Hyperinflation here we come!!:lol:

[URL]http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Rescue_plan_seeks_700B_to_buy_0920.html[/URL]

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

Welcome to he bass-ackwards place that is the United States under neo-conservative rule, where [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/this-federal-bailout-prop_b_127837.html"]corporate profits are privatized, while corporate debts are socialized[/URL].

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

if people are stupid enough to get a mortgage and not be able to pay it off its their own damn fault.

this bailout is a complete and utter joke imo.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[QUOTE=ddr;652378]if people are stupid enough to get a mortgage and not be able to pay it off its their own damn fault.

this bailout is a complete and utter joke imo.[/QUOTE]

Keep in mind, though -- they aren't bailing out homeowners, they are bailing out the financial firms that hold those bad loans. That's equally egregious, IMO, but when the other option is allowing the economy to implode, I don't know that there's any way around the bailout.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[quote=toasty;652380]Keep in mind, though -- they aren't bailing out homeowners, they are bailing out the financial firms that hold those bad loans. That's equally egregious, IMO, but when the other option is allowing the economy to implode, I don't know that there's any way around the bailout.[/quote]

while i against this in everypossible way, but realize its needed in every way...

yeah its stupid. this is anti capitalism at its worst.

HOWEVER

in the long run, do we really aolll beleive that we should let all these people go under> while it may FORCE the widespread re-distributionof income when the ppl who live in metro areas have to move to poorer areas, it will COST the economy too much when the businesses in the major cities DIE because thier employees have to leave. look at NYC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, Boston, Seattle, Cleveland....

those industries will die if whoever runs this country next year allows the finance mess to take hold... THANK YOU ALAN GREENSPAN AND BILL CLINTON.

i have been preaching bill clinton's mess for years.,... finally, its comin true... blame those two. he prevented the double checking of the US market place in 92, 93 and 95... its on his shoulders.....

riding the coattails of happiness while never asking.. why werfe we happy? the congress tried to implement these checks 4 times.. billy boy and the retard in charge now vetoed it 4 times. god almighty, how did this country allow itself to be put in thi position twice. clinton and bush should be shot on the front lawn of 1600 Pen Ave,

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

so that's about, 2,500 per person. thanks for the 600 dollar tax refund.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

this is why we shouldnt be able to have mass public elections.. the accountants and scientists should run the show. we wouldnt have feelings get in they way of the bottom line and progress.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[QUOTE=thesightless;652393]this is why we shouldnt be able to have mass public elections.. the accountants and scientists should run the show. we wouldnt have feelings get in they way of the bottom line and progress.[/QUOTE]

This from the most hot-headed and emotion-driven accountant I've ever met in my life. Good point. :roll:;)

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

^^elections are important. don't think that economists or scientists have the knowledge to run government. perhaps the better alternative would be to require that all elected federal representatives have a graduate degree?

and i'm always big on having a test for voting. if you can't pass...then there's no way you have a right to vote.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin[/url]

[quote]LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY

TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS

Section 1. Short Title.

This Act may be cited as ____________________.

Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.

(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:

(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;

(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;

(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;

(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and

(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.

Sec. 3. Considerations.

In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--

(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and

(2) protecting the taxpayer.

Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.

Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.

Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.

(a) Exercise of Rights.--The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.

(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.

(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.

(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.--The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.

Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.

The Secretary’s authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time

Sec. 7. Funding.

For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.

The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.

Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.

Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.

Sec. 11. Credit Reform.

The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.

Sec. 12. Definitions.

For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.--The term “mortgage-related assets” means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.

(2) Secretary.--The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Treasury.

(3) United States.--The term “United States” means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.[/quote]

section 8.

[I]Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

[/I]This seems unconstitutional?

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[QUOTE=Lorn;652473][url]http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html?_r=1&ref=business&oref=slogin[/url]

section 8.

[I]Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

[/I]This seems unconstitutional?[/QUOTE]

Does have that sort of feel (checks and balances, anyone?), but even if it is unconstitutional in the technical sense, officials have common law immunity for discretionary acts performed in the course and scope of their official duties, so it's really kinda like the codification of what a court would rule anyway. Besides, it's the legislative branch providing immunity to the executive branch, which is OK, far as I know.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

What about this being run by unelected officials?

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[quote=toasty;652465]This from the most hot-headed and emotion-driven accountant I've ever met in my life. Good point. :roll:;)[/quote]

irish+italian+alchoholic=me :p:twisted:

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

+1 ^^^^

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

This bailout bothers me. Basically companies that made bad business decisions are being given taxpayer money to cover their losses. That's a whole lot of money and I'm already know that many in business are looking to get as much of it as they can. It makes me think of the Iraqi war and how Bush and Cheney's cronies at Halliburton and ExxonMobil have made record profits. I almost think the administration looks for these opportunities to help their friends out.

Companies shouldn't be given a blank check to write off losses. They should suffer and the $700 billion should be monitored closely. And regulation of the securities market specifically of derivatives needs to happen quickly so this doesn't happen again. Sarbanes Oxley was passed to get accounting in order and the securities market needs something similar.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

We are witnessing the nationalization of the banking system. Plain and simple. History to say the least.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[QUOTE=88Mariner;652472]^^elections are important. don't think that economists or scientists have the knowledge to run government. perhaps the better alternative would be to require that all elected federal representatives have a graduate degree?

and i'm always big on having a test for voting. if you can't pass...then there's no way you have a right to vote.[/QUOTE] Education does not always equal intelligence , and you can definitely have intelligence without the education.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[quote=DIDI;652645]Education does not always equal intelligence , and you can definitely have intelligence without the education.[/quote]

sure. educatio = educations. That's the point. but there are people who don't even know who the first president of this country was. (washington, btw). I'm talking about a minimal requirements test. We require illegal immigrants to take a test for very similar reasons, and I can't see why it would not be put to good use elsewhere.

a person voting who has not even a minimal understanding of the founding documents, should not be voting for president imho. it would be on par with having a deaf viewer of American Idol vote for who they thought was the best.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

I was responding to your suggestion for a degree:)

Re the test , I know what you mean but I feel really uncomfortable about talking away a persons right to vote. It would disenfranchise a lot more people. A lot of people may not want to take a test for a whole lot of reasons. And it doesn't matter if you don't know the first president as long as you know who you are voting for now. :)

Btw We have compulsory voting here.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[quote=DIDI;652663]I was responding to your suggestion for a degree:)

Re the test , I know what you mean but I feel really uncomfortable about talking away a persons right to vote. It would disenfranchise a lot more people. A lot of people may not want to take a test for a whole lot of reasons. And it doesn't matter if you don't know the first president as long as you know who you are voting for now. :)

Btw We have compulsory voting here.[/quote]

oh my bad. i misread. thus I must assert why a graduate degree is important for elected representatives to have to run for office. First, it demonstrates thier character and resolve to pursue a greater understanding of a particular topic. Second, those courses are not easy in the slightest and require dedication and diligence. Third, While I agree it is not determinative of intelligence, it is a strong factor indicating as such. It's not a cure-all, but it's certainly important in this respect. Fourth, as a corollary, it prevents others who have established nothing from running for office. While this hasn't been an issue lately, I can assume that the current trend will find us voting for those with bachelor's in underwater basket-weaving; the seriousness of the office requires a significant amount of competence, and I see a graduate degree as a litmus test. Nobody needs intelligence to get into college, but to do grad work requires a bit more intellectual agility. I think to desire the best of the who is willing compels me to make this strong argument.

I agree with what you say about the test an disenfranchising others, but if people seriously valued thier right to vote a mere test should not hinder them from expressing thier desires;). I think a test is more important because of the very reason that people don't know who they are voting for. They know even less about who they are voting against. The solemnity of voting for a candidate is diluted by celebrity and identity politics. It isn't a fashionable trend that rears its head every few years, much to the chagrin of thousands of youngsters who think it's 'cool'; like owning a single share in a major corporation requires some amount of knowledge and competency for voting on certain subjects presented to the shareholders, it is desirable that those who do know something about the process, the candidates more than simply knowing one is black and one is a POW.

I would have at least one question to filter out voters this year; Is Barak Obama a Muslim? Anyone who answers yes would be removed from the room and tested for drugs. Except for k3n3, I think he honestly believes it. heh 8)

But as I was saying, with rights comes great responsibility. The right to vote is certainly one right that needs to be tempered with basic knowledge of our country and of reality.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

^^ I think you live in a better world than a lot of us. :) I strongly disagree on the graduate degree. You are assuming that someone should want this. Perhaps they consider striving in other areas more important. I would prefer to see someone who has achieved in real life rather than academia . And with your last sentence you would knock out 90%of people :lol:

Btw If we want a truly representative government we have to allow everyone to vote! I actually find the idea of "culling" a little distasteful :lol:

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

Guys, this is an unfortunate but necessary step. Trust me, no one wants to do this - Bush would probably rather spend $700b on his wars. Yes, people should be held accountable for their actions and we shouldn't be bailing people out for stupid decisions...but I really think we have to at this point. And the reason is simple: if we don't, then our financial system is in serious risk of simply collapsing - completely. And if we sit back and let that happen, it will have disasterous consequences for our economy. When it's a few isolated companies, you can let them fail. When it's gotten so bad that it's the entire system at risk, you just can't afford to sit by and do nothing.

Pick up a finance book and actually learn about the nature of financial institutions and how financial liquidity works, and you'll start to appreciate the extreme risks that financial and economic experts all over the world see in the current state of our financial system.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[QUOTE=Miroslav;652770]Guys, this is an unfortunate but necessary step. Trust me, no one wants to do this - Bush would probably rather spend $700b on his wars. Yes, people should be held accountable for their actions and we shouldn't be bailing people out for stupid decisions...but I really think we have to at this point. And the reason is simple: if we don't, then our financial system is in serious risk of simply collapsing - completely. And if we sit back and let that happen, it will have disasterous consequences for our economy. When it's a few isolated companies, you can let them fail. When it's gotten so bad that it's the entire system at risk, you just can't afford to sit by and do nothing.

Pick up a finance book and actually learn about the nature of financial institutions and how financial liquidity works, and you'll start to appreciate the extreme risks that financial and economic experts all over the world see in the current state of our financial system.[/QUOTE]

I agree that there's really no way around this, difficult to swallow as it may be. This is the worst kind of socialism, though, where taxpayers foot the bill when things go awry, but we don't share in the profits, which have already been allocated to a very few individuals prior to things going in the shitter. More on this later, gotta head to a funeral.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

Well, my parents did something stupid and moved to hawaii, they are barely making by and can't sell the house in boston. why isn't the government helping them? why won't the government pay off my student loans while they're giving out free money?

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[quote][URL="http://search.politico.com/results.cfm?subject=Henry+M.+Paulson"]Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson[/URL] confirmed the change on ABC's "This Week," telling [URL="http://search.politico.com/results.cfm?subject=George+Stephanopoulos"]George Stephanopoulos[/URL] that coverage of foreign-based banks is "a distinction without a difference to the American people."

"If a financial institution has business operations in the United States, hires people in the United States, if they are clogged with illiquid assets, they have the same impact on the American people as any other institution," Paulson said. [/quote][URL]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13690.html[/URL] [URL]http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/32b85c72-859b-11dd-a1ac-0000779fd18c.html[/URL]

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

miroslav, bailing out won't do anything more than extort taxpayer moneys and prolong the inevitable. do you honestly think this bailout will resolve the cancer that subsists in the system? Nope!

I respect that you're studied in this area, but seriously, I have to disagree that this is going to help us more than a few weeks at best.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[URL]http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1843168,00.html?cnn=yes[/URL]

awesome article.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[quote=88Mariner;652789]miroslav, bailing out won't do anything more than extort taxpayer moneys and prolong the inevitable. do you honestly think this bailout will resolve the cancer that subsists in the system? Nope!

I respect that you're studied in this area, but seriously, I have to disagree that this is going to help us more than a few weeks at best.[/quote]

Well, I'm somewhat studied in the area, but I'm certainly no expert. Finance is anything but a black and white area of study, and there is a lot of room for interpretation. These are just my opinions, based on whatever I have observed and studied.

The bailout will not make the financial pain go away, and even with the bailout we will still probably be headed for at least a nasty recession. It is going to really suck for us no matter what. A loss is still a loss, and someone has to bear it. And yes, that "someone" is all of us now. However - and this is really the key - it can make a major difference as to [I]who[/I] exactly bears that loss, and [I]under what timing[/I] they bear it. It can make the difference between economic hardship and economic meltdown. And here's why I think that:

There is fairly well-developed research (theoretical and experience-based) in this area, particularly as it relates to [I]liquidity[/I] of financial markets. Our economy fundamentally depends upon resources being liquid - i.e., being offered by lenders to borrowers for a reasonable market-driven rate of return. It is truly the lifeblood of our way of life. That liquidity is networked among many different world-wide players such as banks, S&Ls, brokerages, credit card companies, government institutions, corporations, consumers, etc. It's really a house of cards interlinked by the human pschology inherent in a market setting.

So basically, if you suffer a large and concentrated enough shock to a class of players in this system (i.e., banks/mortgages), then liquidity can dry up fast and reverberate throughout the entire system, ultimately bringing the whole house of cards down. And this is precisely what is happening right now. Bernanke and other bankers are probably shitting themselves right now looking at data that shows credit and lending drying up at an alarming rate. Commercial paper markets, which are key for much of corporate short-term financing, are simply freezing. That means that banks don't lend, businesses can't get financing, consumers can't get credit (even good ones). The next logical step after that is that businesses fail, unemployment jumps, consumers drastically cut spending, government tax revenue plummets, deflation takes hold - and reverberates pretty heavily throughout the world. And that's when this crisis changes from just headlines you read in the paper to a real disaster for you personally - your credit cards may be no good, your job may be gone, your public services may be gone. And it's a real pickle, because it's really hard to get consumers to spend and businesses to invest when no one has a job, banks are marginalized, and markets are not really functioning.

So what does a bailout do? As said before, it augments the loss-takers (to some extent) and the loss intensity/timing. Rather than having the Fannie Maes of the world collapse and set off a chain reaction that leads to pervasive bank failure, the losses are now primarily shifted to the player with the deepest pockets - the government (i.e., us). And we will realize the consequences of this loss over a period of time. But the liquidity system stays intact, and liquidity takes a survivable hit.

Make no mistake about it, there is a [I]lot[/I] of risk in this bailout regardless. Balancing liquidity in this way is a notoriously tricky tightrope walk - too much and you may be looking at nasty inflation; too little and you may be looking at pernicious deflation. But it is still better than having the liquidity just completely crash and burn in the system. Sure, then you've taught the bad guys a lesson - but you've also taken out the good guys along with them, and we will all realize the loss anyways ...except that it will be even bigger and we will be realizing it in a period of a [I]days[/I] rather than years.

So there you have it. It sucks and it's unfair, but unfortunately things appear so bleak that I'm afraid we don't have much of a choice. When the entire house is on fire, you have to react quickly and put that fire out before it spreads - and not just sit back and point fingers at the arsonists.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

Excellent post Miro - especially for those of us who aren't well-versed in the topic.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

So basically if we live the way we are and the government bails out the TBTF Corps then something can be done. Once a company gets to big to fail it then must be divided up into smaller corporations. This would prevent this. Now we have the US acting like they are goint o bail out everybody. I can assure everyone that this crisis if far,far from over.

This was let to happen. Bush should go to jail. The CEO of Fanny and Freddie should go to jail Henry Paulson should go to jail and the list goes on and on. That would have been the proper message to send to Wallstreet not "oh you guys are pretty big and we can't let you fail so now we will bail you out." It is crystal clear that miroslav is a socialist at heart for agreeing with this bailout. And hey if you have to bail them out OK but those who let this happen should be in jail right now for treason for causing a systemic crisis.

here is a funny poll from CNN

[URL]http://money.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/42035.html[/URL]

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[quote=runningman;652900]So basically if we live the way we are and the government bails out the TBTF Corps then something can be done. Once a company gets to big to fail it then must be divided up into smaller corporations. This would prevent this. Now we have the US acting like they are goint o bail out everybody. I can assure everyone that this crisis if far,far from over.

This was let to happen. Bush should go to jail. The CEO of Fanny and Freddie should go to jail Henry Paulson should go to jail and the list goes on and on. That would have been the proper message to send to Wallstreet not "oh you guys are pretty big and we can't let you fail so now we will bail you out." [B]It is crystal clear that miroslav is a socialist at heart for agreeing with this bailout.[/B] And hey if you have to bail them out OK but those who let this happen should be in jail right now for treason for causing a systemic crisis.

here is a funny poll from CNN

[URL]http://money.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/42035.html[/URL][/quote]

huh? the neo-cons are the one pushing the bailout, but miro is a socialist for agreeing that its necessary? explain that one to me, please...

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

Day for Night you must be a drama queen. You picked the one little statement as a direct attack on Miroslav. Why don't we talk about people going to jail. Bernanke etc.. But no you pick out the drama.

Anyone that believes we should bail them out have a socialist point of view. We don't share in the profits do we?? But we share in the pain. That is totally wrong.

Now watch the price of oil because of this $700 B bail out. They should be investing $700 Billion for small business to save the American Dream.

Trump said it best in this interview;

[URL]http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=742027959[/URL]

Oh this is far from over.. the dollar just dropped to its lowest in 7 years and oil went up $25/ barrrel today.. Ya the $700 Billion bail out is working great.

And I mean Jesus guys why would you believe anything from the Bush Administration?? Everything else they have done has failed and so will this.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[quote=runningman;652900]Once a company gets to big to fail it then must be divided up into smaller corporations. This would prevent this.[/quote] Correction: this [I]might have prevented[/I] this - if we had done it in time before everything blew up. It's too late and it won't do jack for you now. Your only real option is to take the loss in such a way that it doesn't bring the entire house down.

Also, notice how your recommendation ironically leans more towards a "socialist" nature. Who is going to intervene in the free markets and decide when those big corporations must be divided into smaller corporations? The government.

[quote=runningman;652900]It is crystal clear that miroslav is a socialist at heart for agreeing with this bailout.[/quote] Maybe. Call it what you want. But I think your whole criticism is thoroughly misguided. You talk as if I am somehow for the nationalization of the banking sector as a normal course of business. I'm not; I'm for the aversion of a devastating and widespread economic collapse brought on by a meltdown of the banking sector. It's unfortunate and undesirable, but necessary. These arguments about "socialism" thoroughly miss the point. When your house is on fire, do you sit around and point fingers and criticize the city-run fire department for being "socialist"? No. You pull up the truck, get out the fire hoses, and you put out the damn fire already.

Any intervention is a [I]temporary necessity[/I], not a permanent solution. The government did "socialist" stuff during the last Great Depression too, and for better or worse we didn't come out of the experience like a communist 1950s Russia. And we won't this time, either.

[quote=runningman;652900]This was let to happen. Bush should go to jail. The CEO of Fanny and Freddie should go to jail Henry Paulson should go to jail and the list goes on and on.[/quote] I don't necessarily disagree with you there. They should. But it won't help to address the current problems.

[quote=runningman;652900]here is a funny poll from CNN

[URL]http://money.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/42035.html[/URL] [/quote] Sorry, but I don't take that poll too seriously, because the average person doesn't know jack when it comes to financial markets and economics. And right-wing cliches based on one's high school reading of Animal Farm don't inspire confidence in me. When the chips are down, I'd rather cast my lot with the large majority of PhD economists with decades of financial markets experience who argue for some form of intervention at this point, rather than sitting around and doing nothing.

[quote=runningman;652900]I can assure everyone that this crisis if far,far from over.[/quote] This is true. It doesn't take a crystal ball.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

Well where does it stop then Miro?? If this is just the beginning where do the bailouts end. You have now added $1 trillion to your national debt almost overnight.

And now we are seeing the ripple effect of the bailout with oil going through the roof and the depreciation of the dollar.

We haven't even gone into the problems with medicare or medicaid yet but we will

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA this is some funny shit here!!

[URL]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/fury-at-25bn-bonus-for-lehmans-new-york-staff-937560.html[/URL]

Sounds like Lehman is really broke. So broke that the staff will get $2.5 billion in bonuses. I'm convinced now that this is nothing but a bank heist.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

Just saw that $2.5 billion payout to the Lehman executives. And now they're speaking of helping out foreign companies too. This is a bank heist could be an accurate description. Setting aside such a large sum of money is just asking for misappropriation.

No way Congress should allow this through. I hope that the Democrats in Congress kill this and get us a reasonable plan. This reminds me a lot of Iraq when everyone said we had to go to war to protect ourselves.

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

Necessary as this bailout may be, Obama ought to jump on this act of Bush, Hank Paulson, & Bernanke as wealth redistribution for the [I]powerful & wealthy[/I] (maybe not anymore, but very recently they were). Call it what it is. Whenever Obama calls for making healthcare or taxcuts for the middle-class we hear the stale Republican talking-points of wealth redistribution. Throw it back at 'em and make [I][B]McBush[/B][/I] own [B]Bailouts & Wealth Redistribution for CEO's and Investment Bankers [/B][I](the wealthiest 1% of Americans)[/I] while former homeowners and small-time investors are losing out bigtime. Score some political points here for OBAMA.

This crisis cannot be helping McCain. Not so sure how much it helps Obama either, but I sure hope McSame doesn't score poltically from this. :roll:

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[quote=runningman;652959]Well where does it stop then Miro?? If this is just the beginning where do the bailouts end. You have now added $1 trillion to your national debt almost overnight.

And now we are seeing the ripple effect of the bailout with oil going through the roof and the depreciation of the dollar.

We haven't even gone into the problems with medicare or medicaid yet but we will

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA this is some funny shit here!!

[URL]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/fury-at-25bn-bonus-for-lehmans-new-york-staff-937560.html[/URL]

Sounds like Lehman is really broke. So broke that the staff will get $2.5 billion in bonuses. I'm convinced now that this is nothing but a bank heist.[/quote]

Yes, I agree that adding almost $1 trillion to our national debt is a really horrible and painful prospect. Ok then...so let's just do nothing. That's the alternative. How's that sound to you?

We can sit by and watch liquidity completely dry up and witness our modern economic system essentially go down in flames. And then you and I can be assured of selling apples on the street corner and standing around in soup kitchens and bread lines, just like our predecessors did in the 1930s. Feeling better already?

But hey, I guess it's worth it. Perhaps we will sleep easier at night knowing that at least we taught those bad guys a lesson and didn't get no "socialism" 'round these parts!

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

I'm just scared shitless about the whole thing:Scared2: I keep thinking what was it all based on if it can go bad so easily, and where is all this bailout money coming from. ???

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[quote=DIDI;652995]I'm just scared shitless about the whole thing:Scared2: I keep thinking what was it all based on if it can go bad so easily, and where is all this bailout money coming from. ???[/quote]

From every US taxpayer who is alive now, but also every US taxpayer who is to be born for the next 100 years. Borrowing in the name of your unborn children, grandchildren, etc. is not only ethically questionable. It is immoral and it is how we do business here in the United States of America.

I have heard that the Native Americans as a cultural norm asked themselves how this would affect the next seven generations when considering any issue of importance. We not only don't consider even the next generation; we send the next seven generations the bill for our lifestyle without a thought or even a thanks or perhaps even a functioning ecosystem. How might we be remembered as a society?

Then again, maybe the oil money from the occupation of Iraq will fund this crisis. Thought I heard that from some administration official today... :lol:

Re: Bush's $700,000,000,000 Bailout!!!

[quote=CactusBeats;653014]Borrowing in the name of your unborn children, grandchildren, etc. is not only ethically questionable. It is immoral and it is how we do business here in the United States of America.[/quote] Nicely put. So, got any better ideas for how to deal with this?