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

[quote name='KingBroly']Spin spin spin, baby. Spin spin spin.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I wonder if he calls search and rescue operations for people trapped in the mountain a "Bailout."
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=DJIA&sid=1643

I don't know that I agree.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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?
 
[quote name='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?[/quote]

Sexy parties?
 
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...
 
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*
 
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.
 
A related story.

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

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']I'm shocked one of the candidates didn't fight the bailout, it seems quite unpopular with many voters.[/QUOTE]

I heard that McCain wants Bush to veto it even though he just voted for it.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I heard that McCain wants Bush to veto it even though he just voted for it.[/quote]

Haha.

If that's so, I guess McCain understand it doesn't matter if he loses by 1 electoral vote or by 350.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Using basic economic logic, wouldn't it be smarter to reject the bill and not lose 850 billion dollars?[/quote]

No.
 
[quote name='FloodsAreUponUS']No.[/quote]

Please explain, I don't think I fully understand the situation and there is too much arguing to sift through in these threads.
 
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.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']Please explain, I don't think I fully understand the situation and there is too much arguing to sift through in these threads.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']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.[/quote]

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.
 
[quote name='FloodsAreUponUS']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.[/QUOTE]

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.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']If you are correct Thrust, then why on Earth would anyone support it?[/QUOTE]

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
 
[quote name='willardhaven']So Flood, you're saying this will not merely postpone the inevitable?[/QUOTE]

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.
 
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.
 
[quote name='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. [/quote]

Have there been laws passed for more regulation?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Have there been laws passed for more regulation?[/quote]

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.
 
Yea! Not yay! Not this:
yay.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top