got to that point. In fairness though, at least his name is on there... with two other Republicans...

GarfieldJL
10-04-2008, 11:26 PM
Both parties share some of the blame, but the current President's is not as much at fault as one would think. Also, there were several votes to fix this and each time it went along party lines.

This was decades in the making, and I'm not saying there weren't Republicans involved in this mess but the biggest beneficiaries were Democrats and they were the ones that were trying to block all increases in regulation. The Democrats were also saying there wasn't even a problem.

Again: 2003, President Bush tried to get this fixed and it was shot down in the senate.

2005-2006 John McCain and other Republicans tried to get this problem fixed and again the Democrats blocked it.

2007 another bill by the Republicans including you guessed it Senator John McCain as a cosponsor was made to try to fix this problem, and the vote went along partisan lines again.

So the Republicans were actually trying to fix this issue, and one can look at Senate voting records.

Bleh it's reairing right now at 11:08 AM.

Achilles
10-09-2008, 08:49 AM
U.S. National Debt (http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/)

What is another Trillion dollars or two?Not much when we're talking quadrillions (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081009/ap_on_re_us/odd_national_debt_clock), I guess.

Arcesious
10-09-2008, 09:23 AM
I'll be debating about this in politics club today...

What ammo should I bring along? :xp:

Achilles
10-09-2008, 09:33 AM
This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt) might be a good starting point.

Arcesious
10-09-2008, 10:34 AM
I was just wondering what to say since the leaders of the club are pretty intelligent conservatives (they understand economics better than I do), and because they have a resident economy expert coming in...

Achilles
10-10-2008, 04:20 PM
Degrees of Hank Paulson (http://www.propublica.org/special/degrees-of-hank-paulson/)

If it sometimes seems that Wall Street is a small world, well, it is. For all its global reach, and for all the bitter conflict in recent months, where, for example, Lehman Brothers was left to tumble into bankruptcy while American International Group was bailed out, these are people who know each other, often well. Nowhere are the ties more evident than with U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Many of the CEOs of companies touched by the financial crisis have links to him. Some, such as Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, have direct connections via that company, which Paulson used to head. Others connect through a network of fellow CEOs.

This graphic shows where those CEOs fit into Paulson's network starting as recently as in 2003. Connections include employment at the same company or a position on the same board of directors, but not necessarily at the same time. We did not include every company at which these CEOs have worked Ė just those within this network. We also omitted ties to community and social organizations as well as instances in which CEOs simultaneously held other positions at a company such as board chairman.
Enjoy!

jawathehutt
10-10-2008, 05:44 PM
Anyone else hear about AIG's little party after they got their money? Good to see that the reason why my school cant even afford to do its one main purpose is so that some millionaires/billionaires can have a free party. But hey, who cares if the next generation of workers are under-educated yokels, there'll be more workers for luxury resorts then.

SW01
10-10-2008, 05:54 PM
Yeah that was a laugh! Their rationalisations were even better. I seem to recall them saying it was only some of their executives - which makes it alright, of course...:xp:

Achilles
10-10-2008, 06:04 PM
The number I heard bandied about was $400 million. Could someone confirm or deny this?

SW01
10-10-2008, 06:11 PM
The number I heard bandied about was $400 million. Could someone confirm or deny this?

Not quite as bad as that! :lol:

Seems it was about $440 thousand.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2008/10/after_bailout_aig_executives_h.html?hpid=topnews

Achilles
10-10-2008, 06:15 PM
That sounds much more reasonable (relatively speaking). Thanks for the link!