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

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!
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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.
 
[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 say we double it and do it again:bouncy:
 
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
 
[quote name='Frogurt.man']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']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.[/quote]

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.

simpsons.jpg
 
[quote name='nonggame']and this dude will tax me to death with all of his what so called "plan".[/quote]

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

us_government_spending_and_taxation_in_r_1.gif


Bush grew the executive branch, in power (relative to legislative & judicial), that's about it...
 
[quote name='Frogurt.man']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.

simpsons.jpg
[/quote]

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?
 
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.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

Why? What happened in 2003? :lol:
 
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.
 
[quote name='VipFREAK']All I gotta say is thank the fucking lord I don't have Credit Card debt or Student loan payments.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='lordwow']I'm happy about all this crap with my student loan payments, they're bottoming out around 3% each.[/QUOTE]

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?
 
[quote name='Koggit']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...[/QUOTE]

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.

cagpres.jpg
 
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.
Click to expand...

I can't hunt for more because I gotta shower and drop my car off at the shop.. more later
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']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?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[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]

everythings gonna get bad but not as bad as if it were too pass...
 
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!
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']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.[/quote]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

This rally has no volume. That is why we are up. Slow grind up all day on very light volume.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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:
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/quote]

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?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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 :)
 
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.
 
"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.
Click to expand...

:lol: You have to be shitting me.
 
[quote name='Sporadic']:lol: You have to be shitting me.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, its closer to an investment (a favorable investment) than a bailout. I don't think that money is being invested in the right places, but its better than nothing. There are better ways to go about this but they'd probably meet opposition from one side or another.
 
[quote name='bigdaddy']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.[/quote]

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