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

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

Because that would be communism.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Because that would be communism.[/QUOTE]

we already did it once this year, remember. 170 billion was handed out and it didnt do a damn thing.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']we already did it once this year, remember. 170 billion was handed out and it didnt do a damn thing.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

Fiddle Schmiddle, we have NELSON:

simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg


~HotShotX
 
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!)
 
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.
 
: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: :(
 
[quote name='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: :([/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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: :([/QUOTE]

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?
 
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??
 
[quote name='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: :([/QUOTE]

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.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='mykevermin']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?[/QUOTE]


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?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
'course, what happens when this $700B is ostensibly exhausted in 8 months?[/QUOTE]

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?
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
[quote name='lilboo']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?!
[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]


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

I don't want a Stuart Smalley gimmick, Myke. :whistle2:(
 
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!
 
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.
Click to expand...

The stock market wont like it, but fuck them. Its their problem.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']Now that this hasn't passed they are talking about how this could bring down the credit card and that they won't work!![/QUOTE]

Well when that happens I guess I will default for the first time in my life!
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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/...ailout-bill-because-pelosi-hurt-our-feelings/

WAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

seems to be taken out of context... should be noted that 40% of house dems shot the bill down as well.
 
[quote name='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/...ailout-bill-because-pelosi-hurt-our-feelings/

WAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!![/QUOTE]

Barney Frank was hilarious when he heard that they mentioned this as a reason why they killed the bill.
 
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%.
 
... 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.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']seems to be taken out of context... should be noted that 40% of house dems shot the bill down as well.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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%.[/quote]

That's A LOT, man. A LOT. Also, analysts are predicing a 1500-2500 point drop off by the end of the week.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']seems to be taken out of context... should be noted that 40% of house dems shot the bill down as well.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']That's A LOT, man. A LOT. Also, analysts are predicing a 1500-2500 point drop off by the end of the week.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']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.[/quote]

From a market point of view, a 7-8% drop in a single session is substantial.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']From a market point of view, a 7-8% drop in a single session is substantial.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top