Bailout Fails to Pass: We're All Gonna Die!

[mykevermin]

Or so we're told. I'm going for a coffee and to do some reading while Rome burns. Never did learn how to play a fiddle.

[BillyBob29]

Insane movement in the markets so far. Down as much as 700, now basing in the down 450 area. Overall, much better than I expected it to be. I was expecting down 1000 on a failure......but the day isn't over yet.

[DarkSageRK]

Yeah, just watched this on CNN with a friend.

He brought up the point "why not bail out people instead of banks?" Seems much better than what they proposed.

[RAMSTORIA]

personally, im glad it didnt pass. too bad itll just get reworked, add another 100 pages and eventually pass.

[Msut77]

Yeah, just watched this on CNN with a friend.

He brought up the point "why not bail out people instead of banks?" Seems much better than what they proposed.

Because that would be communism.

[MSI Magus]

Or so we're told. I'm going for a coffee and to do some reading while Rome burns. Never did learn how to play a fiddle.

Personally after finishing typing this message im going to take a nap then play some Rock Band! Naping beats playing a fiddle any day. It will be interesting to see what happens from all this just by the time I wake up. Again I say let the freaking thing die already and start up on a plan investing in infrastructure, green energy and giving some money back to the people already. Green Tech and infrastructure will provide jobs to many of us taht loose them and in the meantime we will each receive some kind of a check ;) though id preffer no check to come and just more proper/thought out investments.

[RAMSTORIA]

Because that would be communism.

we already did it once this year, remember. 170 billion was handed out and it didnt do a damn thing.

[dmaul1114]

I'm still torn on this.

On the one hand I hate companies (or people) who made bad financial decisions get bailed out by the government.

On the other, I see how it hurts people who have been responsible. i.e. my parents retirment accounts have taken a decent hit, and there's are in fairly conservative funds given they're already retired. So it would suck even more for younger people who have their money in more aggressive funds since they are still years from retiring. Not to mention qualified people having a harder time getting loans, potential loss of jobs of companies have to go to lay offs etc.

But again, as I said in another thread, while that all sucks I'm just not sure it's worth the risk of the government using tax payer money to buy up bad assets that caused companies to be on the verge of bankruptcy.

It's a huge mess, however you look at it.

[Chase]

I think this is what happens when the people do not trust their President and a party does not trust its leader. Why should they vote for a bill that may wind up costing them their jobs?

Right now, the Republicans are standing in front of the cameras saying they didn't vote for the bill because they didn't like Pelosi's speech. Jesus pan-fried Christ.

[Xevious]

we already did it once this year, remember. 170 billion was handed out and it didnt do a damn thing.

I didn't spend my Rebate check..I kept it in the bank. I was looking to invest it but so far, this seemed like a bad year to invest. Maybe next year.

[HotShotX]

Or so we're told. I'm going for a coffee and to do some reading while Rome burns. Never did learn how to play a fiddle.

Fiddle Schmiddle, we have NELSON:

http://op-for.com/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg

~HotShotX

[mykevermin]

Oh man, NYT headline is all caps: BAILOUT REJECTED.

We're so much closer to my dream headline: HOLY FUCKING SHIT: (byline: we're all doomed!)

[thrustbucket]

For some reason it makes me happy it didn't pass.

I figure when a forest gets dense enough eventually it stops making sense to plant more trees, sometimes the best thing for it is to burn it down and let new life come from the destruction.

[lilboo]

:rofl:
I am SO confused by this whole thing.
Would someone (in an unbiased fashion) briefly explain what happened--who needs this '700b' and what the benefits of it passing? Also, what happens now that it's not (so far) passing?

I tried following this, by learning disability won't allow me to really latch onto this. :dunce: :(

[javeryh]

Good thing I've been contributing 15% to my 401k for the last 15 years! It's barely worth anything!

[thrustbucket]

:rofl:
I am SO confused by this whole thing.
Would someone (in an unbiased fashion) briefly explain what happened--who needs this '700b' and what the benefits of it passing? Also, what happens now that it's not (so far) passing?

I tried following this, by learning disability won't allow me to really latch onto this. :dunce: :(

That's a good question. And one I think most Americans are asking.

I am not the one to answer it though, I am no economist, and I think very few people fully understand the implications of all this.

Suffice it to say, if these major banks start failing it WILL have a cascading effect across the entire global economy. That's the reasoning they are using to conjur up more money to try and stop it.

[mykevermin]

:rofl:
I am SO confused by this whole thing.
Would someone (in an unbiased fashion) briefly explain what happened--who needs this '700b' and what the benefits of it passing? Also, what happens now that it's not (so far) passing?

I tried following this, by learning disability won't allow me to really latch onto this. :dunce: :(

My *extremely* rudimentary understanding is this:

Banks made shitty investments that have all gone to hell.

Banks need an influx of fresh liquidity (i.e. money to lend you and keep their own asses above water). If banks don't get it, banks don't have money to lend you.

If they don't have money to lend you, they go out of business, and you're not going to buy a car, a house, or any stupid shit with said lent money.

So as long as we continue on a road to perpetual debt (Hey! I'm doing MY part!), the economy will keep a rumbling along smoothly. When banks can't contribute to that, well, then, we're kinda fucked.

'course, what happens when this $700B is ostensibly exhausted in 8 months?

[lilboo]

But we should be ok--our money in banks, of course-- since oure money is insured up to $100,000. I don't know about you, but I only like 2% of that :rofl:

What exactly happened to the banking system, or whatever it is that needs money??

[dmaul1114]

:rofl:
I am SO confused by this whole thing.
Would someone (in an unbiased fashion) briefly explain what happened--who needs this '700b' and what the benefits of it passing? Also, what happens now that it's not (so far) passing?

I tried following this, by learning disability won't allow me to really latch onto this. :dunce: :(

This Newsweek column goes through it pretty well I think, I'm not totally clear on it, but reading this helped a bit.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/160098

Especially this part.


It's all about confidence, stupid. Every financial system depends on trust. People have to believe that the institutions they deal with (their "counterparties") will perform as expected. We are in a full-blown crisis because investors and financial managers—the people who run banks, investment banks, hedge funds, insurance companies—have lost that trust. Banks recoil from lending to each other; investors retreat. The ultimate horror is a financial panic; everyone wants to sell and no one wants to buy. Paulson's plan—still lacking essential details—aims to avoid that calamity.

As is well known, the crisis began with losses in the $1.3 trillion market for "subprime" mortgages, many of which were "securitized"—bundled into bonds and sold to investors. With all U.S. stocks and bonds worth about $50 trillion in 2007, the losses should have been manageable. They weren't, because no one knew how large the losses might become or which institutions held the suspect "subprime" securities. Moreover, many financial institutions were thinly capitalized. They depended on borrowed funds; losses could wipe out their modest capital.

So the crisis spread. AIG is a case in point. Although most of its businesses—insurance, aircraft leasing—were profitable, it had written "credit default swaps" (CDS) on some subprime mortgage securities. These contracts obligated AIG to cover other investors' losses. In 2008, AIG's mounting losses on its CDS contracts resulted in a downgrade last week of the company's credit rating and a need to post more collateral to its CDS "counterparties." AIG didn't have the cash.

Since August 2007, when the crisis first broke, the Fed has done three things to prevent eroding confidence from morphing into a self-fulfilling panic. The first was standard: cut interest rates. The overnight fed funds rate dropped from 5.25 percent to the present 2 percent. The aim was to promote lending and prop up the economy. By contrast, the second and third responses broke new ground.

If banks remained reluctant to make routine short-term loans—fearing the unknown risks—then the Fed would act aggressively as lender of last resort.

[lilboo]

My *extremely* rudimentary understanding is this:

Banks made shitty investments that have all gone to hell.

Banks need an influx of fresh liquidity (i.e. money to lend you and keep their own asses above water). If banks don't get it, banks don't have money to lend you.

If they don't have money to lend you, they go out of business, and you're not going to buy a car, a house, or any stupid shit with said lent money.

So as long as we continue on a road to perpetual debt (Hey! I'm doing MY part!), the economy will keep a rumbling along smoothly. When banks can't contribute to that, well, then, we're kinda fucked.

'course, what happens when this $700B is ostensibly exhausted in 8 months?


Hmm.
So if the 700B was passed, where would this come from---basically, what is going to increase in price to make up for that money?!

I can't decide on wether or not this being passed or not is a good thing :(
It seems like we're screwed either way. Am I up to speed now?

[dmaul1114]

'course, what happens when this $700B is ostensibly exhausted in 8 months?

And that's the big question, also touched on in the column I linked to above.


The program would be huge ("hundreds of billions," says Paulson) and could burden future taxpayers. To which Paulson has one powerful retort: It's better than the alternative of continued turmoil and possible panic. But that presumes that the program succeeds and raises the most unsettling question: If this fails, what—if anything—could the government do next?

[mykevermin]

China.

I don't know if we're screwed either way, but in some ways it's the choice between a punch in the face and a kick in the cock. Neither are pleasant, and there may be individual opinions that vary about which is more unpleasant.

[dmaul1114]

Hmm.
So if the 700B was passed, where would this come from---basically, what is going to increase in price to make up for that money?!


It just increases the debt using tax payer money for this. The hope is that the government will make the money back, and maybe even some profit (i.e. the AIG loan has a pretty hefty interest rate on it), when the economy bounces back.

But it's a big risk.

[Snake2715]

Crazy times. I am curious to see what comes from this... I still find it hard to believe that a whole 170B was handed out earlier this year... That seems like we should have got more than we did.

Oh and AIG is going under slowly but surely. You have any idea of the interest on the AIG loan is? If they take the loan its beyond repayable. It will get luquidated and sold off, simple as that. Give it 12 months or so and it will be gone.

[Chase]

China.

I don't know if we're screwed either way, but in some ways it's the choice between a punch in the face and a kick in the cock. Neither are pleasant, and there may be individual opinions that vary about which is more unpleasant.


The U.S. is a dying WCW and China is WWE.

I don't want a Stuart Smalley gimmick, Myke. :-(

[bigdaddy]

They need this bill because the houses the banks own right now are worth nothing because no one can buy a house because no one is giving out loans. So then the banks have no money is assets or something and thus we all die?

Now that this hasn't passed they are talking about how this could bring down the credit card and that they won't work!

By tomorrow you won't be able to order a pizza!

[Dr Mario Kart]

I like the Thom Hartmann plan to fix the situation.

Wall Street pays for its own bailout. Introducing a Securities Turnover Excise Tax.
A 0.25% tax on every stock, swap, derivative, or other trade would produce - in its first year - ~$150 billion in revenue. Wall Street would be generating the money to fund its own bailout.

The stock market wont like it, but fuck them. Its their problem.

[Snake2715]

Now that this hasn't passed they are talking about how this could bring down the credit card and that they won't work!!

Well when that happens I guess I will default for the first time in my life!

[SpazX]

Well I better start selling everything I own...

[mykevermin]

I just want to know if you can connect the dots:
http://www.amazon.com/Dow-36-000-Strategy-Profiting/dp/0609806998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Hassett

[Dr Mario Kart]

Conservatives are supposed to be pro-business. This is a business person's dream. The business people arent screaming SOCIALISM. Nationalizing debt isnt socialism. Socialism is all about nationalizing PROFIT. Getting to act recklessly and keeping profits while being shielded from losses sounds like a pretty good deal from the businessman's perspective.

[SpazX]

I just want to know if you can connect the dots:
http://www.amazon.com/Dow-36-000-Strategy-Profiting/dp/0609806998
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Hassett


Hahaha. Definitely a guy I'd want giving me advice.

[mykevermin]

My favorite headline so far: "House to Wall Street: Drop dead"

On that note, I'm done using EndNote for the day, so I am going out for that coffee and a read. The DJIA closes in 10 minutes anyway, right?

EDIT: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/29/shorter-house-gop-we-killed-the-bailout-bill-because-pelosi-hurt-our-feelings/

WAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

[thrustbucket]

Conservatives are supposed to be pro-business. This is a business person's dream. The business people arent screaming SOCIALISM. Nationalizing debt isnt socialism. Socialism is all about nationalizing PROFIT. Getting to act recklessly and keeping profits while being shielded from losses sounds like a pretty good deal from the businessman's perspective.

For someone looking to start investing in to the stock market, this is a dream, sure.

But putting the government in control and ownership of our biggest financial institutions very much is socialism, regardless of profit (Besides, why should the government care about profit when it can print more money when it wants?)

This issue is complex, for sure. And it isn't a partisan issue. You can't blame a party for this, or a leader. It's been a long time coming, and many greedy people are going to benefit, regardless of their political allegiance.

And actually, this is a great symbol for what's really been going on in our government for so long. The partisan stage show keeps the masses entranced, while the big truck is in the back packing away all the money.

[SpazX]

EDIT: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/29/shorter-house-gop-we-killed-the-bailout-bill-because-pelosi-hurt-our-feelings/

WAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

What a bunch of jackasses. We want to do what's good for America, but not if people are giving speeches like that!!

[KingBroly]

I'm really shocked it didn't pass. Although, for some reason, I'm glad it didn't. But I'm sure they'll have something even more intrusive next week. What they SHOULD do, and I emphasize that because they won't, is to make it into several smaller bills, starting with what the people want first, and that's dealing with the house owners. Once you do that, no one will give a shit what else they pass.

The Democrats blame Republicans, the Republicans blame Pelosi. You want to put this on any one particular group? The Democrats should be scowling at the 94 members they couldn't keep in line. Hell, if they had 15 more of their guys fall into line, this thing passes easy. But they couldn't.

But that's not the question at hand. Who is to blame for this shit going down? The Democrats blame Bush for his '8 years of failed economic policy' and 'letting the market go wild', well, I could easily point to accountability problems brought forth by the Clinton administration giving AIG & Fanny & Freddie so much freedom. But I'm not.

EVERYONE, Wall Street, Main Street, The Fed, Businesses, people, etc. are to blame for this shit going down. They're trying to pass the buck. And guess what? We're in a global economy now. We tank? So does the rest of the world, people. It's a fact. Everyone's looking in, and now everyone's going to be looking to get out.

[FloodsAreUponUS]

Politicians are a bunch of liars and crybabies. I just wish they would have some balls to stand up and do whats right. Not WAAAAAAH she said mean things about me, schoolyard bullshittery. I hope all those asshats get voted out.

[RAMSTORIA]

My favorite headline so far: "House to Wall Street: Drop dead"

On that note, I'm done using EndNote for the day, so I am going out for that coffee and a read. The DJIA closes in 10 minutes anyway, right?

EDIT: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/29/shorter-house-gop-we-killed-the-bailout-bill-because-pelosi-hurt-our-feelings/

WAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

seems to be taken out of context... should be noted that 40% of house dems shot the bill down as well.

[CaseyRyback]

My favorite headline so far: "House to Wall Street: Drop dead"

On that note, I'm done using EndNote for the day, so I am going out for that coffee and a read. The DJIA closes in 10 minutes anyway, right?

EDIT: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/09/29/shorter-house-gop-we-killed-the-bailout-bill-because-pelosi-hurt-our-feelings/

WAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!

Barney Frank was hilarious when he heard that they mentioned this as a reason why they killed the bill.

[bigdaddy]

When I heard they are trying to blame it on the democrats speech I started laughing my ass off.

They get us into this mess and then when someone says that they cry about it?

And it's only down 777, that's only 7-8%.

[Gourd]

... I'm going to go take my anti-anxiety medication, drink some wine and stay the hell away from reading the news for a few days.

[CaseyRyback]

seems to be taken out of context... should be noted that 40% of house dems shot the bill down as well.

It wasn't taken out of context. They walked up to the podium and started whining, placing all blame on the Democrats. They failed to get the 12 votes that they said they had, and they didn't live up to their end of the bargain. They were supposed to bring half their side with them and they didn't. Dem's lived up to their end of the bargain, the Republican leadership didn't.

[KingBroly]

When I heard they are trying to blame it on the democrats speech I started laughing my ass off.

They get us into this mess and then when someone says that they cry about it?

And it's only down 777, that's only 7-8%.

That's A LOT, man. A LOT. Also, analysts are predicing a 1500-2500 point drop off by the end of the week.

[SpazX]

seems to be taken out of context... should be noted that 40% of house dems shot the bill down as well.

Taken out of context? It was just stupid. They pretty much said that they may have passed the bill if it wasn't for pelosi's speech. WTF DOES PELOSI'S SPEECH HAVE TO DO WITH THE BILL?

Boehner says that the bill was bipartisan, that it was something that needed to be passed for the American people, even though it wasn't something they all would want to do, and then says that the speech was what made the difference. The speech doesn't change the wording of the bill or its effects you fucking nutjobs.

[bigdaddy]

That's A LOT, man. A LOT. Also, analysts are predicing a 1500-2500 point drop off by the end of the week.

It's really not.

It's not eve within the top 10 percentage point drops. The DOW 20 years ago was only 2,500 or so, it's now over 10,000, so the 7% drop isn't as bad as the "OMG!!! THE WORLD IS ENDING!" they are talking about.

I'm not worried, still more likely we will have a nuclear war before this effects me.

[KingBroly]

It's really not.

It's not eve within the top 10 percentage point drops. The DOW 20 years ago was only 2,500 or so, it's now over 10,000, so the 7% drop isn't as bad as the "OMG!!! THE WORLD IS ENDING!" they are talking about.

I'm not worried, still more likely we will have a nuclear war before this effects me.

From a market point of view, a 7-8% drop in a single session is substantial.

[MSI Magus]

From a market point of view, a 7-8% drop in a single session is substantial.

Makes it really tempting to start investing. Iv been torn between holding on to the extra money we have in the bank incase my fiancee lost her job if the economy tanks next year and investing it.

[Ikohn4ever]

time to liquidate all my assets and buy a bunch of gold or Euros

[darthbudge]

Honestly, I am really glad that this bill didn't pass.

While it might mean a few years of having a really bad economy, it is the only real way to make things better. Why should banks who were taking extreme risks and then losing be bailed out? If they are, it sends the message that no matter what they do, they aren't gonna be allowed to go out of business.

Hopefully this will teach a lesson, in that banks should be more conservative in their loans. Also, this will hopefully get people to start living in their own means, and not getting everything on credit.

[SteveDaWonder]

I have to admit I am a fan of just letting Wall Street fix their own damn mess.

[Dr Mario Kart]

It really depends on what having a "few bad years" of the economy are like. Either way, the common man that had little to do with this mess is suffering.

If we go into a full depression, I dont think its worth it. A depression, unlike a recession, is not very capable of self-correcting. While the New Deal was great, if we didnt have World War 2, the Great Depression mightve been prolonged.

I am for a New, New Deal and a return to the progressive policies of FDR, but not at the price of a depression.

[Snake2715]

Honestly, I am really glad that this bill didn't pass.

While it might mean a few years of having a really bad economy, it is the only real way to make things better. Why should banks who were taking extreme risks and then losing be bailed out? If they are, it sends the message that no matter what they do, they aren't gonna be allowed to go out of business.

Hopefully this will teach a lesson, in that banks should be more conservative in their loans. Also, this will hopefully get people to start living in their own means, and not getting everything on credit.

This is kind of how I feel on the issue as well... The government hasnt come running to help with all the people losing their homes, why now for the banks?

Clean out the uncapable and start over. Its not going to be easy except for the lucky or financially sound people, but we will get through it.

[paddlefoot]

What a bunch of jackasses. We want to do what's good for America, but not if people are giving speeches like that!!

While the Republicans should have just rolled with the punches, she did pick a fine time to give her self righteous speech.



I didn't see people blaming the dot-com crisis 100% on Clinton.

[SpazX]

Also, this will hopefully get people to start living in their own means, and not getting everything on credit.

Do you honestly think that most people could get a house or even a car without any loans?

[dafoomie]

seems to be taken out of context... should be noted that 40% of house dems shot the bill down as well.
This is Bush's, Bernanke's, and Paulson's bill. This is a Republican bill, and the Democrats voted almost 2/3rds in favor of it. They brought the goods. The Republican leadership thought they had at least half of their party on board and they weren't close.

And their explanation for not having the votes was Pelosi's speech. Thats embarrassing. And John McCain did not switch 60+ votes, the compromise in the bill was largely responsible for that. Bush and McCain simply could not deliver their own party on something they both support.

[RAMSTORIA]

This is Bush's, Bernanke's, and Paulson's bill. This is a Republican bill, and the Democrats voted almost 2/3rds in favor of it. They brought the goods. The Republican leadership thought they had at least half of their party on board and they weren't close.

And their explanation for not having the votes was Pelosi's speech. Thats embarrassing. And John McCain did not switch 60+ votes, the compromise in the bill was largely responsible for that. Bush and McCain simply could not deliver their own party on something they both support.

sure its embarrassing. but its just a soundbit that has no bearing on reality. i mean cmon, does anyone honestly think that pelosis 4 minutes of talking before the vote swayed republicans into voting no. i strongly doubt it. the reailty is the votes were never there. ill admit that i was wrong saying it was taken out of context, after watching the video it isnt, but that doesnt mean that its factual either. were talking about one guy scrambling to say something in front of the press thats all.

[KingBroly]

They needed...12 votes at one point to get that thing passed. They were expecting 70-80 Republicans to vote for the bill (a Democratically revised Paulson bill). Could the Pelosi speech have swayed 12 fence-sitting Republicans to vote no? Yes. It's certainly not out of the question. If you think it is, you haven't been around politics very long, at least not Washington, where a simple re-wording can change a person's mind.

[dafoomie]

They needed...12 votes at one point to get that thing passed. They were expecting 70-80 Republicans to vote for the bill (a Democratically revised Paulson bill). Could the Pelosi speech have swayed 12 fence-sitting Republicans to vote no? Yes. It's certainly not out of the question. If you think it is, you haven't been around politics very long, at least not Washington, where a simple re-wording can change a person's mind.
So you're on the floor, you're ready to vote on what could be the most important legislation of your career, and you're ready to support it, but a single speech changes your mind? You probably don't belong in politics if you're that sensitive or petty enough to put your feelings above the needs of the American people. I doubt anyone even listened to Pelosi's speech with all the arm twisting and politicking that was going on in the moments before the vote.

The poster above you is right, they never had the votes. Pelosi and the Democrats did all they could, if a presidential administration with the support of a presidential candidate can't deliver more than 1/3rd of their own party on their own bill, they have no hope of ever passing it.

[MSI Magus]

It really depends on what having a "few bad years" of the economy are like. Either way, the common man that had little to do with this mess is suffering.

If we go into a full depression, I dont think its worth it. A depression, unlike a recession, is not very capable of self-correcting. While the New Deal was great, if we didnt have World War 2, the Great Depression mightve been prolonged.

I am for a New, New Deal and a return to the progressive policies of FDR, but not at the price of a depression.

Fuck yeah! Bring it on. FDR was like a God and a lot of his policies would actually do a lot of good in modern times. He believed that all Americans needed was a helping hand not a hand out and they would gladly work so instead of just giving people money he hired tons of men to plant trees. I think many people today are just lazy and prefer not to work....but would still gladly take a job from the government over welfare if offered even a halfway decent wage. And I think the planting trees thing is perfectly relevant too. We are trying to move forward on this green initiative and there is going to be a lot of basic grunt work that needs to be done. Instead of contracting it out why not give it to the wave of people that are about to loose their jobs and already lost their job.

[jollydwarf]

Get ready for CAG 3.0 being reduced to a single page of HTML and the new URL: brokeassgamer.com.

I joke to cope.

[Liquid 2]

Am I the only one who is extremely pleased that it didn't pass?

[SpazX]

Am I the only one who is extremely pleased that it didn't pass?

No, but you're probably the only one who just enjoys people being miserable.

[Moxio]

No, but you're probably the only one who just enjoys people being miserable.

I lold.

[Liquid 2]

No, but you're probably the only one who just enjoys people being miserable.
Ahaha, what?

[Dr Mario Kart]

Am I the only one who is extremely pleased that it didn't pass?Given that this situation most likely strengthens Obama's chances this November, you might like it less than you think.

[darthbudge]

Do you honestly think that most people could get a house or even a car without any loans?

I am not talking about houses or cars... I am more talking about luxury items that people buy on credit.

Also, they could easily get a nice small loan for a used, mid range car, instead of getting whatever expensive car they want.

This also applies to houses, you don't need anything extravagant, just something that will fit your needs. The whole reason we got into this mess was because people were taking loans they couldn't payback, and instead of denying them, the banks were just handing them out.

Am I the only one who is extremely pleased that it didn't pass?

As I said before, I am pleased it failed. While it may make things tough for awhile, it is the only to way actually fix the situation.

[dmaul1114]

I am not talking about houses or cars... I am more talking about luxury items that people buy on credit.

Also, they could easily get a nice small loan for a used, mid range car, instead of getting whatever expensive car they want.

This also applies to houses, you don't need anything extravagant, just something that will fit your needs. The whole reason we got into this mess was because people were taking loans they couldn't payback, and instead of denying them, the banks were just handing them out.


Yep, the key is to not take out loans you can't easily afford to pay the montly payments, and preferably pay more than the minimum. And that really just applies for cars and houses. A big problem is people buy more house than they need/can afford or nicer cars than they can afford.

And people really should never take loans to buy true luxury items (i.e. running up credit card bills etc.) like TVs, video games, etc. etc.

[Liquid 2]

Given that this situation most likely strengthens Obama's chances this November, you might like it less than you think.

Like he wasn't going to win anyways. :-?

[Romis]

The whole situation can basically be boiled down to one big fact.. Greed..
both with housing loans (banks & realtors) corporations

corporations cut jobs, and costs in USA by out sourcing to other countries to make them more money, they don't care about the USA, they've milked the country for all they can and now they have there money..

[Dr Mario Kart]

Like he wasn't going to win anyways. :-?
What? Its gonna be crazy close. A few swing states will be stolen by vote fraud. Recounts and the legal system are pretty much guaranteed to be involved.

[Moxio]

I'm going to vote for John McCain because I think Sarah Palin is good looking and if I vote for them I probably have a shot with her! 8-)

[zewone]

He's black.

[mykevermin]

Here's the rest of your context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey3ZlsmIkz4

[Loonknight]

Am I the only one who is extremely pleased that it didn't pass?

Well I'm not one to trust our current leaders (both parties and in all branches) to save us from this mess mainly because of the same reasons I'm not a politician. I believe they are all crooks and have taken money in one form or another for favors in the future. This time it blew up in their faces and now they are trying to save face and save their buddies on wall street.

Do we need to do something? Sure, but each step better be under a microscope and better not tack on any extra funding due to lobbyists and the sort. That would be the reason I would be extremely pleased.

Oh man, NYT headline is all caps: BAILOUT REJECTED.

We're so much closer to my dream headline: HOLY FUCKING SHIT: (byline: we're all doomed!)

That and I want to see the same headline.

Now, don't get me wrong. I love the U.S. mainly because I can say this and not get dragged off and killed. But this looks like it was a mess a long time coming and as they say "you reap what you sow"

[Liquid 2]

He's black.

:rofl:

Oh man. Funniest shit I've read in a long time.

[nonggame]

I vote for the McCain. The other guy seem to be ummm how to say this " good at only taking shit and made promise that too good to be true " and this dude will tax me to death with all of his what so called "plan". Oh and Isn't he the one who want to make illegal alien to be US citizen and give them all the benefit of US. citizen ?

[level1online]

http://i35.tinypic.com/t83gx1.jpg

[Frogurt.man]

I vote for the McCain. The other guy seem to be ummm how to say this " good at only taking shit and made promise that too good to be true " and this dude will tax me to death with all of his what so called "plan". Oh and Isn't he the one who want to make illegal alien to be US citizen and give them all the benefit of US. citizen ?

ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?

[SpazX]

I vote for the McCain. The other guy seem to be ummm how to say this " good at only taking shit and made promise that too good to be true " and this dude will tax me to death with all of his what so called "plan". Oh and Isn't he the one who want to make illegal alien to be US citizen and give them all the benefit of US. citizen ?

I dunno what a "tax to death" would be, really, but if you make more than $200,000 or so then you'll pay more taxes. And that was McCain's immigration plan, but he would apparently now vote against it, so yeah.

[nonggame]

ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER! DO YOU SPEAK IT!?

NOT REALLY MOTHER FUCKER!!! ^ ^

[Frogurt.man]

NOT REALLY MOTHER FUCKER!!! ^ ^

Oh ok :lol:

[QiG]

My understanding of economics is SEVERELY limited.... but how is it that the government can take our money (that doesn't exist yet) and spend it without explaining how it WILL work to the people?

Wouldn't we be better off NOT bailing out those that failed, and instead using our own money to support the companies that are actually doing it right?

Hell, what do I know.

[SpazX]

My understanding of economics is SEVERELY limited.... but how is it that the government can take our money (that doesn't exist yet) and spend it without explaining how it WILL work to the people?

Wouldn't we be better off NOT bailing out those that failed, and instead using our own money to support the companies that are actually doing it right?

Hell, what do I know.

Well if it was just a few companies failing then it wouldn't matter. The ripple effect from such huge companies failing is what they're trying to avoid.

[Dr Mario Kart]

They became "too big to fail", in which case, they should have been too big to exist.

[SpazX]

They became "too big to fail", in which case, they should have been too big to exist.

I would agree with that. What's funny is with these other buyouts you're getting even bigger companies that can't fail...

[crunchb3rry]

'course, what happens when this $700B is ostensibly exhausted in 8 months?

Money only has value to citizens. The government and its institutions just print more or borrow from China when the printer is being serviced by maintenance.

[KingBroly]

Here's the rest of your context:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey3ZlsmIkz4


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v485/DarkInfluence/Funny%20Crap/800px-Not-again-picard.jpg

[bmulligan]

So, if Pelosi puts the blame of this crisis at the feet of the administration and it's "failed policies", it's recklessness, golden parachutes, and anything goes philosophy, then why is she in favor of the bailout?

A striking contradiction, IMO. I'm sure you leftist dems eat that shit up.

[thrustbucket]

Pelosi's speech was totally out of line and inappropriate given the scope of the crisis. The nation could be on fire and sinking into the ocean, and she'd put priority on televising a blame-republican speech before taking action.

That said, any Republican that really blames her speech on not letting the bill pass that they wanted, is retarded.

[mykevermin]

We can focus on how awful Pelosi is, but in the meantime, that legitimizes the very political maneuver of those on the right who wanted to behave like WATBs and took their stance in the form of not voting, and thus fucking up the expediency of this bill.

Pelosi was being politically opportunistic just like McCain and his "I'M HERE TO sit down and be quiet SAVE THE DAY!" actions of last week - but she didn't force any petulant child of a Congressperson to not vote for it.

Let's not fool ourselves; Pelosi used words to be a problem. Republican members of congress who were committed to voting were the people who forgot the old "sticks and stones" adage and decided to take it out on American economic policy.

So who's the bitch? Pelosi or the "butthurt" members of Congress who have cried all the way to stalling/killing a bill?

Whatever happened to the party of "up or down vote," man?

[KingBroly]

Well, the up or down vote happened, and it went down, hard. Democrats can spout '60% of us voted for it' all they want, but 40%, 94 Democrats voted against it. They only have themselves to blame, because they couldn't get their own people in line. This would've passed if they got their own people to vote down party lines.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

Whatever happened to the party of "up or down vote," man?

Are they still in committee?

[thrustbucket]

How many members of Congress with an "R" next to their name have admitted to not voting because of Pelosi's speech?

Is it more than 5? Or is this whole thing being blown out of proportion by one interview with one man?

[KingBroly]

How many members of Congress with an "R" next to their name have admitted to not voting because of Pelosi's speech?

Is it more than 5? Or is this whole thing being blown out of proportion by one interview with one man?

Also, 3 House Republican leaders who speculated after the vote.

[dafoomie]

So, if Pelosi puts the blame of this crisis at the feet of the administration and it's "failed policies", it's recklessness, golden parachutes, and anything goes philosophy, then why is she in favor of the bailout?

A striking contradiction, IMO. I'm sure you leftist dems eat that shit up.
Not quite. Democrats have traditionally been more inclined to regulate the market, which is what this is and why a lot of free market Republicans are against it.

It will be disastrous if the credit markets freeze. You'll see some more banks go, then companies will start not making their payroll. If there is no borrowing, there is no business. This bailout has serious ramifications, including severe inflation, but the alternative is much worse, and will impact Joe Schmoe on Main St. far more.

I'm not willing to lay the blame completely on the Republicans for this, a lot of this started with Greenspan and his cheap money, and yes, certain Democratic policies with regard to minority lending were a contributing factor. But the Republicans have controlled Congress for 12 years and the White House for 8. A lack of oversight does not constitute a free market.

Also, I believe a shift in corporate philosophy played a large factor. Corporate executives no longer care about the long term, its all about the next quarter and the stock price. By the time the consequences of their decisions come to pass, they've moved on to another company.

[dafoomie]

Well, the up or down vote happened, and it went down, hard. Democrats can spout '60% of us voted for it' all they want, but 40%, 94 Democrats voted against it. They only have themselves to blame, because they couldn't get their own people in line. This would've passed if they got their own people to vote down party lines.
Why should they? Its not their bill. The administration introduced this legistlation, and McCain supported it enough to 'suspend' his campaign to get it passed. Bush and McCain combined could not get more than 1/3rd of their own party to vote in support of their own bill. The Democrats did what they had to do.

Having the Republican treasury secretary going to the Democrats on bended knee to help save the economy because the Republicans won't, is a stunning revelation of how little unity there is in the Republican party right now.

[mykevermin]

And while we vilify Pelosi, we ignore ol' Cryin' John Boehner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSfUwibLCSU

Care to guess if he voted "aye" or "nay"?

I'll see if I can't find him blubbering on the House floor this morning before the vote. It really helps put his two-facedness in context.

[Chase]

I'm surprised but not shocked that this failed to pass in the House. No one likes the idea of a bailout, the price tag is huge at a time when the deficit is already sky-high, and the timing is terrible. I actually think the whole thing has been surprisingly bipartisan, overall. Both parties have been negotiating and giving ground, and the end result has been an improved bill that no one likes but both sides can hold their noses and vote for.

I think this last minute revolt by House Republicans is more about election year politics than anything else, and the bill will pass the next time they vote on it. I think unanimous support by either party is close to impossible -- there are always going to be representatives who simply can not vote for this given the sentiments of their districts (which I think is as it should be), but they'll sway enough to get it through while still saving face for those who switch sides.

[dafoomie]

Here is how everyone voted:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iE1r_DuYH2j4rBy8JqBaVQ40MiOQD93GJ5H04


Notice that McCain didn't deliver a single representative from his state, on either side of the aisle.

[RAMSTORIA]

guess boehner voted yes.

[mykevermin]

guess boehner voted yes.

No.

He voted 'aye' ;)

[RAMSTORIA]

i like how this bill is so important that the house is going to take a few days off for rosh hoshana and deal with it on thursday. single digit approval ratings here we come!

[mykevermin]

single digit approval ratings here we come!

so it's going up?

[Frogurt.man]

Well, the up or down vote happened, and it went down, hard. Democrats can spout '60% of us voted for it' all they want, but 40%, 94 Democrats voted against it. They only have themselves to blame, because they couldn't get their own people in line. This would've passed if they got their own people to vote down party lines.

Dude your missing the point. This was suppose to be a bi-partisan effort. Both Democrats and Republicans were suppose to put up enough votes to pass. That was the agreement they made. The Dems put up their share and the GOP thought they had enough too else it would have never of gone to a vote. This was a shitty bill that noone wanted to own up to so why should the Democrats be the only one to push it through? Boehner said he would have the votes but for whatever reason they chickened out. I don't blame them though. Your a republican that got elected in 2006 because you wanted to bring back small government and less spending in the federal government. Then the heads of your party tell you during an election year to piss all that ideology into the wind and take one for the team so that some schmuck who doesn't care about you has a better chance of winning a presidency that everyone in your party secretly knows he doesn't have a snowballs' chance in hell in the first place. Nobody wants to lose their jobs plain and simple.

[Poor2More]

we already did it once this year, remember. 170 billion was handed out and it didnt do a damn thing.

I say we double it and do it again:bouncy:

[dafoomie]

Another big factor is when Republicans made swaps exempt from any regulation whatsoever. The guy responsible is Phil Gramm (also responsible for the Enron loophole), now a McCain advisor and formerly his top economic advisor. He was the guy that said its a "mental recession" and that we're a nation of whiners.

This is a laissez-faire wet dream. They've created a market of $58 trillion which is completely excempt from any and all federal regulation. Credit default swaps are a huge problem right now.

Here, read up on swaps:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/161199

[KingBroly]

Dude your missing the point. This was suppose to be a bi-partisan effort. Both Democrats and Republicans were suppose to put up enough votes to pass. That was the agreement they made. The Dems put up their share and the GOP thought they had enough too else it would have never of gone to a vote. This was a shitty bill that noone wanted to own up to so why should the Democrats be the only one to push it through? Boehner said he would have the votes but for whatever reason they chickened out. I don't blame them though. Your a republican that got elected in 2006 because you wanted to bring back small government and less spending in the federal government. Then the heads of your party tell you during an election year to piss all that ideology into the wind and take one for the team so that some schmuck who doesn't care about you has a better chance of winning a presidency that everyone in your party secretly knows he doesn't have a snowballs' chance in hell in the first place. Nobody wants to lose their jobs plain and simple.

First bold: :lol:, bipartisan effort

Second bold: This is what many Conservative Democrats were voted in to do, and I could say they feel unsafe about passing this thing.

I don't think anyone (besides a few bozos) can honestly say it was a good bill. A necessary bill, perhaps, but no way is it good. I think it comes up for a re-vote after a couple days of the market nose diving.

And even though I hate this bill, and don't want it, if it doesn't go through, we're headed for a DEPRESSION, plain and simple.

[Frogurt.man]

First bold: :lol:, bipartisan effort

Second bold: This is what many Conservative Democrats were voted in to do, and I could say they feel unsafe about passing this thing.

I don't think anyone (besides a few bozos) can honestly say it was a good bill. A necessary bill, perhaps, but no way is it good. I think it comes up for a re-vote after a couple days of the market nose diving.

And even though I hate this bill, and don't want it, if it doesn't go through, we're headed for a DEPRESSION, plain and simple.

The vast majority of people are against the bailout period. Nobody want's to give $700 billion in taxpayer money to the same bone heads who created this mess. Even if it means a depression.

So your telling me that just because the Democrats countrol the House they should be the ones to push this bill through party lines because of a "depression". Basically committing political suicide just so they can clean up the mess they blame on the GOP. If the Dems were going to walk the plank they were going to do it holding the GOPs hand. The whole point of the White House meeting on Thursday was to get the Republican side of the house somewhat in line. Which was then supposedly done on Sunday because everything Thursday went to shit. They put it to a vote and the Republicans chickened out.



http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

Just because Depression is being mentioned it's not an excuse for poor legislation. If it was so needed we would not be talking about it's failure.
I'm sorry if not enough Democrats were drinking the kool aid to calm your fears. I guess not enough GOP were drinking it either.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_CN9uJbQ0uiI/Rl9c9Ui5miI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/VnYhHvd39FY/s400/simpsons.jpg

[VipFREAK]

All I gotta say is thank the fucking lord I don't have Credit Card debt or Student loan payments.

[mykevermin]

Ha. That's all I have.

[RAMSTORIA]

Ha. That's all I have.

me too! *high five*

[hufferstl]

$2300 per man, woman and child. All given to poorly-run companies. Edit: not given to poorly-run companies.

[crunchb3rry]

and this dude will tax me to death with all of his what so called "plan".

If make less than $200,000 per year, your taxes won't go up. If you do make more than that, what the fuck are you doing on CAG?

But I see what you are saying. You shouldn't have to pay taxes. None of us should. Then we can stand in the front yard wondering where firefighters are while our homes burn down. Have our kids become career fry vat operators because schools can't stay open. And salute the Iranian and Chinese flags because our military ran out of Nerf gun bullets in WWIII.

All you idiots that piss and moan about taxes can eat shit. That's how stuff gets paid for. So go ahead and vote for the guy who thinks you are still in the middle class tier if you make $5,000,000 per year.

[hufferstl]

Crunchb3rry, I think the point is that we are taxed enough and the government would never shop at cheap-ass-ANYTHING. They spend whatever they want and even with our high taxes, we are still running in the red. Even with a so-called "Conservative" president. My party has left me, I want a fiscal conservative and I don't see McCain or Obama stopping the Bush spending spree.

[Koggit]

People keep talking about how much Bush grew the government blah blah blah but it's kind of just bullshit no offense

http://carriedaway.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/us_government_spending_and_taxation_in_r_1.gif

Bush grew the executive branch, in power (relative to legislative & judicial), that's about it...

[KingBroly]

The vast majority of people are against the bailout period. Nobody want's to give $700 billion in taxpayer money to the same bone heads who created this mess. Even if it means a depression.

So your telling me that just because the Democrats countrol the House they should be the ones to push this bill through party lines because of a "depression". Basically committing political suicide just so they can clean up the mess they blame on the GOP. If the Dems were going to walk the plank they were going to do it holding the GOPs hand. The whole point of the White House meeting on Thursday was to get the Republican side of the house somewhat in line. Which was then supposedly done on Sunday because everything Thursday went to shit. They put it to a vote and the Republicans chickened out.



http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html

Just because Depression is being mentioned it's not an excuse for poor legislation. If it was so needed we would not be talking about it's failure.
I'm sorry if not enough Democrats were drinking the kool aid to calm your fears. I guess not enough GOP were drinking it either.

http://bp3.blogger.com/_CN9uJbQ0uiI/Rl9c9Ui5miI/AAAAAAAAAZQ/VnYhHvd39FY/s400/simpsons.jpg

I know the vast majority of the American people are against it. Some people running the show right now don't get that either (pretty clear who they are too).

And yes, they could have pushed that thing through and they would've gotten away with it, because...
A - Down year for the Republicans
B - The Democrats are really good at hiding stuff and not getting caught (in terms of if it would've gotten out or not on who voted for it)
C - Could have spun it how the situation was Bush's fault and because of the Democrats, they single-handedly saved the country

There are a lot of excuses for poor legislation is Washington, and more often than not, the poor legislation passes. But for a real crisis, nothing is done?

[mykevermin]

koggit, if you can find the data for the other 4 completed years of the Bush administration's spending (2004+), then that chart might be useful.

[bmulligan]

Not quite. Democrats have traditionally been more inclined to regulate the market, which is what this is and why a lot of free market Republicans are against it.

It will be disastrous if the credit markets freeze. You'll see some more banks go, then companies will start not making their payroll. If there is no borrowing, there is no business. This bailout has serious ramifications, including severe inflation, but the alternative is much worse, and will impact Joe Schmoe on Main St. far more.

I'm not willing to lay the blame completely on the Republicans for this, a lot of this started with Greenspan and his cheap money, and yes, certain Democratic policies with regard to minority lending were a contributing factor. But the Republicans have controlled Congress for 12 years and the White House for 8. A lack of oversight does not constitute a free market.

Also, I believe a shift in corporate philosophy played a large factor. Corporate executives no longer care about the long term, its all about the next quarter and the stock price. By the time the consequences of their decisions come to pass, they've moved on to another company.

Fortunately for Pelosi, the American public are too ignorant of the crisis to make informed decisions, so political rhetoric can rule the discussion from her pulpit.

Tradition aside, the De-regulation of these financial markets have specific benefactors, republicans and democrats, and were not primarily the result of the Bush administration. The socialist policy of the CMA in 1977 that required any deposit taking institution to loan money to "red-lined" groups, or people who shouldn't be loaned money, can be fingered as a root cause.

Then came the "de-regulization" of these financial institutions in 1999 under Bill Clinton with the effective repealing of the Glass-Steagall act. Then in 2000, the arbitrary(?) decision of FHLMC to enter this securities market and guarantee all the sub-prime loans fueled demand for banks to make such loans since they could sell them immediately to Freddie for cash, and then turn around and make even more loans that they could sell for cash. Freddie then bundled these loans into "securities" and sold them to all the other institutions that are now going bankrupt with a guarantee. This influx of constant new money created the artificial demand in the housing market and is what drove housing prices out of line with reality since 1995.

The "no pressure" or unlimited reign of these financial entities were spearheaded by people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, in the name of "affordable housing". This is not a purely Democrat or Republican caused issue. It's a systemic, entrenched, purposeful fleecing of the credit market that has come back to haunt the American people - all while leaving the architects in the clear because it began such a long time ago.

I'm also against any type of bailout, but I really feel that these strapped companies were sold government guaranteed securities, so they really are owed what they were promised. Refusing the bailout can be the only way to reveal how this mess was created instead of throwing a trillion dollars at it to keep the perpetrators hidden from scrutiny.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

koggit, if you can find the data for the other 4 completed years of the Bush administration's spending (2004+), then that chart might be useful.

Why? What happened in 2003? :lol:

[fatherofcaitlyn]

The bailout and other attempts by the government to keep the market afloat are starting to remind me of the scene in The Holy Grail where the lord of a castle talks about how many castles he built (and lost) in a swamp.

[MSI Magus]

All I gotta say is thank the fucking lord I don't have Credit Card debt or Student loan payments.

Ya we got our student loan payments the other day and it took alot to not scream at my fiancee. She said she thought we had a 3% loan and that it worked so that we played a flat interest. Ya the damn thing was for 7% paying daily fucking interest. We owe $1,000 on a $7,000 fucking loan.

[camoor]

Game over man, game over!

[lordwow]

I'm happy about all this crap with my student loan payments, they're bottoming out around 3% each.

[MSI Magus]

I'm happy about all this crap with my student loan payments, they're bottoming out around 3% each.

See iv been pushing her hard to go and talk to someone. I dont understand how most people seem to have a nice flat 3% and she has a 7% paying daily! Do you know if you can consolidate all your loans into 1 loan while still in school or do you have to wait till you graduate?

[hufferstl]

People keep talking about how much Bush grew the government blah blah blah but it's kind of just bullshit no offense
Bush grew the executive branch, in power (relative to legislative & judicial), that's about it...

Bush turned in the largest budget EVER, how is that not an increase in the size of government? I understand that as GDP is increased, some government spending will have to follow, but a 1:1 ratio in growth should not be acceptable. Growth should lead to a decrease in the size of government(overhead) per capita of GDP.

http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq338/hufferstl/cagpres.jpg

[Koggit]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/federal-spending-mythology/

Consider the actual record of spending. Never mind dollar figures, which grow because of inflation, population growth, and other normal factors. A better guide is spending as a percentage of GDP. And this has increased, from 18.5% in fiscal 2001 to 20% in fiscal 2007.

But where did that increase come from? Three words: defense, Medicare, Medicaid. That’s the whole story. Defense up from 3 to 4% of GDP; Medicare and Medicaid up from 3.4% to 4.6%, partially offset by increased payments for Part B and stuff. Aside from that, there’s been no major movement.

I can't hunt for more because I gotta shower and drop my car off at the shop.. more later

[KingBroly]

How much did entitlements go up during this administration? Interesting numbers there I would think.

[dmaul1114]

See iv been pushing her hard to go and talk to someone. I dont understand how most people seem to have a nice flat 3% and she has a 7% paying daily! Do you know if you can consolidate all your loans into 1 loan while still in school or do you have to wait till you graduate?

You can consolidate while still in school. But you can no longer defer payments and must start paying them right away.

Also, the consolidation companies aren't flexible with future deferments if you hit tough times, changing to a longer pay back plan etc., while you generally can if you stay with your original federal loan lender (assuming it is a federal loan and not a private loan you got from a bank).

So that's another thing to consider if any of that stuff is important to you guys.

[solid snake]

Or so we're told. I'm going for a coffee and to do some reading while Rome burns. Never did learn how to play a fiddle.

everythings gonna get bad but not as bad as if it were too pass...

[camoor]

I'm just surprised to hear mark-to-market is around, and I needed to hear about it from a Republican.

Enron anyone? You're still allowing this crap! Now you've got me agreeing with a Republican! Ridiculous!

[bigdaddy]

Ya we got our student loan payments the other day and it took alot to not scream at my fiancee. She said she thought we had a 3% loan and that it worked so that we played a flat interest. Ya the damn thing was for 7% paying daily fucking interest. We owe $1,000 on a $7,000 fucking loan.

That's it?

My loan was for $3,500 and I had at least $1,000 in interest.

The problem now is that no one can get a student loan.

[KingBroly]

Hmm...

I'm shocked that the DOW is up, and this much today (although it will probably go down). I thought it'd be better than yesterday (sticker shock syndrome).

Credit's going to be really tight for a while, especially for students and small businesses.

[BillyBob29]

Hmm...

I'm shocked that the DOW is up, and this much today (although it will probably go down). I thought it'd be better than yesterday (sticker shock syndrome).

Credit's going to be really tight for a while, especially for students and small businesses.

This rally has no volume. That is why we are up. Slow grind up all day on very light volume.

[bigdaddy]

WE WILL LOSE 2,500 BY THE END OF THE WEEK!!!!!!


Who said that again? In order for that to happen we need to lose 700 points the next three days. I think that will happen! We will all die!!!

:roll:

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, this is the biggest part causing me to hesitate on the bailout. All this PANIC! from the administration is really panning out. We see big drops, but it bounces back.

Just makes me skeptical that the bailouts are really needed, or at least that $700 billion is needed. But again, I'm not an economist so I hesitate to have to strong an opinion on the matter.

[bigdaddy]

Yeah, this is the biggest part causing me to hesitate on the bailout. All this PANIC! from the administration is really panning out. We see big drops, but it bounces back.

Just makes me skeptical that the bailouts are really needed, or at least that $700 billion is needed. But again, I'm not an economist so I hesitate to have to strong an opinion on the matter.

It reminds me of...

"WE NEED TO BOMB AND INVADE IRAQ OR THE MUSHROOM CLOUD WILL COME TO AMERICA!!!!"

I forgot, how did that turn out?

[JolietJake]

I think my student loan is around 5-6%, which seemed good at the time. I don't know of anyone with 3%.

[mykevermin]

We see big drops, but it bounces back.

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=DJIA&sid=1643

I don't know that I agree.

[willardhaven]

As often as I usually disagree with Magus, I think his opinion on FDR along with public and green works to answer this situation very astute.

[mykevermin]

Tradition aside, the De-regulation of these financial markets have specific benefactors, republicans and democrats, and were not primarily the result of the Bush administration. The socialist policy of the CMA in 1977 that required any deposit taking institution to loan money to "red-lined" groups, or people who shouldn't be loaned money, can be fingered as a root cause.

Allow me to purse my lips in that "you know better" manner, roll my eyes, and sarcastically motion my hand in a "jerking off" manner.

As I've pointed out before, and you summarily ignored, this (1) outlaws redlining - it does not, however, mandate 'subprime' lending, which was a fabrication of the free-market, nor does it (2) apply to all lending institutions, as we can see that 2/3 of all foreclosed subprime mortgages were well outside of the domain of the C*R*A's jurisdiction. (you've been listening to Toby Keith too long, as CMA is an awards show, toots)

You want to jump this amazing logical chasm to get from the CRA to subprime lending, when subprime lending was a way to tap into a market - poor folks - they weren't taking advantage of. And it was *foolproof*! We lend them, taking only interest and earning on property that wasn't selling or couldn't sell at its current rate. Soon thereafter, they default, and we get the property back and the cash! Of course, it becomes a house of cards when too many people are in this scheme, and when the families who go bust mount, the bank can't pay on the properties they own, and the banks go to the shitter when they aren't making their own payments!

Oops! The free market done fucked up!

Bad investments from bad banks. You can hop on the old Racism Station Wagon with Michelle Malkin and Lou Dobbs, and blame all them 'messicans and 'negroes that screwed up our economy (I guess poor whites were miraculously able to make their mortgage payments? Why'sat? Better genes?) But let's be real: banks found a way to take advantage of the poor in the housing market, and decades later, it blew up in their fucking faces. Your mythological story simply isn't plausible, it's premised upon pisspoor logic, and it relies on the assumption that subprime lending was a way in which banks' hands were forced. Which is laughably wrong and pathetic.

[jputahraptor]

I'd like to know where people got these magical 3% loans. I had 3 loans at one point, the one I'm still paying is 4.75% and was my largest ($18,000) and I had 2 smaller ones of $5,300 at 6.5% and $4,100 at 8%. Thankfully I've paid those 2 smaller ones already and I got that large one down to under $1000, not bad in less than a year, although it comes at the price of mooching off the girlfriend and being the designated driver cause you can't afford $5 beer nights :)

[SpazX]

To add to this nice discussion - my first federal student loan was 3.x% (but variable), but then each one after that was at a fixed 6.8%. Consolidating them all made it 5.875% though, which will be 5.625% if I pay through electronic billing. Better than my private loan that's a little over 7% IIRC and probably variable.

[Sporadic]

"The first thing I would do is say, 'Let's not call it a bailout. Let's call it a rescue,'" McCain told CNN. He said, "Americans are frightened right now" and political leaders must give them an immediate solution and a longer-term approach to the problem.

:lol: You have to be shitting me.

[KingBroly]

:lol: You have to be shitting me.

Spin spin spin, baby. Spin spin spin.

[dyeknom]

That's it?

My loan was for $3,500 and I had at least $1,000 in interest.

The problem now is that no one can get a student loan.

One of my many loans is 23,000$ loan with about 2700$ of accrued interest (after a year and a half).

All through undergrad, I had 2.81% interest... but to be fair I was a minor for half of that time (16-18) and had no credit history. In Grad School my loans skyrocketed to 6.81%, primarily because the lender completely screwed up while I was in school and entered the loans into default instead of deferment during the summer after getting my undergrad degree. I just pray I can grab a 5% federal direct consolidation loan.

People are able to get loans, but it's to the point where most people will need an endorser/cosigner. I had to get one for my final semester here, first time I was denied a loan based on my own credit. To be fair, I have about 130,000 in student loans -_-'' (Good luck with my actually paying those $2,000 / month payments, fuck em, let them put me in jail).

[Koggit]

Do you guys really think it'll be hard to get student loans now? It's hard to say what the rate's going to be like but lenders love student loans. They're reliable. In a couple years I'll be taking out ~100k and don't really expect to have trouble getting it.

I think the only direct effect we'll see of this as consumers is on the housing market. Which, imo, is a good thing. It just sucks for recent buyers and people who want to live beyond their means who, now, will have no method to do so.

But I don't know jack shit about economics.

[Friend of Sonic]

Spin spin spin, baby. Spin spin spin.
Yeah, I wonder if he calls search and rescue operations for people trapped in the mountain a "Bailout."

[dmaul1114]

http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=DJIA&sid=1643

I don't know that I agree.

Well, the problem is it's still too early to tell if it will totally bounce back. That past year is pretty much from the start of the subprime crisis till now and things have been trending down for sure. But it's not terribly drastic, the big daily drops are bouncing at least part back pretty quickly (see record drop monday, big jump yesterday getting about 2/3rds back).

But historically the market seems to jump back, it did after the dot-com bubble burst, so it may well bounce back from this without $700 billion.

But like I said, I'm not an economist so I don't have to strong an opinion here. The government bailing out big corporations (or people that took loans they couldn't afford) just doesn't sit well with me, but I do see how if the economy gets worse it will have large effects on those of us who are smart with our money, so I'm not totally against the government doing something. Just skeptical that the situation is as dire as the adminstration is making it out to be.

[bigdaddy]

It;s Wednesday and we still aren't dead and John McCain is still running for president. What stunt do you think he will use this week?

[fatherofcaitlyn]

It;s Wednesday and we still aren't dead and John McCain is still running for president. What stunt do you think he will use this week?

Sexy parties?

[mykevermin]

I think it's pretty dire.

(yeah, it's a blog, but its citations are legit): http://www.americablog.com/2008/09/why-im-still-concerned-about-yesterdays.html

The credit market faltering would fuck us all, since we mostly behave financially like the government: negative savings, baby. No credit = riots in the streets. No exaggeration.

[thrustbucket]

Myke is spot on.

Many other countries, their citizens just work their asses off and save money for what they want. We have created a nation of imbeciles that believe we should get what we want and sort of work our asses off for it later.

I've been thinking this whole week how ingrained debt is in all of our lives. How it's virtually impossible to not be in debt. This whole thing is coming to a head. I don't know what will happen...

[dmaul1114]

I agree a credit market collapse would be disastrous. I'm just not sure it's going to happen if the bailout doesn't occur.

Loans may be harder to get, but that's something that needs to happen. We're in this mess largely because of loans being to easy to get, and people being allowed to get more debt than they can afford.

So who's to say that the market wouldn't sort this out itself, companies buying other companies and being more stringent with giving out loans in the future?

Again, I'm not saying some government intervention isn't needed, I just have a hard time buying that the situation is currently so dire to need $700 billion of our tax payer dollars buying bad assests from failing companies. But maybe we do. *shrugs*

[thrustbucket]

I'm pretty much on the same page as you dmaul, you put it into fine words.

I don't know enough about this stuff, but it's hard to believe 700b or die are the choices here.

[thrustbucket]

A related story (http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/topstocks/?fpn=the%20best%20temp%20gig%20in%20history&GT1=33009).

Congress wants to crack down on CEO mega-salaries for banks participating in the bailout. And while the politicians argue how best to do that, Alan Fishman of Washington Mutual is headed for the doors with $19 million in his pocket.

If that wasn't outrageous enough, consider this: Fishman started the job three weeks ago. I never saw the employment ad Fishman answered, but it must have read something like this:

WANTED: Top executive for train-wreck bank about to be seized by federal regulators. Must be able to look busy while FDIC sells business from under you. Previous experience with angry shareholders sitting on worthless stock a plus. Perks: $7.5 million hiring bonus and $11.6 million cash severance.

[bmulligan]

Allow me to purse my lips in that "you know better" manner, roll my eyes, and sarcastically motion my hand in a "jerking off" manner.

As I've pointed out before, and you summarily ignored, this (1) outlaws redlining - it does not, however, mandate 'subprime' lending, which was a fabrication of the free-market, nor does it (2) apply to all lending institutions, as we can see that 2/3 of all foreclosed subprime mortgages were well outside of the domain of the C*R*A's jurisdiction. (you've been listening to Toby Keith too long, as CMA is an awards show, toots)

You want to jump this amazing logical chasm to get from the CRA to subprime lending, when subprime lending was a way to tap into a market - poor folks - they weren't taking advantage of. And it was *foolproof*! We lend them, taking only interest and earning on property that wasn't selling or couldn't sell at its current rate. Soon thereafter, they default, and we get the property back and the cash! Of course, it becomes a house of cards when too many people are in this scheme, and when the families who go bust mount, the bank can't pay on the properties they own, and the banks go to the shitter when they aren't making their own payments!

Oops! The free market done fucked up!

Bad investments from bad banks. You can hop on the old Racism Station Wagon with Michelle Malkin and Lou Dobbs, and blame all them 'messicans and 'negroes that screwed up our economy (I guess poor whites were miraculously able to make their mortgage payments? Why'sat? Better genes?) But let's be real: banks found a way to take advantage of the poor in the housing market, and decades later, it blew up in their fucking faces. Your mythological story simply isn't plausible, it's premised upon pisspoor logic, and it relies on the assumption that subprime lending was a way in which banks' hands were forced. Which is laughably wrong and pathetic.

Labeling conservative people racists must stimulate endorphins in the communist mind. That's the only reason I can think of to explain your addiction.

Perhaps you'd like to educate the rest of us with your depth of knowledge of this financial "crisis". And don't try repeating the standard Democrat rant, we've already heard Pelosi and Reid, that shit only works on the uneducated masses.

You'll also have to school me on how banks were taking advantage of poor minorities by giving them money for a home when, in all probability they were 40% less likely to be able to repay that loan. Banks may be unscrupulous, myke, but they aren't stupid. That invisible hand was Uncle Sam, not Adam Smith. Let's dispel these so-called myths of social engineering with your apparent warehouse of specialized knowledge.

[mykevermin]

None of what you've said circumvents the racism inherent in YOUR argument that blames poor minorities for fucking the market up. By doing so, you're *admitting* to racist practices that occurred via redlining.

Otherwise, the Republican party line would be to simply blame "poor people" for fucking the market up, no?

But you've dodged that point already, so I'm confident you'll lack the capacity to tackle that, in order to maintain "consistency." ;)

And you're doing nothing to dispel the points about banks seeing the financial advantages of subprime lending to them - you act as if banks weren't making money from them, which is absurd and the sort of heavy-handed stupidity I can only expect from the likes of you.

One of my many points that you ignored (your whole post above consists of "HE SED RACISM HURRRRRRR!") was that banks *did* make money from this, and like anything a bank does, there is risk involved. This risk is compounded when an ever-increasing proportion of mortgage holders -

and let's take a moment to inhale before I get the next point across, because it's an important one -

MOST OF WHOM ARE NOT POOR, SOME OF WHOM ARE HIGH INCOME EARNERS, MOST OF WHOM WERE SEDUCED BY ARTIFICIALLY "MOVING UP" IN THEIR HOUSING BRACKET BY GETTING INTO SUBPRIME LOANS IN THE FIRST PLACE

...are the ones who the banks are invested in.

So, when Suzie McMarbleCounterTop can't afford her home, she defaults. She loses her house. Same with your hypothetical Minority McPoorpants.

Who's benefitting from the CRA here? ANOTHER point you overlooked of mine (can you tackle anything I say, or just throw words out there?) was that 2/3 of subprime loans were not under the jurisdiction of the CRA. How can you continue to blame a thirty-year old act for actions the banks took THEMSELVES as a matter of RISK?

You're savvy enough, I hope, to see how a few fallen subprime loans can corrupt the whole market? Via the bank's inability to suddenly have to pay on a large quantity of property it was earning money on just prior? I said I hope, but I'm not sure.

Keep blaming it on Carter. Keep blaming it on Clinton. Go back and set your sights on the Democrats. You're either a blithering idiot or just a troll at this point; but what you intend to be is irrelevant, seeing as how you're magnificent at doing both.

[MSI Magus]

None of what you've said circumvents the racism inherent in YOUR argument that blames poor minorities for fucking the market up. By doing so, you're *admitting* to racist practices that occurred via redlining.

Otherwise, the Republican party line would be to simply blame "poor people" for fucking the market up, no?

But you've dodged that point already, so I'm confident you'll lack the capacity to tackle that, in order to maintain "consistency." ;)

And you're doing nothing to dispel the points about banks seeing the financial advantages of subprime lending to them - you act as if banks weren't making money from them, which is absurd and the sort of heavy-handed stupidity I can only expect from the likes of you.

One of my many points that you ignored (your whole post above consists of "HE SED RACISM HURRRRRRR!") was that banks *did* make money from this, and like anything a bank does, there is risk involved. This risk is compounded when an ever-increasing proportion of mortgage holders -

and let's take a moment to inhale before I get the next point across, because it's an important one -

MOST OF WHOM ARE NOT POOR, SOME OF WHOM ARE HIGH INCOME EARNERS, MOST OF WHOM WERE SEDUCED BY ARTIFICIALLY "MOVING UP" IN THEIR HOUSING BRACKET BY GETTING INTO SUBPRIME LOANS IN THE FIRST PLACE

...are the ones who the banks are invested in.

So, when Suzie McMarbleCounterTop can't afford her home, she defaults. She loses her house. Same with your hypothetical Minority McPoorpants.

Who's benefitting from the CRA here? ANOTHER point you overlooked of mine (can you tackle anything I say, or just throw words out there?) was that 2/3 of subprime loans were not under the jurisdiction of the CRA. How can you continue to blame a thirty-year old act for actions the banks took THEMSELVES as a matter of RISK?

You're savvy enough, I hope, to see how a few fallen subprime loans can corrupt the whole market? Via the bank's inability to suddenly have to pay on a large quantity of property it was earning money on just prior? I said I hope, but I'm not sure.

Keep blaming it on Carter. Keep blaming it on Clinton. Go back and set your sights on the Democrats. You're either a blithering idiot or just a troll at this point; but what you intend to be is irrelevant, seeing as how you're magnificent at doing both.

It is funny that people are trying to blame minorities for this. I mean even if minorities were the biggest abusers of this who was giving them the bad fucking loans? Greedy white people. This is just like the issue when it comes to loosing work to immigration. People like to blow up at Mexicans and ignore the fact that their being hired by someone or else they wouldnt freaking come here.

[mykevermin]

Well, it was greedy people both lending money and buying homes.

Subprime is sustainable, but only if the lending institution can cover its assets if suddenly a large proportion of people are foreclosed on and the bank has to pay for those assets.

We know now that it isn't the case.

The idea that banks' hands were forced into subprime lending is ludicrous. And anyone who doesn't grasp that "redlining" means "not lending to black neighborhoods" is both (1) the kind of person who is oblivious to the idea that in the modern era "urban" is white people code language for "blacks" and (2) has never read a fucking thing about the history of redlining, blockbusting, the CRA, or discriminatory/predatory lending.

[bmulligan]

Never did I blame minorities for the crisis. Again, you cant refrain from jumping the racist gun at every turn. I wholly understand your inability to contain your emotions, it seems to be your preferred method of argument lately and it's how the leftist mind operates - viscerally instead of rationally

Not only was it greedy, or unscrupulous people lending money, but it was specific government socialist policies that guaranteed the loans that never should have been made under normal loan requirements. These mandates forced banks to lend money to underqualified recipients with the explicit guarantee by the government to cover these loans if they default was the cause. Allowing Freddie and Fanny Mae to subsequently bundle knowingly bad loans, their options and derivatives, as securities in the secondary markets with a taxpayer backing against loss is the cause. All done under the watchful eyes of the Congress for the last 15 years. Now we have a president and both presidential candidates in support of this "bailout" which is now attempting a comeback as a "rescue".

[willardhaven]

I'm shocked one of the candidates didn't fight the bailout, it seems quite unpopular with many voters.

[Dr Mario Kart]

They feel pressed for time, both the immediate need of action and they're also at the end of the congressional cycle and are about to go home for the year, I think. I dont know how these emergency sessions work, but the House was originally set to adjourn for the year on Sept 26.

The plan in its current form wont do anything but buy time. A few weeks, maybe months. Then it goes south again and we try again until we adopt the progressive strategies of FDR.

[Msut77]

I'm shocked one of the candidates didn't fight the bailout, it seems quite unpopular with many voters.

I heard that McCain wants Bush to veto it even though he just voted for it.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I heard that McCain wants Bush to veto it even though he just voted for it.

Haha.

If that's so, I guess McCain understand it doesn't matter if he loses by 1 electoral vote or by 350.

[freakyzeeky]

The House of Rep. JUST passed the Economic 'Rescue Bill'... No link yet, since it JUST happened.

[dmaul1114]

Yep, it passed 263-171 per the breaking news headline on CNN.com.

[FloodsAreUponUS]

This is good news.

[freakyzeeky]

Here's a link... http://news.aol.com/?feature=188230

[KingBroly]

The Dow's down nearly 200 since it passed the House.

[RAMSTORIA]

how sad for us. im surprised how many votes they won over. i guess 200 additional pages of placating will do that.

[KingBroly]

Don't forget 150 billion extra dollars

[FloodsAreUponUS]

The Dow's down nearly 200 since it passed the House.

You Mean Up.

Also I just read this on Digg.

http://digg.com/world_news/CHINA_DECLARES_ECONOMIC_WAR_Demands_700bil_bailout _from_US

True? Not True?

[freakyzeeky]

You Mean Up.

Also I just read this on Digg.

http://digg.com/world_news/CHINA_DECLARES_ECONOMIC_WAR_Demands_700bil_bailout _from_US

True? Not True?
:whee:

WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!

[willardhaven]

Using basic economic logic, wouldn't it be smarter to reject the bill and not lose 850 billion dollars?

[FloodsAreUponUS]

Using basic economic logic, wouldn't it be smarter to reject the bill and not lose 850 billion dollars?

No.

[KingBroly]

You Mean Up.

Also I just read this on Digg.

http://digg.com/world_news/CHINA_DECLARES_ECONOMIC_WAR_Demands_700bil_bailout _from_US

True? Not True?

No...
when the bill was still in vote, the Dow was up around 250. Now, it's around 75. It's lost about 200 points since the bill was passed.

Also, pretty sure that story is a lie. If you click the link, it kinda leads to a fringe website with no story.

[willardhaven]

No.

Please explain, I don't think I fully understand the situation and there is too much arguing to sift through in these threads.

[FloodsAreUponUS]

From the way I understand it, the 700 billion is going to slowly(in stages) buy up alot of the bad debt from the banks that have bad mortgage backed securities. The government will own these securities and from what I heard I think the banks will have to eventually buy them back from the government.

This will let up on the credit market, and will help business out insane. I know some people who are not getting paid because of business not being able to get at their line of credit, and some business draw on credit to make payroll and short term expenses. This eases up the banks and allows them to be able to make payments now.

Also McCain was for it, before he was against it.
LOL.

[thrustbucket]

Please explain, I don't think I fully understand the situation and there is too much arguing to sift through in these threads.

Their argument is going to go something like this:

If we don't coddle the big banks, and keep them from suffering from all their bad decisions, it will ruin the ability to get credit for everyone.

Except I say, even if that's true, good.

[FloodsAreUponUS]

Their argument is going to go something like this:

If we don't coddle the big banks, and keep them from suffering from all their bad decisions, it will ruin the ability to get credit for everyone.

Except I say, even if that's true, good.

It would be horrible.
Grocery Stores would not be able to get food because of the fact that they work off revolving credit since they make so little income of selling food, that they constantly have to draw off lines of credit to be able to get product into the store.

There are so many things that will hit you harder then you know if this does not pass.

[thrustbucket]

It would be horrible.
Grocery Stores would not be able to get food because of the fact that they work off revolving credit since they make so little income of selling food, that they constantly have to draw off lines of credit to be able to get product into the store.

There are so many things that will hit you harder then you know if this does not pass.

Once you understand that the scenario you described IS GOING TO HAPPEN EVENTUALLY....and only will be worse the longer it's put off, it changes perspective.

[willardhaven]

If you are correct Thrust, then why on Earth would anyone support it?

[FloodsAreUponUS]

If you are correct Thrust, then why on Earth would anyone support it?

Because he is not.

[willardhaven]

So Flood, you're saying this will not merely postpone the inevitable?

[thrustbucket]

If you are correct Thrust, then why on Earth would anyone support it?

Look at the polls, most people don't. But the reasons for it is "they just don't understand, people are stupid, that's why we need smarter people to pass laws we hate".


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

As a side note, here is an amusing O'reilly clip of him going all O'reilly on Barney Frank.

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

[dmaul1114]

So Flood, you're saying this will not merely postpone the inevitable?

No way of knowing.

This bailout, however, must be accompanied with tighter regulation of lending practices, trading of debt between banks etc. or it is just a short term band aid most like. IMHO.

[FloodsAreUponUS]

I think will all the provisions in the bill, and considering where the bulk of the bad debt came from(Mortgage backed securities) will be cleaned up, and the predatory loaners will be sought out. People will learn from this crisis.

I don't see how Thrust thinks we are going to get a bunch of bad debt piled up in banks from defaulted mortgages again.

[fatherofcaitlyn]

I think will all the provisions in the bill, and considering where the bulk of the bad debt came from(Mortgage backed securities) will be cleaned up, and the predatory loaners will be sought out. People will learn from this crisis.

Have there been laws passed for more regulation?

[FloodsAreUponUS]

Have there been laws passed for more regulation?

I have not had time to look into the entire bill, but I would imagine they would put something into those extra 115 pages tacked onto the bill.

[KingBroly]

Tax Break for Wooden Arrows for Boy Scouts? WTF?

[Dead of Knight]

Dunno if this was posted yet but here's a list of the asshats who voted for this and the heroes who didn't:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml

[RAMSTORIA]

Dunno if this was posted yet but here's a list of the asshats who voted for this and the heroes who didn't:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml

matsui voted yes... guess she didnt get my email.

[Dead of Knight]

Both of my Reps (Kennedy and Langevin) voted yay. That makes me give a "yay" to not voting for them this election!

[SpazX]

Yea! Not yay! Not this: http://bennettmadison.net/yay.jpg

[FloodsAreUponUS]

Signed by Bush.

[Dead of Knight]

I like saying YAY better than Yea. Such as, "YAY I'm not going to vote for you fuckheads!"

[thrustbucket]

My only hope is this single act of legislation helps wake people up to the fact of our one party system and helps people wake up to the fact of who the real power in Washington is, it obviously it is not us.

[KingBroly]

So you're not going to vote the 140+ democrats that voted for it then? As well as the Presidential candidates who voted for it?

Good thing you're staying home on election day then.

Also, Dow went from up 235 before it passed to down 160 for the day. Combined with the loss the Senate vote gave us, it's been a swimming week for Congress, don't you think?

[willardhaven]

My only hope is this single act of legislation helps wake people up to the fact of our one party system and helps people wake up to the fact of who the real power in Washington is, it obviously it is not us.

I think most people (including me) are fed up with the government, they just don't know what to do.

[Chase]

The first bill went down, so they added pork and tax cuts (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/03/MNR813AHDN.DTL), and it passed.

I think that's the hallmark of good legislation.

[RAMSTORIA]

The first bill went down, so they added pork and tax cuts (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/03/MNR813AHDN.DTL), and it passed.

I think that's the hallmark of good legislation.

i think its like getting an expired hot dog from 7-11 and then when the first bite doesnt taste good, topping it off with rotton mustard.

[KaneRobot]

I think most people (including me) are fed up with the government, they just don't know what to do.

The revolution is coming, I swear. It'll get started right after we all finish our backlog of games.

[Chase]

The Bailout bills do nothing to fix the problem. What happens in a few months when the U.S. is back in the hole?

Only the greedy benefit in the long-run from the Bailout bill. I wonder who changed their vote to a yes after the crap was added. :-k

[Dead of Knight]

The revolution is coming, I swear. It'll get started right after we all finish our backlog of games.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[bmulligan]

My only hope is this single act of legislation helps wake people up to the fact of our one party system and helps people wake up to the fact of who the real power in Washington is, it obviously it is not us.
Amen. Unfortunately, the spectacle of American politics is to attractive to the semi-mature.

I know many small business owners and property owners in Michigan and not one, REPEAT - NOT ONE, has had difficulty obtaining credit to meet payroll, refinance, make expenditures or order materials. Yes, many businesses use revolving credit to transact business on a day -to-day basis (actually, it's a 30-60-90 day basis, but I digress) and are customers in good standing with their respective financial institutions, and could walk into a bank and get as much money as they needed before they sat down in a chair. I also know bankers who are more than happy to make loans for new cars and homes regardless if the "bailout" legislation passed. All the rhetoric about the credit market shrinking is baloney.

The doom and gloom warnings amount to a threat by the financial industry to go to war with the american taxpayer if their demands were not met with this bill. Now we know who really has the power and, Thrust, you are absolutely right, "it is not us."

[willardhaven]

Seems to me like the two of you are right.

[XxFuRy2Xx]

We can only hope that every douche who switched their vote from no to yes and benefited from any of the extra crap thrown in is voted out.

[thrustbucket]

We can only hope that every douche who switched their vote from no to yes and benefited from any of the extra crap thrown in is voted out.

I actually wrote my congressmen that he'd better vote no. But he lost the Republican candidacy for the race this year, so I couldn't threaten not to vote for him.

[Dead of Knight]

Amen. Unfortunately, the spectacle of American politics is to attractive to the semi-mature.

I know many small business owners and property owners in Michigan and not one, REPEAT - NOT ONE, has had difficulty obtaining credit to meet payroll, refinance, make expenditures or order materials. Yes, many businesses use revolving credit to transact business on a day -to-day basis (actually, it's a 30-60-90 day basis, but I digress) and are customers in good standing with their respective financial institutions, and could walk into a bank and get as much money as they needed before they sat down in a chair. I also know bankers who are more than happy to make loans for new cars and homes regardless if the "bailout" legislation passed. All the rhetoric about the credit market shrinking is baloney.

The doom and gloom warnings amount to a threat by the financial industry to go to war with the american taxpayer if their demands were not met with this bill. Now we know who really has the power and, Thrust, you are absolutely right, "it is not us."

THIS THIS THIS. My father is an executive for a major bank that's primarily in the New England area. He said that his bank did not deal in subprime loans at all, and he would know this because he's in the "Special Assets" division, generally meaning loans gone bad. There are many more banks like this (either with no subprime loans or little subprime loans) than the media and the financial industry wants you to believe. And there are always credit unions. This is exactly why the passage of this bill is total bullshit. I'm surprised my father's bank and others didn't lobby against the bill, because less banks with idiotic executives means more business for them.

[camoor]

Amen. Unfortunately, the spectacle of American politics is to attractive to the semi-mature.

I know many small business owners and property owners in Michigan and not one, REPEAT - NOT ONE, has had difficulty obtaining credit to meet payroll, refinance, make expenditures or order materials. Yes, many businesses use revolving credit to transact business on a day -to-day basis (actually, it's a 30-60-90 day basis, but I digress) and are customers in good standing with their respective financial institutions, and could walk into a bank and get as much money as they needed before they sat down in a chair. I also know bankers who are more than happy to make loans for new cars and homes regardless if the "bailout" legislation passed. All the rhetoric about the credit market shrinking is baloney.

The doom and gloom warnings amount to a threat by the financial industry to go to war with the american taxpayer if their demands were not met with this bill. Now we know who really has the power and, Thrust, you are absolutely right, "it is not us."

Anecdotal tastiness