If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSN)   Seven better uses for $700 billion. Submitter thinks that every American taxpayer should get $5000 instead   (articles.moneycentral.msn.com) divider line 270
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

17596 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Sep 2008 at 7:56 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



270 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-09-24 11:38:14 PM
If I knew George Bush was going to push this bailout plan 8 years in advance, I would have voted for Al Gore and John Kerry instead. What ever happened to real, fiscal conservatism?

I wish John McCain won the nomination back in 2000 so that we would never be in Iraq and have stock market crashes caused by corrupt financial institutions.
 
2008-09-24 11:40:31 PM
The banks are out of money because people were unable to pay their mortgages, right? Both the banks and the homeowners screwed up.

This causes two problems:
1. Homes are empty and boarded up, causing neighborhood decay.
2. Economic disaster.

We are proposing giving lots of money to the banks.

Why wouldn't we pay off the mortgages? Or at a minimum require loan forgiveness as a condition of the bailout.

The banks get their money. The people get their homes. The economic impact is the same, plus the local impact is greater.

Yes, I know they don't deserve the money. Nobody does. But let's face it, someone is getting a big check they don't deserve. Why not get more bang for the bucks?
 
2008-09-24 11:43:59 PM
Commie Nazi Terrorist: If I knew George Bush was going to push this bailout plan 8 years in advance, I would have voted for Al Gore and John Kerry instead. What ever happened to real, fiscal conservatism?

I wish John McCain won the nomination back in 2000 so that we would never be in Iraq and have stock market crashes caused by corrupt financial institutions.


What you will inevitably realize, either by age or awareness, is that there are 2 things, as Americans, we should ask of our President.

1) Keep us out of war, unless we have attackers on our shores.

2) At the very least, keep our economy afloat and as an expected job accomplishment, have it prosper.
 
2008-09-24 11:49:11 PM
nicion: cthu1hu: 5k would buy a nice guitar.

Scary - looks almost exactly like mine... 1960 reissue classic premium plus - mine's tobacco sunburst though. I find it very very hard to believe that it would go for much more than $1k though...


Yeah, it's a 1960 style classic, retail about $2,100. 5k could certainly buy a better LP, but this one has everything I want.
 
2008-09-24 11:52:21 PM
Personally, since I know for a fact zombies thrive on urban decay and decrepit structures, I believe we should focus our ENTIRE 700 billion instead on viral research and shotgun shells.
 
2008-09-24 11:53:41 PM
This situation is both complex and simple. I don't have a dog in this fight -- I win either way. Let me weigh in anyway, and then I'll explain how I got lucky this time.

Against: They're robbing Fort Knox 100 times over. The proposition is not just to raid the treasury of the US, but to borrow against the earnings of our children to finance the burglars. I don't approve. I also don't approve of the opponents in Congress, who are playing this for political gain. Not one of the people who are going to decide this could possibly be hurt by the outcome of their decision, and not one is innocent of causing the problem. I'm not a Ron Paul fan, but Jimminy is he making sense lately!

If our 12% approval congress and our 20% approval president pull this off, we've only ourselves to blame for giving them the authority to do it. As others have noted, the measure is popular to the tune of 8%, which is as close to unanimous as a democracy can probably get. If we held a referendum on the issue the answer would be a resounding "Fark no!" but our elected representatives will probably usurp the will of people and probably pass this thing.

Any form of federal spending is taking money from one group and giving it to another. Spending that isn't offset by taxes is borrowed against the productivity of our children. Federal spending is by its nature unfair -- some of the taxed will be unable to pay; some will have better uses for the money. We should tax with caution that we not overburden the least able and cripple our ability to grow.

For: Doing this will enable the continued financing of the American Dream for a lot of people who could not otherwise afford it. These banks and lenders, given the heaps of cash provided, will continue to lend money to people who otherwise could not afford it -- perhaps even enabling your own children to get a hunk of land with a home and a mortgage. Retirement funds will not collapse.

All of that withstanding, the sky is not falling.

If it passes, inflation will rise. If inflation rises a lot because we blow a bunch of money on a bailout, your income if you are productive will rise too. Employment will grow as there is yet another boom in housing construction. Homes will continue to cost what people are able to pay because -- get this -- that's the price that homes are set at. Is that not a shock? Even in Zimbabwe when inflation was over a million percent, some people still continued to build and buy homes. If your retirement fund takes a big bump because the bailout saved it for a while, your home payments will stay the same if you weren't retarded and got your loan at a variable rate. You'll be fine. Mortgage lenders will find a way to lend money for mortgages to people who want to own homes, because they have nothing better to do with their money than invest it in the productivity of people who are motivated to better themselves and provide good housing for their families.

If it's not passed, there will be a brief period where things shake out. Probably a year or three. You'll still go to work at the same job (unless you sell securities or something else directly related). Your income will reflect the inflation of the day. If you have some cash to exploit the distressed opportunities you could join the wealthy. The rest of the world is in the same shape and for the same reason, so the buck shouldn't take too big of a hit. Some people, like the people who build houses that aren't yet needed will take a pretty big hit. If you machine widgets or type letters for a small business you should be ok.

One way or another, it's not Mad Max time. It's going to be ok. This is just another bump in the world economy that most people don't need to get to worked up about.

Now the overtelling part about me.... I have a fixed rate mortgage that's half paid off and an insignificant retirement fund, and a good job. I'm middling age. I also have a plan B, and a plan C. If we get runaway inflation, I get to pay my mortgage and other debt with shrinkybucks and my little mutual fund nest egg goes away - Ultimately, my house payment becomes lunch money. If we get market meltdown, I get to use my available cash and credit to snatch up some sweet distressed properties. I lose some paper equity -- but that's ok because the last decade has been very good to my equity and I can afford to lose about 70%, which is far more than is going to happen.

So there. Change is when the opportunities happen. Be ready for whichever way the ball might bounce and you can dodge it, or better yet, catch it. Take care of you and yours, and let's meet in 17 years when we do this yet again.
 
2008-09-24 11:53:53 PM
40 million hours with spitzers girl...
 
2008-09-24 11:58:30 PM
Student loans largely amount to being in hock to the government for years in the hope that the worthless piece of paper you went to school to get will actually get you a job. Most people I know with student loans are saddled with seemingly endless debt, and crappy jobs that don't make that debt worth it.

Degrees are only as worthless as you make them. Doctors, dentists, engineers, MBAs, and all kinds of other people who have degrees with real value all usually trail a bunch of student loans. Nearly all of my friends with degrees have student loans, and that goes for the both the ones who make under 20k and those who made over 60k right out of school. Don't tell me that guy making 60k would have been better off without those student loans. Even after them he's easily taking home double what he would have.

The fact is, unless you have special talent in a couple of fields that don't require formal education, you are straight up screwed without a degree of some sort.

Oh, and a lot of those people who succeed without a formal education? Small business owners. What do small business owners frequently need to start? Loans.

I have owned many cars, none of them bought new and only one bought on credit. After the trouble I had paying that one off, I went back to buying used with what money was available. It's not always easy, but it can be done.

I don't have a car loan either, but if everyone bought old reliable cars and drove them around (as you likely do and I definitely do), they'd probably be worth so much we couldn't do it anymore.

I am still renting, as are most people my age that I know. The existence of credit doesn't make buying a home any more affordable for us. Instead, it offers people illusions that all too many get caught up in before discovering that just because someone in a suit tells them they can afford something doesn't mean they can. So they wind up horribly in debt, with an illusion of class mobility, until that debt starts to swallow them, and they either take a step down the class ladder, or they deny the truth until they are forced to hit bottom.

First of all, if everyone rents, the cost of renting goes up.

Secondly, most of the people I know with house loans are doing fine. Just because some idiots buy houses they can't afford doesn't mean everyone does. There is a substantial financial zone in which people can reliably afford house payments but would still take 20 years or so to save up enough money to buy one, especially since they'd also have to be paying rent during that time.

Look, I don't have a house loan, a car loan, or student loans (I had scholarships and parental help for that) but I acknowledge the usefulness of such things. Just because some people are morons with credit (both creditors and lenders, as we clearly can see) doesn't mean it's not a useful resource that should be at least considered.
 
2008-09-25 12:02:41 AM
Ace Attorney: alostpacket: Ace Attorney: When the stock market crashed, Franklin Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the princes of greed. He said, 'look, here's what happened.

There are newsreels recorded of him speaking in 1929.

Are you really whining over accidentally calling newsreels television?

Im whining about the fact that ROOSEVELT WASN'T THE FARKING PRESIDENT WHEN THE MARKET CRASHED

DOES THIS MAN LOOK FAMILIAR TO YOU??


This. Hoover was the president at the crash. Ultimately, Biden's point is still valid even though he is wrong about the facts.

Wow, I think I need to start working as a press secretary. That statement makes sense, but it sure seems farked up.

/I feel weird.
 
2008-09-25 12:06:26 AM
Here's my letter:

Dear CitizenTed's Representative;

I am writing regarding Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's proposed legislation to bail out recently failed financial institutions. I urge you to condemn this legislation and refuse any bill providing relief in any amount. If Secretary Paulson is correct and the subsequent failures result in "economic turmoil", we Americans are ready to face the turmoil. Our national character proclaims our resiliency and our determination in the face of difficult odds. You can rest assured that your constituency has these qualities. A casual survey of friends and co-workers shows us to be united and resolute: we'll take the hit. Do NOT bail out these irresponsible criminals. We have put up with a trillion-dollar unnecessary war and a squandering of our national surplus. We are finished with federal mismanagement on a tragic scale. Do something brave. We will back you up, even if it means a long period of sacrifice and hard times. Really.

Signed,

CitizenTed
 
2008-09-25 12:12:12 AM
tonguedepressor: What you will inevitably realize, either by age or awareness, is that there are 2 things, as Americans, we should ask of our President.

1) Keep us out of war, unless we have attackers on our shores.

2) At the very least, keep our economy afloat and as an expected job accomplishment, have it prosper.


The chimp did not understand his job description....
 
2008-09-25 12:16:37 AM
symbolset: This situation is both complex and simple. I don't have a dog in this fight -- I win either way. Let me weigh in anyway, and then I'll explain how I got lucky this time.

Against: They're robbing Fort Knox 100 times over. The proposition is not just to raid the treasury of the US, but to borrow against the earnings of our children to finance the burglars. I don't approve. I also don't approve of the opponents in Congress, who are playing this for political gain. Not one of the people who are going to decide this could possibly be hurt by the outcome of their decision, and not one is innocent of causing the problem. I'm not a Ron Paul fan, but Jimminy is he making sense lately!

If our 12% approval congress and our 20% approval president pull this off, we've only ourselves to blame for giving them the authority to do it. As others have noted, the measure is popular to the tune of 8%, which is as close to unanimous as a democracy can probably get. If we held a referendum on the issue the answer would be a resounding "Fark no!" but our elected representatives will probably usurp the will of people and probably pass this thing.

Any form of federal spending is taking money from one group and giving it to another. Spending that isn't offset by taxes is borrowed against the productivity of our children. Federal spending is by its nature unfair -- some of the taxed will be unable to pay; some will have better uses for the money. We should tax with caution that we not overburden the least able and cripple our ability to grow.

For: Doing this will enable the continued financing of the American Dream for a lot of people who could not otherwise afford it. These banks and lenders, given the heaps of cash provided, will continue to lend money to people who otherwise could not afford it -- perhaps even enabling your own children to get a hunk of land with a home and a mortgage. Retirement funds will not collapse.

All of that withstanding, the sky is not falling.

If it passes, inflation will rise. If inflation rises a lot because we blow a bunch of money on a bailout, your income if you are productive will rise too. Employment will grow as there is yet another boom in housing construction. Homes will continue to cost what people are able to pay because -- get this -- that's the price that homes are set at. Is that not a shock? Even in Zimbabwe when inflation was over a million percent, some people still continued to build and buy homes. If your retirement fund takes a big bump because the bailout saved it for a while, your home payments will stay the same if you weren't retarded and got your loan at a variable rate. You'll be fine. Mortgage lenders will find a way to lend money for mortgages to people who want to own homes, because they have nothing better to do with their money than invest it in the productivity of people who are motivated to better themselves and provide good housing for their families.

If it's not passed, there will be a brief period where things shake out. Probably a year or three. You'll still go to work at the same job (unless you sell securities or something else directly related). Your income will reflect the inflation of the day. If you have some cash to exploit the distressed opportunities you could join the wealthy. The rest of the world is in the same shape and for the same reason, so the buck shouldn't take too big of a hit. Some people, like the people who build houses that aren't yet needed will take a pretty big hit. If you machine widgets or type letters for a small business you should be ok.

One way or another, it's not Mad Max time. It's going to be ok. This is just another bump in the world economy that most people don't need to get to worked up about.

Now the overtelling part about me.... I have a fixed rate mortgage that's half paid off and an insignificant retirement fund, and a good job. I'm middling age. I also have a plan B, and a plan C. If we get runaway inflation, I get to pay my mortgage and other debt with shrinkybucks and my little mutual fund nest egg goes away - Ultimately, my h ...


That was about as a comprehensive a report in understandable terms that I could ever expect.

You just became my first Fark favorite user.

Bravo to you,

It didn't hurt your status that financially we are identical, but you are one smart shiat and I like your style.
 
2008-09-25 12:32:05 AM
I have to say that tonguedepressor put my thoughts (and more) down more succinctly and clearly than I could ever hope to do.

Incredible.
 
2008-09-25 12:34:45 AM
$5000
- $250 pump shotgun and ammunition
- $150 surplus east bloc bolt action plus 40 rounds
- $250 .22 varmint rifle plus a few thousand rounds
- $150 2 weeks canned food, ready to eat for 3 people
- $200 vitamins, razorblades, fish-hooks, tradegoods
- $250 CPR/First Aid certification, first aid equipment
- $250 garden equipment, seeds, mulching equipment
- $250 adult ed post apocalyptic skills class plus supplies (eg shoemaking: chisels, straps, heavy thread, gear for ture cutting and leatherwork)
- $250 solar rechargeable batteries, LED headlamps, small radios, etc
-$1500 older diesel car, 12v inverter, spare battery
- $500 100 gallons diesel, oil, barrel
-$1000 wheat, powdered milk, honey, salt
------
$0

Plan will work better if you don't live in a city. Best in a small town greater than 60 miles from a medium-sized city, over a hundred from a bigger one.

Get a heavy hibachi and learn how to make briquettes. Wear sweaters and watchcaps indoors for the winter.
 
2008-09-25 12:41:05 AM
We don't need no bailout, let the motherfarker burn!
 
2008-09-25 12:41:25 AM
Since when does the government use tax money to cover people's bad bets?

You think that if the banks had scored big, they'd have kicked a trillion into our treasury?

No.

These well-advised dickwads knew what they were doing. I say let them hang at the end of their own rope.

I'll take my chances with the banks not lending me any money. I'm not shopping for a loan anyway. Something about "not spending money you don't have", and other crazy ideas.
 
2008-09-25 12:43:09 AM
hershmire: I agree that pumping $700 billion into failed financial companies is a huge mistake on many levels. Since the Fed will just be creating the money out of thin air, spending the same amount on something else is still stupid since it will raise inflation, decreasing the value of your current savings and income. Still sound like a good idea to invest that in solar panels in the southwest?

Came in here with the hope that people realize this. Leaves satisfied.
 
2008-09-25 12:50:23 AM
I wonder how much 700 billion could buy in terms of practical electric vehicle technology, better batteries, or affordable solar or wind chargers so the new cars don't sap the current grid (already overused) too hard? Getting off foreign oil would be kind of cool, right? How about health care for people? Or giving it to schools?

Oh forget it, let's give it all to wall street fat cats who got their tails under the rocking chair.

Who cares if 1) by their own free will they made a bet and 2) they lost that bet?

Lots of poor ordinary schmoes bet on wall street and lose all the time. Do we actually have a LAW that says the house can't lose?

Whatever. Thanks Bush, another disaster on your watch. What is this, like number 4 now? 9/11, Iraq, Katrina, now the mortgage collapse? Eight years, 4 disasters.
 
2008-09-25 12:54:13 AM
tonguedepressor: symbolset: This situation is both complex and simple. I don't have a dog in this fight -- I win either way. Let me weigh in anyway, and then I'll explain how I got lucky this time.

Against: They're robbing Fort Knox 100 times over. The proposition is not just to raid the treasury of the US, but to borrow against the earnings of our children to finance the burglars. I don't approve. I also don't approve of the opponents in Congress, who are playing this for political gain. Not one of the people who are going to decide this could possibly be hurt by the outcome of their decision, and not one is innocent of causing the problem. I'm not a Ron Paul fan, but Jimminy is he making sense lately!

If our 12% approval congress and our 20% approval president pull this off, we've only ourselves to blame for giving them the authority to do it. As others have noted, the measure is popular to the tune of 8%, which is as close to unanimous as a democracy can probably get. If we held a referendum on the issue the answer would be a resounding "Fark no!" but our elected representatives will probably usurp the will of people and probably pass this thing.

Any form of federal spending is taking money from one group and giving it to another. Spending that isn't offset by taxes is borrowed against the productivity of our children. Federal spending is by its nature unfair -- some of the taxed will be unable to pay; some will have better uses for the money. We should tax with caution that we not overburden the least able and cripple our ability to grow.

For: Doing this will enable the continued financing of the American Dream for a lot of people who could not otherwise afford it. These banks and lenders, given the heaps of cash provided, will continue to lend money to people who otherwise could not afford it -- perhaps even enabling your own children to get a hunk of land with a home and a mortgage. Retirement funds will not collapse.

All of that withstanding, the sky is not falling.

If it passes, inflation will rise. If inflation rises a lot because we blow a bunch of money on a bailout, your income if you are productive will rise too. Employment will grow as there is yet another boom in housing construction. Homes will continue to cost what people are able to pay because -- get this -- that's the price that homes are set at. Is that not a shock? Even in Zimbabwe when inflation was over a million percent, some people still continued to build and buy homes. If your retirement fund takes a big bump because the bailout saved it for a while, your home payments will stay the same if you weren't retarded and got your loan at a variable rate. You'll be fine. Mortgage lenders will find a way to lend money for mortgages to people who want to own homes, because they have nothing better to do with their money than invest it in the productivity of people who are motivated to better themselves and provide good housing for their families.

If it's not passed, there will be a brief period where things shake out. Probably a year or three. You'll still go to work at the same job (unless you sell securities or something else directly related). Your income will reflect the inflation of the day. If you have some cash to exploit the distressed opportunities you could join the wealthy. The rest of the world is in the same shape and for the same reason, so the buck shouldn't take too big of a hit. Some people, like the people who build houses that aren't yet needed will take a pretty big hit. If you machine widgets or type letters for a small business you should be ok.

One way or another, it's not Mad Max time. It's going to be ok. This is just another bump in the world economy that most people don't need to get to worked up about.

Now the overtelling part about me.... I have a fixed rate mortgage that's half paid off and an insignificant retirement fund, and a good job. I'm middling age. I also have a plan B, and a plan C. If we get runaway inflation, I get to pay my mortgage and other debt with shrinkybucks and my little mutual fund nest egg ...


/agree with both of you (thanks for the insight)
//looking to buy my first house
///nervous but anxious
////slashies ftw!
 
2008-09-25 12:58:06 AM
Mitrovarr:
Look, I don't have a house loan, a car loan, or student loans (I had scholarships and parental help for that) but I acknowledge the usefulness of such things. Just because some people are morons with credit (both creditors and lenders, as we clearly can see) doesn't mean it's not a useful resource that should be at least considered.

Considering credit as a resource is vastly different from believing it to be indispensable, and saddling yourself, your neighbors, and future progeny with a grossly ballooning tax burden. Reducing our taxes would do far more to make things like education, transportation, and housing available to all, instead of just to the financially irresponsible.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: We've gone far beyond tea taxes, people.
 
2008-09-25 01:02:24 AM
My plan is simply this:

Each taxpayer will commit $5,000 toward the relief, raising the $700 billion. This will calm the markets. However, rather than send that money to the wall street criminals and traitors or to the home speculators, each taxpayer would be entrusted with that $5,000 instead of sending it to the treasury.

This means the money will begin immediately to circulate in the economy instead of having to be collected and distributed by the federal government, meaning the plan is speedy with minimal oversight. Also, the plan allows individual taxpayers to use that money in their local economy thereby supporting businesses, or making payments toward houses, or whatever.

Because of the emergency nature of the situation, 40% of each taxpayer's income will be considered committed toward this $5,000 until the taxpayer has committed the full $5,000.

Thank you, my fellow Americans.
 
2008-09-25 01:02:37 AM
Alcatraz Prison in the guard room.

grumpkins.com
 
2008-09-25 01:04:18 AM
Sigh. I can tell I need to head to bed when I can't get quotations right...

Let's try this again:

Mitrovarr:

Look, I don't have a house loan, a car loan, or student loans (I had scholarships and parental help for that) but I acknowledge the usefulness of such things. Just because some people are morons with credit (both creditors and lenders, as we clearly can see) doesn't mean it's not a useful resource that should be at least considered.


Considering credit as a resource is vastly different from believing it to be indispensable, and saddling yourself, your neighbors, and future progeny with a grossly ballooning tax burden. Reducing our taxes would do far more to make things like education, transportation, and housing available to all, instead of just to the financially irresponsible.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: We've gone far beyond tea taxes, people.

/Just call me OCD...
 
2008-09-25 01:06:24 AM
Why bailout? As of last year:

The value of the US Treasuries market: $4.5 trillion.
The value of the entire mortgage market: $7 trillion.
The size of the US stock market: $22 trillion.
The size of the credit default swap market? Last year?

$45 trillion.



3 times the the whole US GDP.

An unregulated market. By now, probably closer to $70 trillion.

Let it fall? All the money in the world could not save us. Literally.

Unregulated, right-wing capitalism got us into this. How is 700 billion unregulated US taxpayers' dollars going to get us out?
 
2008-09-25 01:09:05 AM
derekste: strangely absent: a pile of cocaine the size of Mt. Everest

your newsletter, send it to me.
 
2008-09-25 01:11:35 AM
Xionicist: Reducing our taxes would do far more to make things like education, transportation, and housing available to all, instead of just to the financially irresponsible.

I completely agree but just in case none of the liberals get the message, please explain to them in detail how lower taxes will make education, transportation, and housing more widely available. Don't forget to include real-life examples.
 
2008-09-25 01:12:11 AM
rodeofrog: $5,000? Wow. That's exactly how much I need for a down payment on a great big house. I'm already approved for a great adjustable rate . . .


you have captured us perfectly.


one internet for you!!!
 
2008-09-25 01:22:18 AM
Wow! I hadn't actually looked at the bailout from that perspective. I'd like to have another five grand.

The problem with this cunning plan is that the economy would probably still go to crap and I'd be left taking my cash in a wheel barrel to the grocery store.... picturing the collapse of the USSR.

/I'll have another beer and think happy thoughts.
//What's that? Someone has Kool Aid?
 
2008-09-25 01:27:21 AM
tonguedepressor: You just became my first Fark favorite user.

You should probably reconsider that. I'm usually not this insightful.

 
2008-09-25 01:30:50 AM
Let the bastards keep their high risk debt. For all the talk of how the government will recover the money when it's paid off, I don't see a lot of other people buying the debts. Hmmm, makes you wonder...

Would not bailing them out really be worse for the average taxpayer than paying $5k more each in taxes running up $700b more in national debt, which will compound much higher, to have a chance of them not going under?
 
2008-09-25 01:34:42 AM
panzerfaustbob: "These two entities-Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

"The fundamentals of our economy are strong." John McCain (R) 09/16/2008.
 
2008-09-25 01:39:36 AM
Here's one for ya. The World Trade Centers were built for $400 Million each in 1972 and 1973. That's approx $1.5 Billion in today's dollars. So, let's break out the bulldozers and start building. Let's see... that's $700 Billion / $1.5 Billion = 466.66666 World Trade Centers.
 
2008-09-25 01:46:58 AM
emdub: //looking to buy my first house

As Americans we're preconditioned to accept that the price is the price, the rate is the rate, this is the best deal you can get so do it now. The truth is far different. "This is a great deal" is an invitation to dicker, not an exclusion of it.

There is a good price. Wait for it, and negotiate hard. That's the best advice I can offer. Some distressed homes are going for $2k or less these days. Pay yourself is the best advice I can offer here. Don't put a $20,000 down on a $400,000 house if you can stand on the courthouse steps and buy the neighbor's house for $20,000. The person who did that deal is only going to push your nose in it at HOA meetings.

The same is true with interest rates. Shop around. Wait. Your credit isn't going to get worse from finding the best deal you can get.

The best rule for negotiating is: if you can't get the deal you want, walk away -- there will be a better deal.

If you are buying an X, and you spend three days negotiating the price of X to the benefit of $10,000 in price, then you have earned $3,333 per day. That's good money when you're negotiating it and far better money when you're earning it with your sweat.

 
2008-09-25 01:57:49 AM
Okay, wanted to add my 2 cents (and hopefully not my 5k).

I was watching CSPAN and the Congress Financial subcommittee was meeting with Bernanke (Fed. Res. Chairman) and Paulson (Treasury Secretary). Lot's of heated debate, and I was honestly impressed by our Congressmen/women. They are genuinely concerned about the power-grab being performed by the government.

That said, there are a few issues about this bailout that seriously trouble me.

We are about to give the Treasury Secretary a blank check (with an upper limit of $700 billion, which I verified through CSPAN encompasses all of the transactions... there would not be authority for multiple $700b transactions) with no regulations, oversight, or checks/balances. He wants the authority to give that money to whoever he wants.

I would love the T.S. to tell us how much of this bad debt he personally owns. Could he theoretically purchase his shiatty debt with our money and cash out at our expense? A resounding YES.

How many friends does he have on Wall Street who are rubbing their hands together waiting for their payday from this? How many big pocket investors are whispering in his ear to hand them some dough? It's absolutely sickening...

These "investors" (and I know a lot of ordinary joes and janes hold some of these equities through mutual funds, etc..., but face it: the people getting refunds here will mainly be powerful business people) are going to get their money back from their bad decision. That's not America. That's not even remotely capitalistic. These people are not children.

I hold a Bachelor's Degree in Accounting and am currently pursuing my CPA while working as an external auditor. It's my job to look for fraud. But you know what? You don't need an accounting degree to see fraud. You don't need to be a CPA to detect fraud. Just open your eyes America (and I know 92% of us see this baloney for what it is). These people are taking OUR money and handing us worthless paper. Worthless papers (the derivatives) that were already trash when they bought it (which they likely knew at the time).

We're dealing with one of the biggest attempted heists in the history of finance.

Oh, and Congress/Fed. Res./Treasury realizes the inflationary effect that printing this $700b would have. They stated they are going to borrow internationally. HOORAY CHINA-OVERLORDS!

Hrm... do I have more to rant about? If anyone is still reading I promise I'm almost done.

Would the Treasury Secretary buy these securities himself? Today? If he had $700 billion would he risk his entire net worth to 'save' the market? I think the answer would be no. Why should the rest of America be FORCED to take on this burden?

Bullied into this through fear-mongering and chicken-littling just like so many times in the past... It's a tactic our government knows will work in today's fast-paced, media-driven country.

I say let whatever happens happen.

"But a depression will happen!"

It's going to happen anyways, what with the general trend the market has been taking for the last few years. Giving $700 billion dollars to the people that caused this problem (well, 1/2 of the people... don't forget the ignorant borrowers) will not fix anything. If they are as dumb as we are expected to believe (they need refunds amiright?) they will just buy more worthless debt. Or even worse they will spend it on Chinese investments or simply sit on it and die in 2010 (when there will be no estate tax until 2011).

/Treasury Secretary refused to say anything about limiting executive compensation following this bailout. If it happens look for HUGE paydays to the executives at the companies receiving our money, with kickbacks to that weasly bald bastard the T.S. himself.

//Wow I bet I read this tomorrow and feel like an idiot

///If this happens there will be a march on Washington in the near future, mark my words. I think we'd have to drop by Wall Street also, just to make sure the real owners of the country get the message.

////Seriously, I promise I'm not high.
 
2008-09-25 02:03:32 AM
How about the government in return for the bailout gets a certain percentage of these firms profits until A) the bailout is paid back and b) everyone in America has affordable/reliable healthcare insurance. Healthcare costs are now the number one source for personal bankruptcy. If we can bailout the banks we can bailout average joe American with decent affordable healthcare. And don't dare go there with the big government bullshiat because thanks to this bailout thing we are all socialists now.
 
2008-09-25 03:18:55 AM
Consider that every American might have an additional $5k in their wealth were it not for this con-game waged by Wall Street.

We are all in bed together.
 
2008-09-25 04:38:43 AM
Tha author thinks the gov can sell the junk bonds and make a lot of the money back? The problem is that they are junk bonds, many of which have already failed due to foreclosure, with a total loss on the investment. So, no, someone is already living at the house that those bonds were supposed to be paid with. Its just 700 billion dollars worth of toiled paper. Again, until someone comes up with a real reason, other than a talking point about why this is "bad" for everyone, forget about it douche bags. Oh, and that credibility thingy is not helping either. This is one of the big reasons why McPancakes is gaining some credit with me recently, being against the bailout.
 
2008-09-25 05:06:12 AM
cheesehorn: Alcatraz Prison in the guard room.

Wrong thread?
 
2008-09-25 06:10:47 AM
Bobbinsworth: From Ron Paul's Congressional Campaign e-mailing today:

"Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.

The events of the past week are no exception.

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."

That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

• The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.

• Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.

• Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.

There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh.

Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?

When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?

Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.

In liberty,

Ron Paul"


Tell the world again why you Americans are debating between voting for two empty suits instead of voting for this guy?
 
2008-09-25 06:33:05 AM
oh_noes111: $5000
- $250 pump shotgun and ammunition
- $150 surplus east bloc bolt action plus 40 rounds
- $250 .22 varmint rifle plus a few thousand rounds
- $150 2 weeks canned food, ready to eat for 3 people
- $200 vitamins, razorblades, fish-hooks, tradegoods
- $250 CPR/First Aid certification, first aid equipment
- $250 garden equipment, seeds, mulching equipment
- $250 adult ed post apocalyptic skills class plus supplies (eg shoemaking: chisels, straps, heavy thread, gear for ture cutting and leatherwork)
- $250 solar rechargeable batteries, LED headlamps, small radios, etc
-$1500 older diesel car, 12v inverter, spare battery
- $500 100 gallons diesel, oil, barrel
-$1000 wheat, powdered milk, honey, salt
------
$0

Plan will work better if you don't live in a city. Best in a small town greater than 60 miles from a medium-sized city, over a hundred from a bigger one.

Get a heavy hibachi and learn how to make briquettes. Wear sweaters and watchcaps indoors for the winter.


you forgot this...
www.natvanbooks.com

survivalists are funny.
 
2008-09-25 06:38:24 AM
5k would pay off my most of my depts. (school and medical) and still leave enough for a small down payment on a new car or a decent motorcycle.
 
2008-09-25 07:01:57 AM
Xenomech: Bobbinsworth: From Ron Paul's Congressional Campaign e-mailing today:

"Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.

The events of the past week are no exception.

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."

That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

• The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.

• Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.

• Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.

There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh.

Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?

When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?

Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.

In liberty,

Ron Paul"


Tell the world again why you Americans are debating between voting for two empty suits instead of voting for this guy?


because he has a pedo-smile
 
2008-09-25 08:24:25 AM
Barakku: It's exactly like the walmart south park...fight to prevent one big company, and, since that market still exists, that need still exists, it'll just be replaced. You're just farking a lot of people out of a lot of time and money.

They farked themselves out of a lot of money -- and now they want us to make it all better.

My point was exactly that: other firms will rise to replace them. It may take decades, but I disagree that we will be weaker for it in the long run; I believe rewarding bad financial decisions by cushioning the blow of the repercussions of those decisions interferes with the order of "natural selection" in the markets, and breeds weakness by its very design.
 
2008-09-25 08:43:12 AM
Does anyone remember when they were in elementary school and some kid raised his hand and asked the teacher if the government could just print more money and give it to all the poor people???
 
2008-09-25 08:52:57 AM
www.englandforobama.com
 
2008-09-25 09:40:23 AM
Xenomech: Bobbinsworth: From Ron Paul's Congressional Campaign e-mailing today:

"Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Dear Friends,

Whenever a Great Bipartisan Consensus is announced, and a compliant media assures everyone that the wondrous actions of our wise leaders are being taken for our own good, you can know with absolute certainty that disaster is about to strike.

The events of the past week are no exception.

The bailout package that is about to be rammed down Congress' throat is not just economically foolish. It is downright sinister. It makes a mockery of our Constitution, which our leaders should never again bother pretending is still in effect. It promises the American people a never-ending nightmare of ever-greater debt liabilities they will have to shoulder. Two weeks ago, financial analyst Jim Rogers said the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made America more communist than China! "This is welfare for the rich," he said. "This is socialism for the rich. It's bailing out the financiers, the banks, the Wall Streeters."

That describes the current bailout package to a T. And we're being told it's unavoidable.

The claim that the market caused all this is so staggeringly foolish that only politicians and the media could pretend to believe it. But that has become the conventional wisdom, with the desired result that those responsible for the credit bubble and its predictable consequences - predictable, that is, to those who understand sound, Austrian economics - are being let off the hook. The Federal Reserve System is actually positioning itself as the savior, rather than the culprit, in this mess!

• The Treasury Secretary is authorized to purchase up to $700 billion in mortgage-related assets at any one time. That means $700 billion is only the very beginning of what will hit us.

• Financial institutions are "designated as financial agents of the Government." This is the New Deal to end all New Deals.

• Then there's this: "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency." Translation: the Secretary can buy up whatever junk debt he wants to, burden the American people with it, and be subject to no one in the process.

There goes your country.

Even some so-called free-market economists are calling all this "sadly necessary." Sad, yes. Necessary? Don't make me laugh.

Our one-party system is complicit in yet another crime against the American people. The two major party candidates for president themselves initially indicated their strong support for bailouts of this kind - another example of the big choice we're supposedly presented with this November: yes or yes. Now, with a backlash brewing, they're not quite sure what their views are. A sad display, really.

Although the present bailout package is almost certainly not the end of the political atrocities we'll witness in connection with the crisis, time is short. Congress may vote as soon as tomorrow. With a Rasmussen poll finding support for the bailout at an anemic seven percent, some members of Congress are afraid to vote for it. Call them! Let them hear from you! Tell them you will never vote for anyone who supports this atrocity.

The issue boils down to this: do we care about freedom? Do we care about responsibility and accountability? Do we care that our government and media have been bought and paid for? Do we care that average Americans are about to be looted in order to subsidize the fattest of cats on Wall Street and in government? Do we care?

When the chips are down, will we stand up and fight, even if it means standing up against every stripe of fashionable opinion in politics and the media?

Times like these have a way of telling us what kind of a people we are, and what kind of country we shall be.

In liberty,

Ron Paul"
www.threadbombing.com

Tell the world again why you Americans are debating between voting for two empty suits instead of voting for this guy?




www.threadbombing.com
 
2008-09-25 09:49:43 AM
numberonenoob: Okay, wanted to add my 2 cents (and hopefully not my 5k).

I was watching CSPAN and the Congress Financial subcommittee was meeting with Bernanke (Fed. Res. Chairman) and Paulson (Treasury Secretary). Lot's of heated debate, and I was honestly impressed by our Congressmen/women. They are genuinely concerned about the power-grab being performed by the government.

That said, there are a few issues about this bailout that seriously trouble me.

We are about to give the Treasury Secretary a blank check (with an upper limit of $700 billion, which I verified through CSPAN encompasses all of the transactions... there would not be authority for multiple $700b transactions) with no regulations, oversight, or checks/balances. He wants the authority to give that money to whoever he wants.

I would love the T.S. to tell us how much of this bad debt he personally owns. Could he theoretically purchase his shiatty debt with our money and cash out at our expense? A resounding YES.

How many friends does he have on Wall Street who are rubbing their hands together waiting for their payday from this? How many big pocket investors are whispering in his ear to hand them some dough? It's absolutely sickening...

These "investors" (and I know a lot of ordinary joes and janes hold some of these equities through mutual funds, etc..., but face it: the people getting refunds here will mainly be powerful business people) are going to get their money back from their bad decision. That's not America. That's not even remotely capitalistic. These people are not children.

I hold a Bachelor's Degree in Accounting and am currently pursuing my CPA while working as an external auditor. It's my job to look for fraud. But you know what? You don't need an accounting degree to see fraud. You don't need to be a CPA to detect fraud. Just open your eyes America (and I know 92% of us see this baloney for what it is). These people are taking OUR money and handing us worthless paper. Worthless papers (the derivatives) that were already trash when they bought it (which they likely knew at the time).

We're dealing with one of the biggest attempted heists in the history of finance.

Oh, and Congress/Fed. Res./Treasury realizes the inflationary effect that printing this $700b would have. They stated they are going to borrow internationally. HOORAY CHINA-OVERLORDS!

Hrm... do I have more to rant about? If anyone is still reading I promise I'm almost done.

Would the Treasury Secretary buy these securities himself? Today? If he had $700 billion would he risk his entire net worth to 'save' the market? I think the answer would be no. Why should the rest of America be FORCED to take on this burden?

Bullied into this through fear-mongering and chicken-littling just like so many times in the past... It's a tactic our government knows will work in today's fast-paced, media-driven country.

I say let whatever happens happen.

"But a depression will happen!"

It's going to happen anyways, what with the general trend the market has been taking for the last few years. Giving $700 billion dollars to the people that caused this problem (well, 1/2 of the people... don't forget the ignorant borrowers) will not fix anything. If they are as dumb as we are expected to believe (they need refunds amiright?) they will just buy more worthless debt. Or even worse they will spend it on Chinese investments or simply sit on it and die in 2010 (when there will be no estate tax until 2011).

/Treasury Secretary refused to say anything about limiting executive compensation following this bailout. If it happens look for HUGE paydays to the executives at the companies receiving our money, with kickbacks to that weasly bald bastard the T.S. himself.

//Wow I bet I read this tomorrow and feel like an idiot

///If this happens there will be a march on Washington in the near future, mark my words. I think we'd have to drop by Wall Street also, just to make sure the real owners of the country get the message.

////Seriously, I promise I'm not high.


I'm gonna get that way real soon.

Why is this a foregone conclusion that we are going to do the bail???
Decider again?? HELL NO!!

Back that bus up. We need to throw a few politicians under it to get up to ramming speed.
 
2008-09-25 09:56:01 AM
All this "OMG! We must act now or there'll be a financial disaster!! Hand over the $700 billion quick!" sounds too much like the rhetoric we got with the Iraq war. We had to act right away because those dastardly Iraqis were going to nuke us in our slept.

We do I get they feeling there's some not-so-secret cabal of Bush associates laughing their asses off at us?
 
2008-09-25 09:56:34 AM
I never, ever ever want to hear another conservative complain about the $30 billion or so we spend on welfare.

If it's expedient to bail out the banks to prevent financial catastrophe then it makes sense to give people a basic subsistance so they don't riot and loot the hell out of our cities and towns.
 
2008-09-25 10:03:28 AM
CMetzger42: Why bailout? As of last year:

The value of the US Treasuries market: $4.5 trillion.
The value of the entire mortgage market: $7 trillion.
The size of the US stock market: $22 trillion.
The size of the credit default swap market? Last year?

$45 trillion.



3 times the the whole US GDP.

An unregulated market. By now, probably closer to $70 trillion.

Let it fall? All the money in the world could not save us. Literally.

Unregulated, right-wing capitalism got us into this. How is 700 billion unregulated US taxpayers' dollars going to get us out?


Not really, the sub prime mess was caused by Jimmy Carter and Janet Reno. It was made worse by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
 
Displayed 50 of 270 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report