PDA

View Full Version : Dow Dips Below 10,000


Yar-El
10-06-2008, 11:59 AM
Dow Dips Below 10,000 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/)

Holy Henna! Freefalling or what. It looks like the bailout may be a little too late, or it may have never had a chance.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 12:04 PM
Quite frankly, the attempt to intervene was way too late, if the plan the Republicans had to fix the regulations had actually been allowed to proceed and pass all the way back in 2003 or 2005, 2006, or even 2007. We wouldn't be in this mess.

A video of interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhQAHKxuR1Q

Yar-El
10-06-2008, 12:10 PM
Quite frankly, the attempt to intervene was way too late, if the plan the Republicans had to fix the regulations had actually been allowed to proceed and pass all the way back in 2003 or 2005, 2006, or even 2007. We wouldn't be in this mess. What your saying is that we are 4 to 5 years too late. I have never seen it below 10,000 since the 1990s. If it did go down in recent history, I may not have been paying attention. This is a rear occassion for me.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 12:26 PM
What your saying is that we are 4 to 5 years too late. I have never seen it below 10,000 since the 1990s. If it did go down in recent history, I may not have been paying attention. This is a rear occassion for me.

President Bush tried to add regulations to the two banks that started all this with the Subprime mortgages back in 2003, the Democrats fillabustered it.

John McCain, Elizabeth Dole, and a few other Republicans tried again in 2005-2006. Democrats fillabustered it.

Then John McCain was a cosponsor for another bill to try to fix this problem again in 2007, this time the Democrats voted it down.

Throughout all this the Democrats claimed there wasn't any problems.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Another video: (note You Tube has repeatedly tried to supress this video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_597487

Reason being that Time Warner which owns YouTube gave $338,527 to Senator Obama, and thus YouTube is in the tank.

Edit: Another video a lot is the same but it has some more stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5z9lD4C2Io&feature=iv&annotation_id=event_313445

jrrtoken
10-06-2008, 06:00 PM
Quit saying that it is all the Democrat's fault, as Republicans have been equally guilty on sitting idly by while the economy goes to Hell.

Corinthian
10-06-2008, 06:02 PM
Funny, by what Garfield is saying, the Republicans have tried three times to fix this mess. So that's dead wrong.

jrrtoken
10-06-2008, 06:08 PM
Funny, by what Garfield is saying, the Republicans have tried three times to fix this mess. So that's dead wrong.And did any of those attempts work? No, they didn't, and what's even worse is that the Republicans that Garfield was referring to all tried to introduce a bill in a Republican controlled Congress.

And Garfield, that first video that you posted is about Obama's ties to ACORN, which is completely irreverent to the subject.

Corinthian
10-06-2008, 06:15 PM
Yes, and why did it fail? Oh, yes. Because the Democrats FILIBUSTERED IT TO DEATH.

Litofsky
10-06-2008, 06:22 PM
The blame-game is fun, isn't it? :rolleyes:

It's times like this that I wish we had bipartisan action instead of pointing fingers at each other, trying to dole out the pain in an effort to get reelected.

Corinthian
10-06-2008, 06:25 PM
Yeah, me too. Some Bipartisan action would have been nice five years ago.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-06-2008, 06:32 PM
Yes, and why did it fail? Oh, yes. Because the Democrats FILIBUSTERED IT TO DEATH.The Democrats made several attempts to stop sub-prime lending as well.

I have to say though, it's nice that Democrats and Republicans were able to put aside their differences and ruin the economy together.


Edit:

Yeah, me too. Some Bipartisan action would have been nice five years ago.Excellent timing sir.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 06:39 PM
The Democrats made several attempts to stop sub-prime lending as well.


I find that hard to believe, and I've posted up around here in some thread a copy of one of the Bill's submitted by the Republicans and the Democrats fillabustered it.

The reasons I don't believe the Dems made any attempt to fix this was:
1. They denied the existance of the problem.
2. They were the ones getting all the money in the kickbacks for their campaigns.

Det. Bart Lasiter
10-06-2008, 07:43 PM
I find that hard to believe, and I've posted up around here in some thread a copy of one of the Bill's submitted by the Republicans and the Democrats fillabustered it.I am shocked sir. Why to think that Democrats and Republicans have different priorities when it comes to the economy. Well I never...

The reasons I don't believe the Dems made any attempt to fix this was:
1. They denied the existance of the problem.
2. They were the ones getting all the money in the kickbacks for their campaigns.I love speculation. I also love your assertion that Democrats were the only ones getting kickbacks.

Teehee. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrfPMa3lONU)

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 08:39 PM
I know republicans were getting kickbacks, but nowhere near the level the Democrats were, and the Republicans were trying to fix the problem.

Web Rider
10-06-2008, 09:06 PM
I know republicans were getting kickbacks, but nowhere near the level the Democrats were, and the Republicans were trying to fix the problem.

you have already proven you excel at pointing fingers, could we kindly get back to the fact that regardless of who's to blame, we still need a solution?

Jae Onasi
10-06-2008, 09:37 PM
you have already proven you excel at pointing fingers, could we kindly get back to the fact that regardless of who's to blame, we still need a solution?
You have to understand what caused the problem before you can start to fix it. Some finger pointing is going to go on, and perhaps _should_ go on instead of trying to cover up the crap that went on, because cover-ups and misstatements of earnings were HUGE problems in this case.

Litofsky
10-06-2008, 09:44 PM
You have to understand what caused the problem before you can start to fix it. Some finger pointing is going to go on, and perhaps _should_ go on instead of trying to cover up the crap that went on, because cover-ups and misstatements of earnings were HUGE problems in this case.

While that's all good, Jae, it's when the politicians that are supposed to be working for the good of the country are caught up in the blame-game, instead of saying "Okay, we messed up, now let's try and fix this."

That's where the problem is, I believe.

Web Rider
10-06-2008, 09:45 PM
You have to understand what caused the problem before you can start to fix it. Some finger pointing is going to go on, and perhaps _should_ go on instead of trying to cover up the crap that went on, because cover-ups and misstatements of earnings were HUGE problems in this case.

I disagree, understanding what caused the problem will only prevent us from doing it again. Which is entirely irrelevant to preventing a cataclysmic in the now. Knowing what caused things to happen now will not change what's happening, it will not stop what's happening, and it won't change the course of things.

What we need to understand is how we got out of recessions and depressions before. We don't need to know WHY the earth shakes during a earthquake, only that it does, and the results can be bad, and what we need to focus on is how to be able to withstand these sorts of things better than we currently do.

Jae Onasi
10-06-2008, 10:18 PM
Knowing the diagnosis and the contributing factors is integral to finding a treatment.

If fraud is part of the problem and you do nothing to fix the fraud, guess what? The problem won't get fixed. If giving people who shouldn't have had loans more loans, the problem won't get fixed. If legislators allowing deregulation in exchange for lobbyist money is part of the problem, how's the problem going to get solved if you don't fix those things?

How are you going to even begin to solve the crisis without beginning to understand how the problem came to be so that you don't continue doing the same things that got you to that point in the first place?

mimartin
10-06-2008, 10:29 PM
You have to understand what caused the problem before you can start to fix it. I actually agree with Jae in this case, but I have to ask why. Why do we have to understand the problem? I mean it is not like this hasn’t happen before. We deregulated the Saving and Loan industry and then have to perform a mass bailout. So what did congress learn from that debacle, not enough not to deregulate the banking industry. Will knowing the cause really solve the problem and prevent it from happening again? I would say if history is any indication, then it is highly doubtful.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 10:34 PM
Again I'm going to point out this problem wouldn't exist if not for the Democrats stonewalling attempts at reform.

mimartin
10-06-2008, 10:39 PM
Again I'm going to point out this problem wouldn't exist if not for the Democrats stonewalling attempts at reform.
Yes, you keep stating that, it does not however make it true.

The problem also would not exist if a Republican Congress had not deregulated the Banking Industry in the first place. Funny thing is you also would not have to reform it if you had not deregulated it in the first place.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 10:45 PM
Yes, you keep stating that, it does not however make it true.

The problem also would not exist if a Republican Congress had not deregulated the Banking Industry in the first place. Funny thing is you also would not have to reform it if you had not deregulated it in the first place.

I will acknowledge that part but as I pointed out that Senator McCain wasn't present at the vote.

And McCain acted to try to fix this issue.

Again the Democrats in their own words:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

mimartin
10-06-2008, 11:03 PM
I will acknowledge that part but as I pointed out that Senator McCain wasn't present at the vote.

Yet his vote was counted. He voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Which was deregulation of the Banking Industry. According to the Senates own website John McCain did vote and he did vote yea (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105). Are you saying he did not vote, if so I call it voters fraud, but I sure it is Obamaís fault.

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 11:13 PM
Yet his vote was counted. He voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Which was deregulation of the Banking Industry. According to the Senates own website John McCain did vote and he did vote yea (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00105). Are you saying he did not vote, if so I call it voters fraud, but I sure it is Obamaís fault.


I'm not sure we were looking at the same bill, but the bill you're referring to, I can't get the text of the bill, so can you get me the bill text.


Anyways: (this is a video of Democrats actually stonewalling)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

mimartin
10-06-2008, 11:21 PM
You know you can click the link with the Senate Vote to see the bill. However, here is the link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN900:). The bill is a lot different from a state bill as it is very long. If you want an easier read try Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act)

GarfieldJL
10-06-2008, 11:49 PM
You know you can click the link with the Senate Vote to see the bill. However, here is the link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d106:SN900:). The bill is a lot different from a state bill as it is very long. If you want an easier read try Wikipedia. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act)

It's working now but don't see anything about the two banks in question. The bill I saw that had to do with this had McCain not voting. The problem was the sub-prime mortgages and I don't see anything about making things less transparent or having more of those in this particular bill.

The Republicans did try to fix this issue, concerning sub-prime mortgages.

mimartin
10-07-2008, 12:14 AM
It's working now but don't see anything about the two banks in question. You will not see the name of individual banks in this bill. The bill has to do with the industry and not any two indiviual banks. You do understand that this problem is larger than any two banks or any one region of the country? The problem was the sub-prime mortgages and I don't see anything about making things less transparent or having more of those in this particular bill. Wow you know what caused the 750 billion dollar problem. Even the greatest economic minds have not figured it out yet, but you know the entire mess was created by subprime loans.

If it was subprime interest rates that caused this entire mess then someone more intelligent than me would have figured that out by now. Subprime is one of the contributing factors, but by itself it is little more than a bump in the road.

Turning these subprime loans into a financial investment and then selling them repeatedly is another larger contributing factor (which was made possible by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act).

Allowing Banks to enter the financial markets and insurance markets also led to this disaster (again made possible by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act).

Banks making 100% and larger loans to consumers also is a contributing factor.

The over inflation of the housing market and then the lowering of those housing values contributed to this problem too.


Many other reasons that I’m unable to think of…

Even if you fixed the Subprime loan problem, it does not mean this disaster does not happen, as there are far too many other problems to factor into this.

You can try to blame one party or one individual, but the problem is way larger than that. The Republican, the Democrats, Congress, the White House, the Banks and the consumer are all to blame and there is plenty of blame to go around. 750 billion to be precise. :(

GarfieldJL
10-07-2008, 12:22 AM
You will not see the name of individual banks in this bill. The bill has to do with the industry and not any two indiviual banks. You do understand that this problem is larger than any two banks or any one region of the country? Wow you know what caused the 750 billion dollar problem. Even the greatest economic minds have not figured it out yet, but you know the entire mess was created by subprime loans.


The two banks in question are tied to the federal government they weren't normal banks.


If it was subprime interest rates that caused this entire mess then someone more intelligent than me would have figured that out by now. Subprime is one of the contributing factors, but by itself it is little more than a bump in the road.


No because Obama was involved in forcing banks to issue loans they wouldn't have issued otherwise, that is where Obama is involved in this.


Turning these subprime loans into a financial investment and then selling them repeatedly is another larger contributing factor (which was made possible by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act).

Which if I recall President Bush had tried to get fixed but the Dems stonewalled.


I'll get back to this when I can but need to get some sleep now.

Web Rider
10-07-2008, 12:28 AM
The two banks in question are tied to the federal government they weren't normal banks.
ALL banks have ties to the federal government.

No because Obama was involved in forcing banks to issue loans they wouldn't have issued otherwise, that is where Obama is involved in this.
Dood, you almost made me spit up my drink. I can picture it now, Obama going around forcing these multi-billion dollar banks to issue bad loans. Man, what's even more hilarious is that you're serious.:¨:

Okay, Obama did not force banks to do anything. Anything a bank did was the decision of their corporate executives.

mimartin
10-07-2008, 12:49 AM
The two banks in question are tied to the federal government they weren't normal banks. Well I guess you really don’t have it all figured out. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are just a contributing factor and not the entire cause of this mess.


No because Obama was involved in forcing banks to issue loans they wouldn't have issued otherwise, that is where Obama is involved in this. Obama is Superman. He caused a 750 billion dollar problem without even being in the banking industry or the government. What your statement has to do with the topic is beyond me. The Dow dropped because of the credit crisis and that was not caused by any one individual, but by the greed of everyone. This live now pay later attitude by most of America will be our undoing.

You obliviously do not understand the scale of this problem trying to lay the blame on any one individual is silly at best. Did Obama suit force banks into issuing 100% variable rate mortgages to people all over the country? I’ll save you some time, no it did not.

I’d love to blame my favorite scapegoat and fellow Texan George Bush, but this mess is even beyond him. Yes, he is a factor, but not the only individual responsible.


Which if I recall President Bush had tried to get fixed but the Dems stonewalled. President Bush tried to fix it the other day and the Republicans in the House stonewalled.

Achilles
10-07-2008, 01:47 AM
President Bush tried to fix it the other day and the Republicans in the House stonewalled.But that was Pelosi's fault remember? She hurt their feelings and stuff.

mimartin
10-07-2008, 02:07 AM
But that was Pelosi's fault remember? She hurt their feelings and stuff.

Oh, I forgot.

The House Republicans are so sensitive. I guess that is what they mean by compassionate conservative.

GarfieldJL
10-07-2008, 11:41 AM
But that was Pelosi's fault remember? She hurt their feelings and stuff.

Pelosi was only part of the problem, fact was it was a bill that a drunken lemur could have wrote a better one.

I actually listened to a Congressman in real life as he called the bill a piece of garbage.

However, this should have been fixed long before 2008, to blame the Republicans particularly the President and John McCain is ridiculous considering they were trying to fix this problem.

mimartin
10-07-2008, 01:01 PM
However, this should have been fixed long before 2008, to blame the Republicans particularly the President and John McCain is ridiculous considering they were trying to fix this problem. You keep repeating this as if it is a fact. No, John McCain is not to blame individually and no one is blaming John McCain individually. He did vote to deregulate the Banking Industry, but so did 53 other Senators. You are the only one pointing fingers at individuals. I’m actually waiting for you to blame Obama for KOTOR 3 not being made yet.

However, upon hearing about the Banking problem John McCain first reaction was to get more capital investments into the bank industry by further deregulation and allowing more creative accounting. He said this at a press conference for the world to see (if you want to see this press conference then watch and listen to the link Achilles provided in the Keating Economics thread). So if this was his proposal then I am proud the Democrats shut the Republicans down. The problem could have been even bigger.

Astor
10-07-2008, 05:01 PM
But that was Pelosi's fault remember? She hurt their feelings and stuff.

Then surely, this could have been a chance for the Republicans to man up and ignore the nasty lady by doing the right thing?

GarfieldJL
10-07-2008, 05:03 PM
You keep repeating this as if it is a fact. No, John McCain is not to blame individually and no one is blaming John McCain individually. He did vote to deregulate the Banking Industry, but so did 53 other Senators. You are the only one pointing fingers at individuals. Iím actually waiting for you to blame Obama for KOTOR 3 not being made yet.


Why would I blame Obama for KotOR III?

I'm pointing fingers primarily at the Dems is because Freddie/Fannie were not typical banks, the bill you are looking at has little to do with the mess involving subprime mortgages.

Furthermore, the Democrats were taking money from the two Federally subsidized banks and they were blocking legislation to fix the problem.


However, upon hearing about the Banking problem John McCain first reaction was to get more capital investments into the bank industry by further deregulation and allowing more creative accounting. He said this at a press conference for the world to see (if you want to see this press conference then watch and listen to the link Achilles provided in the Keating Economics thread). So if this was his proposal then I am proud the Democrats shut the Republicans down. The problem could have been even bigger.

Bad example, the Keating Five situation was 4 Democrats and 1 Republican.

mimartin
10-07-2008, 05:35 PM
Why would I blame Obama for KotOR III? You've blamed Obama for everything else. I'm pointing fingers primarily at the Dems is because Freddie/Fannie were not typical banks, the bill you are looking at has little to do with the mess involving subprime mortgages.I have a little education in Finance and Accounting so I don’t need you to tell me what caused this mess or what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are or how they operate. They are contributing factors, but nothing more than a huge bump in the road. They are not the only two banks involved in this credit crisis.
Furthermore, the Democrats were taking money from the two Federally subsidized banks and they were blocking legislation to fix the problem. That may mean something if they were the only two institutions involved in this problem or if that was the topic. You really believe no lobbyist visited the Republicans and the Democrats that voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999?

Bad example, the Keating Five situation was 4 Democrats and 1 Republican. No, it is not. My example had nothing to do with the Keating Five. My example had to do with the current crisis and nothing more. It had to do with McCain 1st press conference after being informed about the current crisis. You are just mistaken or refuse to listen to what McCain said.

Web Rider
10-07-2008, 10:23 PM
now now, lets not blame the politicians, lets blame the guys who really deserve it.

Like this guy: http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081006150152.aspx

mimartin
10-07-2008, 10:30 PM
now now, lets not blame the politicians, lets blame the guys who really deserve it.

Like this guy: http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081006150152.aspx:lol:
That can't be right, according to GarfieldJL only Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are having problems. :rolleyes: Lehman isn't part of either. :xp:

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 11:55 AM
ALL banks have ties to the federal government.


Not at the level Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae did, they are actually technically owned by the Federal Government.


Dood, you almost made me spit up my drink. I can picture it now, Obama going around forcing these multi-billion dollar banks to issue bad loans. Man, what's even more hilarious is that you're serious.:¬:


Sorry that the truth is so funny.

In 1995, Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar balked at implementing the federal motor voter law out of concern that letting people register via postcard and blocking the state from pruning voter rolls might invite vote fraud. A young lawyer named Barak Obama, a community organizer himself, sued on behalf of ACORN and won. ACORN later invited Obama to train its staff on voter registration drives.

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/09/27/consumer-rights-league-obama-acorn-and-the-subprime-mortgage/

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/election/s_584284.html



Okay, Obama did not force banks to do anything. Anything a bank did was the decision of their corporate executives.

That isn't entirely true.

http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/


Case Name
Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank Fair Housing/Lending/Insurance
Docket / Court 94 C 4094 ( N.D. Ill. ) FH-IL-0011
State/Territory Illinois
Case Summary
Plaintiffs filed their class action lawsuit on July 6, 1994, alleging that Citibank had engaged in redlining practices in the Chicago metropolitan area in violation of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), 15 U.S.C. 1691; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3601-3619; the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; a*nd* 42 U.S.C. 1981, 1982. Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant-bank rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Ruben Castillo certified the Plaintiffs’ suit as a class action on June 30, 1995. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 322 (N.D. Ill. 1995). Also on June 30, Judge Castillo granted Plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery of a sample of Defendant-bank’s loan application files. Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 162 F.R.D. 338 (N.D. Ill. 1995).

The parties voluntarily dismissed the case on May 12, 1998, pursuant to a settlement agreement.
Plaintiff’s Lawyers Alexis, Hilary I. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Childers, Michael Allen (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Clayton, Fay (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Cummings, Jeffrey Irvine (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Love, Sara Norris (Virginia)
FH-IL-0011-9000
Miner, Judson Hirsch (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Obama, Barack H. (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-7500 | FH-IL-0011-7501 | FH-IL-0011-9000
Wickert, John Henry (Illinois)
FH-IL-0011-9000


And the lawsuit was courtesy of Acorn.

ONE key pioneer of ACORN's subprime-loan shakedown racket was Madeline Talbott - an activist with extensive ties to Barack Obama. She was also in on the ground floor of the disastrous turn in Fannie Mae's mortgage policies.

Long the director of Chicago ACORN, Talbott is a specialist in "direct action" - organizers' term for their militant tactics of intimidation and disruption. Perhaps her most famous stunt was leading a group of ACORN protesters breaking into a meeting of the Chicago City Council to push for a "living wage" law, shouting in defiance as she was arrested for mob action and disorderly conduct. But her real legacy may be her drive to push banks into making risky mortgage loans.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/09292008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/os_dangerous_pals_131216.htm

tk102
10-08-2008, 12:14 PM
Dear readers, the topic of this thread is not partisanship, unfortunately. Instead it is a much more serious one: global economic recession. Light-hearted romps of McCain v. Obama have their place in other threads so let's keep them there.

Jae Onasi
10-08-2008, 12:19 PM
The Fed cut the interest rate by half a percent this morning before the markets opened. I'm not sure if it's having much of an effect, except perhaps preventing another massive free-fall day in the market.

I would like to make one note, however. For many of you, this is the first major drop in the market that you've seen, and it can be almost frightening since it's such a dramatic change. However, it's not my first experience with a major drop, and while it is very severe, I'd like to point out that these things are cyclical. We're likely in a recession now (if the gov't would finally admit it) and it may get worse before it gets better. Down times like this are inevitable because that's the nature of business cycles. However, it's not going to be bad forever. There is certainly a panic element in the market the last couple weeks, and I think for good reason given the severity of bank meltdowns. At some point, however, it will hit bottom, and then the only way to go is back up again.

tk102
10-08-2008, 12:33 PM
In addition to the rate cut that Jae mentioned, the Fed is also taking a rather dramatic (and a bit risky) step in side-stepping banks altogether to issue short term loans to directly to non-financial businesses (aka "commerical paper"). This is the first time this has been done since the Great Depression. Hopefully this will help solidify economic confidence and thaw the credit market, but it does stick U.S. taxpayers with the burden if companies cannot repay their loans.

GarfieldJL
10-08-2008, 12:37 PM
In addition to the rate cut that Jae mentioned, the Fed is also taking a rather dramatic (and a bit risky) step in side-stepping banks altogether to issue short term loans to directly to non-financial businesses (aka "commerical paper"). This is the first time this has been done since the Great Depression. Hopefully this will help solidify economic confidence and thaw the credit market, but it does stick U.S. taxpayers with the burden if companies cannot repay their loans.

Is there any financial oversight over this? Cause this is our tax money, and I'd like to know the money is actually going to where it's supposed to.

tk102
10-08-2008, 12:40 PM
Is there any financial oversight over this? Cause this is our tax money, and I'd like to know the money is actually going to where it's supposed to.

The chairman of Federal Reserve is Ben Bernanke. I'd suppose he has some say in how it will be administered.

Jae Onasi
10-08-2008, 03:07 PM
Sen. Schumer just suggested a program where the gov't would make short-term loans to small businesses if they can't get loans from banks because of the credit crisis.

Yar-El
10-09-2008, 04:21 PM
Dow below 9,000 in late afternoon trading (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/)
Tech overshadowed by weak financials, energy, health care

Just a quick update for today's lows.