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.

(BBC)   Congress has reached an agreement regarding the outline of the bailout deal. If you live in the US and pay taxes, grab your ankles   (news.bbc.co.uk) divider line 1002
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

15085 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Sep 2008 at 1:43 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1002 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-09-25 03:18:00 PM  
Bari: Let them fail.

If the US economy fails, the entire WORLD economy fails.


But the US economy isn't failing. 90% of stocks are fine, its just the financial companies that are hurting. Microsoft's stock will be fine, most manufacturing, etc etc will be fine. The stock crash of 29 was across the board because ALL stocks were playing a pyramid scheme and were WAY over valued. This simply isn't the same thing, yes some people may lose their retirement, but that can be dealt with. We went through bank failures in the past with the S&L crisis as well as most of the 70s. The ones saying this will be the next depression are looking for a handout.
 
2008-09-25 03:18:13 PM  
libbynomore2: Obama was indeed able to collect more than 100K in kick backs from Fannie Mae, more than almost any politician since 1998 (new window)

Aren't you one of those butterheads who scoffs mightily at links from dailyKOS?

opensecrets.org?

Guess what?
 
2008-09-25 03:18:21 PM  
I absolutely hate any kind of bailouts, but if this or something very similar isn't done it won't be the rich people who will be hurting. It will be the poor again and many of the same ones who applied and got loans they couldn't afford that started this whole thing and the bankers who encourage it, and the investment groups who wanted a big piece of the "no risk pie".
The feds never should have forced banks into making loans that weren't solid to the greedy people who couldn't afford them.
The feds never should have backed those loans.
The feds never should have changed regulations allowing greedy investment companies into the playground.
Well meaning government officials who believed they were helping out the common man were in way over their head when it comes to understanding the unintended consequences.
Both political parties are at fault and the faults goes back to at least the 1990s.
 
2008-09-25 03:18:38 PM  
benlonghair: FTFY. It has NOTHING to do with Bush. Even if he'd wanted to fix it, he couldn't have. Not defending him, just saying. This has been going on for close to twenty years. Starting with Regan Carter and now it's coming to a head.

BTW I agree that all parties were involved.
 
2008-09-25 03:18:55 PM  
Jamespoon: Again, they are not buying at their real price because they don't have the capital to. The value of mortgage backed securities took a huge hit from all the defaults and foreclosures, which in turn spurred a firesale of these securities by companies who wound up unable to make loans because suddenly their debts outweighed their assets. As they tried to raise capital at the same time, the price was driven down even further. These are otherwise perfectly functioning banks. Letting this to continue happening without a significant investment will create a vacuum in the economy.

quit injecting facts into this thread. this is supposed to be a guttural circle jerk of righteous indignation.
 
2008-09-25 03:19:16 PM  
bustemup: The government isn't proposing to give $700 B to banks, they are proposing to buy $700 B worth of mortgages and mortgage backed securities that have vastly depreciated in value. They are buying these at a fraction of their real "value" because there is no market for them currently.

You really work in Wall Street?

If there is no market for them, they by definition have no real "value." Value is defined by what others are willing to pay for them. The absence of buyers (and no, not everyone in the world is broke) is evidence that these mortgages and securities aren't worth what the government plans to pay for them.
 
2008-09-25 03:19:20 PM  
JohnBigBootay: libbynomore2: Oh, and NO ONE who actually pays taxes should forgive those assholes who lied on mortgage applications to obtain loans they could NEVER afford to pay back.

You know... I don't like liars and those who commit fraud anymore than anyone else. But blaming this on borrowers is beyond absurd. Borrowers have fiduciary control over their own finances and nothing more. If your debts overtake you, you go bankrupt - that's the penalty. Banks however, have Fiduciary responsibility to the bank, their depositors, their shareholders, the govt., and the entire economy. They are to blame for the sub-prime fiasco, but even THAT is still just a smart piece of the whole pie. the real criminals in this and the actual cause of the mess we're in is the high-level operators of these megalithic firms who systematically repackaged all these mortgage debts and sold them as trading instruments at a hyperinflated value of X when they knew damn well the real value of those securities was Y. Not surprisingly, the architects of that practice are the ones who made the most money. Blame the idot who overborrowed if you like. Rant about the Community Reinvestment Act if it makes you feel better. But you damn well better know they didn't cause this problem. This problem was initiated by the ultra-wealthy high-level operators, who, oddly enough will profit the most from the bailout. Funny how that works.


It is sort of like a parent (lender) allowing a child (borrower) to make the rules, then crying when the child doesn't live by those rules.

Isn't the parent supposed to be the RESPONSIBLE ONE who knows better?
 
2008-09-25 03:19:50 PM  
que.guero: WaltzingMathilda


You're putting no faith in the probability of what are considered "bad mortgages" being slightly written down and eventually paid to a profit on the whole bill. Certainly, if wall street and certain leaders stuff their pockets and run away screaming "haha, suckers" then yes, total failure. But I somehow don't think 100 senators and 500+ representatives are going to pull that stunt.

You're right, I am putting no faith in the possibility of this resulting in anything but total fail.

You are probably putting too much faith in the possibility that the magic finance fairy will make this all better.


Listen, we obviously disagree about this. Let me tell you my final thoughts on why I think we disagree:

It isn't a magic finance fairy, it is the fact that the US government has deeper pockets and the ability to wait out illiquid assets until they return to profitability, whereas these companies that went under were too leveraged to be able to hold out, especially given how quickly this came aobut.

It appears that your understanding of the structure of the deal or the crisis that it is attempting to solve is trumped by your reaction to it on an emotional level.
 
2008-09-25 03:19:51 PM  
The bailout is the least bad decision that they can make.

The banks have assets that they can't get rid of. These are the asset backed securities.

The bailout means that the treasury takes responsibility for the asset backed securites so that the banks can get money to lend so that the economy doesn't collapse.

The treasury is taking on $700 billion worth of risk, they are not paying $700 billion in cash.

If the economy collapses, $700 billion is going to look like pocket change.
 
2008-09-25 03:20:08 PM  
Gwendolyn: CapitolG: EsteeFlwrPot: Americans are too lazy because we're worried about the next season of Lost and not getting farked in the ass by the government.

Speak for yourself sister, All reps from the State of Oregon have recived email as well as a paper letter shaing my feelings on this bailout.
/takes like 3 min, you can even do it stoned.
//But for the love of FSM, spell check it after.

I've called and tomorrow I'm picketing Hoyer's office, fark the rain. I'm the only parent in the house today or I'd be there now. If I get shooed from there I'm moving to Cardin's.


And on that note, I will folow your lead and head on down to Salem tommrow and do a bit of protesting myself...
any other PDX farkers want to join me?
 
2008-09-25 03:20:09 PM  
s217.photobucket.com

I wonder how W's little hideaway in Paraguay is coming along?
 
2008-09-25 03:20:16 PM  
studebaker hoch: That's going to hurt in the morning.

Is that photo real? What's the story on it?
 
2008-09-25 03:20:38 PM  
bustemup: it boggles my mind how so many people here have such strong opinions on the bail-out when they clearly don't understand any of the economics behind the situation.

The government isn't proposing to give $700 B to banks, they are proposing to buy $700 B worth of mortgages and mortgage backed securities that have vastly depreciated in value. They are buying these at a fraction of their real "value" because there is no market for them currently. The depreciation of them stems from the overbuying of unhedged CDS. The banks have lost the ability to wait for these securities to inflate back to a value more representive of thier underlying cashflows.

in all likelihood, the government will make a lot of money off of this "investment".

/works on wallstreet
// made some cash off CDS last year so is really getting a kick....yada yada


yes virginia, we are still bailing them out. They have purchased an asset they can't unload. Nobody else wants to buy them because they are not profitable. CDSs are a bad deal anyway, a way for investment companies to move around all the bad loans they knew they already made. congratulations for making money off of that. mortgage backed securities aren't worth much,like contaminated water. They want the taxpayers to buy the water, clean it up, then give it back to them so they can sell it for a profit. In X?? number of years they will give us our 700 billion back, but no extras.
 
2008-09-25 03:20:48 PM  
Bleak_Outlook: WaltzingMathilda:
I hear there are literally hundreds of other countries you can move to.
Of course! I'm unhappy with a decision by the government, so I should move to another country! Brilliant!
As a token of appreciation for your great idea, allow me to offer you a bowl of dicks. Please eat them.


I think it'd be easier to neglect my nation for 20 days and let it be deleted.
 
2008-09-25 03:20:55 PM  
Why doesn't the govenmernt just offer insurance for loans. In Canada, when you buy a house with less then 25% down, you pay the Government a 3% fee. The bank gives you a mortgage and if the mortgage is foreclosed before the firt 25% is paid, the government pays the bank the balance of the 25%.

It seems simple to me and it is an even playing field for everyone.
 
2008-09-25 03:20:58 PM  
RobertBruce: I don't understand enough to know which is worse, this or a crash. I almost prefer a crash. We should just do what Warren Buffet says is right!

Warren Buffet's investment in Goldman looks a lot like the gov't's investment in AIG, except Buffet's only getting 10%. If you follow Buffet, you'd be pro-bailout, since he apparently thinks it's time to buy into finance.
 
2008-09-25 03:21:57 PM  
que.guero: WaltzingMathilda

You said Uncle Sam was dead to you. America is Uncle Sam. That was my point. My guess is you don't really feel that way. I said what I said to allow you to refine your thoughts a bit. It looks like you have. Good job.

Your points need sharpening.


And you're a sweetheart. Now clean out that cheesy snatch before you call me again.
 
2008-09-25 03:21:58 PM  
Occam's Chainsaw
I contacted every Congresscritter today, reminding them that if they vote for the latest public incarnation of the bailout, I vote against them.

I highly doubt it'll do a bit of good.


Well, it won't do any good with 434 of them and it will do approximately 1/700000th bit of good with the one who might actually give a damn, because you know, YOU only have ONE "Congresscritter," genius.
 
2008-09-25 03:22:05 PM  
QueazyRider: I'm in awe of how many people think they're the first to notice the math error. Hats off Lt. Cheese Weasel.fark Lt. Cheese Weasel. He wasn't even trolling - he just posted a ridiculous chain email he copied and tried to pass off as his own. He not only didn't catch the error himself, he actually believed that tripe. It would have been a masterful troll had it been intentional or original, but it was not.
 
2008-09-25 03:22:09 PM  

Dear armchair economists and Republican harrumph merchants...

S W I N D L E .


Plain and simple.
 
2008-09-25 03:22:57 PM  
Belltower: bustemup: The government isn't proposing to give $700 B to banks, they are proposing to buy $700 B worth of mortgages and mortgage backed securities that have vastly depreciated in value. They are buying these at a fraction of their real "value" because there is no market for them currently.

You really work in Wall Street?

If there is no market for them, they by definition have no real "value." Value is defined by what others are willing to pay for them. The absence of buyers (and no, not everyone in the world is broke) is evidence that these mortgages and securities aren't worth what the government plans to pay for them.


hence the quotes around value.. they have fundamental cash flows that are real. they don't have a value today, but they show a promise for having a value tomorrow
 
2008-09-25 03:23:42 PM  
JohnBigBootay Quote 2008-09-25 03:06:23 PM
libbynomore2: Oh, and NO ONE who actually pays taxes should forgive those assholes who lied on mortgage applications to obtain loans they could NEVER afford to pay back.

You know... I don't like liars and those who commit fraud anymore than anyone else. But blaming this on borrowers is beyond absurd. Borrowers have fiduciary control over their own finances and nothing more. If your debts overtake you, you go bankrupt - that's the penalty. Banks however, have Fiduciary responsibility to the bank, their depositors, their shareholders, the govt., and the entire economy. They are to blame for the sub-prime fiasco, but even THAT is still just a smart piece of the whole pie. the real criminals in this and the actual cause of the mess we're in is the high-level operators of these megalithic firms who systematically repackaged all these mortgage debts and sold them as trading instruments at a hyperinflated value of X when they knew damn well the real value of those securities was Y. Not surprisingly, the architects of that practice are the ones who made the most money. Blame the idot who overborrowed if you like. Rant about the Community Reinvestment Act if it makes you feel better. But you damn well better know they didn't cause this problem. This problem was initiated by the ultra-wealthy high-level operators, who, oddly enough will profit the most from the bailout. Funny how that works.



I guess this is where we're different. I hold the lenders who lied, and the borrowers who lied equally.

it sounds like you think cheats and liars are more ( or less ) accountable for their actions based on how much money they have.

Sorry, as a tax payer left to hold the bag ( which clearly most people on this website cannot claim to be ) for all of their lies, I don't feel the need to protect either side.

Liars are liars and cheats are cheats. Honor is not determined based on financial status..........


Is it???
 
2008-09-25 03:23:58 PM  
I'm confused about another Great Depression being better than a bailout.

No regular supplies of electricity, water, natural gas, gas, health services, food, internet. Rioting in the streets, the old, infirm and weak children dying of hunger and disease is better than this?

People have it too easy these days, but watch them freak out if they've no electricity for their air-con in the summer.
 
2008-09-25 03:24:57 PM  
pixistick: WaltzingMathilda: If only the third parties tried to gain a footing in American politics by starting at the bottom instead of completely blowing their wad on trying to be president all the time.

Here, Here!!

Bring back the Whig party!


When I was a kid, I thought the Whig party meant that you had to wear a wig in order to be a member of that party. I sucked at social studies.
 
2008-09-25 03:25:05 PM  
acchief: Have you called/emailed your congressman yet? I don't think we've made our voices heard.

All you have to do is use the "educate the powerful" interface at downsizedc.org. Once you sign up it's pretty darn easy.
 
2008-09-25 03:25:06 PM  
It's true that our representatives don't care, and that this supreme power grab has been in the works for years. I repeat, the language in the bill that's most important is:

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.

I have no strategies that anyone else can use (only strategies to protect my own ass and my family). I won't know if they're good ones, I'm just trying, that's all.

Good luck to most of you Farkers, as well. We're no longer "fellow Americans," we're subjects of an authoritarian regime, but it's not America.
 
2008-09-25 03:25:35 PM  
img252.imageshack.us

SURPRISE BAILOUT!
 
2008-09-25 03:25:46 PM  
So let me get this straight, because of bad business practices by banks they end up losing a shait load of the US taxpayers money so now congress is going to give these people $700 billion more of the taxpayers money.

Sounds like we getting f'ed over twice. How is this suppose to fix the economy, either way, "we the people" still don't have any money to spend to stimulate the economy.
 
2008-09-25 03:27:00 PM  
ArrogantGod:
This is what you get for voting for Republicans.
This is what you get for voting for Democrats.


Democrats - the party of bad ideas
Republicans - the party of no ideas
And when these pricks get together, they have no ideas and they
make them worse.
 
2008-09-25 03:27:17 PM  
Thanks for swinging buy Johnny, but we got this one:

i155.photobucket.com
 
2008-09-25 03:27:25 PM  
WaltzingMathilda

Listen, we obviously disagree about this. Let me tell you my final thoughts on why I think we disagree:

It isn't a magic finance fairy, it is the fact that the US government has deeper pockets and the ability to wait out illiquid assets until they return to profitability, whereas these companies that went under were too leveraged to be able to hold out, especially given how quickly this came aobut.

It appears that your understanding of the structure of the deal or the crisis that it is attempting to solve is trumped by your reaction to it on an emotional level.


Okay, I'll bite. What we disagree on is the method used to solve this problem.

You take the position that we should trust the government to do the right thing, no questions asked. I won't even go into your whole "until they return to profitability" nonsense.

I take the position that while something needs to be done, those responsible for it should be made to pay for their mistakes. That means CEOs, Politicians, Lobbyists, etc have their assets seized, their salaries and bonuses garnished, their offshore accounts frozen and their passports revoked. If you were an exec in one of these failed companies, you should be frog marched into court and be forced to negotiate a repayment plan.

My reaction is one of outrage, and yours seems to be one of indifference, if not indulgence to those who are responsible for this.
 
2008-09-25 03:27:27 PM  
Belltower: bustemup: The government isn't proposing to give $700 B to banks, they are proposing to buy $700 B worth of mortgages and mortgage backed securities that have vastly depreciated in value. They are buying these at a fraction of their real "value" because there is no market for them currently.

You really work in Wall Street?

If there is no market for them, they by definition have no real "value." Value is defined by what others are willing to pay for them. The absence of buyers (and no, not everyone in the world is broke) is evidence that these mortgages and securities aren't worth what the government plans to pay for them.


There is no market because no one has the capital to hold on to these securities long term. That's why the Government is stepping in. The hope is that they come back to normal in time and we get a return on our 12 figure bailout (investment). If nothing else, this stabilizes the downward spiral and at least prevents a worst case scenario from unfolding.
 
2008-09-25 03:27:41 PM  
ezz25: bustemup: it boggles my mind how so many people here have such strong opinions on the bail-out when they clearly don't understand any of the economics behind the situation.

The government isn't proposing to give $700 B to banks, they are proposing to buy $700 B worth of mortgages and mortgage backed securities that have vastly depreciated in value. They are buying these at a fraction of their real "value" because there is no market for them currently. The depreciation of them stems from the overbuying of unhedged CDS. The banks have lost the ability to wait for these securities to inflate back to a value more representive of thier underlying cashflows.

in all likelihood, the government will make a lot of money off of this "investment".

/works on wallstreet
// made some cash off CDS last year so is really getting a kick....yada yada

yes virginia, we are still bailing them out. They have purchased an asset they can't unload. Nobody else wants to buy them because they are not profitable. CDSs are a bad deal anyway, a way for investment companies to move around all the bad loans they knew they already made. congratulations for making money off of that. mortgage backed securities aren't worth much,like contaminated water. They want the taxpayers to buy the water, clean it up, then give it back to them so they can sell it for a profit. In X?? number of years they will give us our 700 billion back, but no extras.



There are whole fields of theory dedicated to calculating what's called the "fair value" of a security or group of securities. The fair value takes many other things into account... say you run into a situation where nobody wants to buy an old three-year bond because it's being massively squeezed in REPO (as happened with the 4.125% of Aug / 08 about a year ago). It still has a mathematical relationship to other securities around it.. while you can't sell it now (because there is no buyer), you are virtually assured of being able to sell it as you near it's maturity, as there is a dividend / principal payment backing it up.
 
2008-09-25 03:27:41 PM  
Gobobo: I'm confused about another Great Depression being better than a bailout.

No regular supplies of electricity, water, natural gas, gas, health services, food, internet. Rioting in the streets, the old, infirm and weak children dying of hunger and disease is better than this?

People have it too easy these days, but watch them freak out if they've no electricity for their air-con in the summer.


o so you remember the great depression first hand? or is it your doctorate in econ that gives you this fantastic insight? your years working on wallstreet?

anything, just tell me what it is about your background that would validate your support of this bailout?


Or is it just fearmongering? yea thats likely it.
 
2008-09-25 03:28:21 PM  
Gobobo: I'm confused about another Great Depression being better than a bailout.

No regular supplies of electricity, water, natural gas, gas, health services, food, internet. Rioting in the streets, the old, infirm and weak children dying of hunger and disease is better than this?

People have it too easy these days, but watch them freak out if they've no electricity for their air-con in the summer.


Yes, it is better than this. Maybe it would wake people up in this country. We may even get to do the necessary thing and have a revolution.
 
2008-09-25 03:28:27 PM  
Drakin020

Is that photo real? What's the story on it?

I don't know if it's real but it sure looks like it. Plausible too, that's a Russian plane, and it looks like a European setting.

The person flying into the air as the wing hits them is, in fact, the very definition of "owned". I'm guessing that beneath the wing are a pair of shoes with feet still in them.
 
2008-09-25 03:29:16 PM  
buy, by, bye...whatever

/like a retarded member of NSYNC
//Seriously, I had to google that
 
2008-09-25 03:29:50 PM  
Belltower: If there is no market for them, they by definition have no real "value." Value is defined by what others are willing to pay for them. The absence of buyers (and no, not everyone in the world is broke) is evidence that these mortgages and securities aren't worth what the government plans to pay for them.

Dude, you need to take an economics class. Not 101, I mean like Econ 10, if such a thing exists. Also, you contradict yourself pretty severely. On one hand, you say they have no value. Then you go on to explain that they are worth less than the govt is paying.
 
2008-09-25 03:29:54 PM  
So wait a tic... let me see if I have this right- Lets say I'm a homeowner who was stupid enough to get an ARM, and subsequently was foreclosed upon.

I now have a job and an apartment, and the bank (who needs the bailout) had my overinflated home.

Now, I have to still pay them (through taxes) so they can stay afloat, AND keep my home?
 
2008-09-25 03:29:58 PM  
ArrogantGod:
This is what you get for voting for Republicans.
This is what you get for voting for Democrats.


I wouldn't be surprised if everyone who benefits from this mess had first sent $30 to "Bob". In fact, I'd be disappointed were that not the case...

i296.photobucket.com
 
2008-09-25 03:30:08 PM  
i184.photobucket.com
 
2008-09-25 03:30:14 PM  
Seriously people, the reason we got into this mess is because people financed stuff that depreciated in value.

Now the feds want to use our money to finance stuff that will certainly depreciate in value.

Let's see how that works this time around
 
2008-09-25 03:30:15 PM  
Whether or not there's a bail-out, it's immaterial. Is it really the case that so many of you think this is about a bail-out?

It's so much more than that.

Complete and irrevocable authority to the Executive Branch in one law is going to lead to another law just like it, and another, and another.

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.

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.

I don't feel much like talking about anything else. So there it is again.
 
2008-09-25 03:30:35 PM  
Another Pretentious Nickname: RobertBruce: I don't understand enough to know which is worse, this or a crash. I almost prefer a crash. We should just do what Warren Buffet says is right!

Warren Buffet's investment in Goldman looks a lot like the gov't's investment in AIG, except Buffet's only getting 10%. If you follow Buffet, you'd be pro-bailout, since he apparently thinks it's time to buy into finance.


He's investing in it b/c there's a chance there's relatively free, no strings attached bundles of taxpayer cash going into it. If I could, I'd invest in bailout companies and try to get my cut of that fat dough. "Oh, well they won't let private stockholders profit before the taxpayers get their money back first!" Horseshiat. Absolute horseshiat. This is one of the worst extortion deals I've ever seen. The mafia look like cupcakes to these guys.
 
2008-09-25 03:31:05 PM  
Incumbent Out! That is all
 
2008-09-25 03:31:55 PM  
God Motherfarking Damnit

Since the Housing Bubble even started to Think about popping, I've been waiting for a private bank to go to the government, and get a bit of subsidy funding to buy up all the ARM's about to explode.

They could have called it the 'Keep Grandma in her house' act - everyone would have voted for it.

Citi, or Bank of America, should have had this up and running two years ago.

You cherry-pick the least risky loans, extend the duration of the mortgage and avoid the readjustment, offset your enhanced risk with some sort of tax break write-off from the government (anxious to be seen as taking advantage, and helping John Q. Public).

Meanwhile, you get each of your new 'customers' worked into the rest of your business - secured credit lines, auto loans, etch - Further offsetting your risk, and gaining new, highly loyal, customers for life.

Somebody should have made a killing on this.
 
2008-09-25 03:31:59 PM  
Lt. Cheese Weasel: I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a Weasel Says We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide adults in the U.S. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a Weasel Says We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam. But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads.

Put away money for college - it'll be there. Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Buy a new car - create jobs Invest in the market - capital drives growth.

Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves

Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back.

And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG - liquidate it. Sell off its parts.

Let American General go back to being American General.

Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC.

And remember, The Weasel plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

=====================================

Mutherfarker I've NEVER agreed with a single thing you've ever posted, but


THIS!!!
 
2008-09-25 03:32:11 PM  
pixistick Quote 2008-09-25 03:16:23 PM
libbynomore2: n just about 172 days in the Senate

Quick question:

when was the last time John McCain voted as a Senator?



You're kidding right? See McCain actually WORKED in the House and the Senate and authored ( not just co-sponsored ) many pieces of legislation before he began running for President. Obama was elected to the Senate, did nothing and then began running for President.

Hell, this guy doesn't even find it necessary to show up to work as a Senator to represent his constituents on an issue as serious as economic security.

The guy doesn't have the balls to take a stand on an issue as important as this?

yeah, great fearless leadership.

" Change we should be afraid of. "

Seriously, you really don't want to go there.
 
2008-09-25 03:32:33 PM  
By all means, when someone loses a bunch of your money in a foolish gamble, the first thing you want to do is give them the rest of your money when they say they "really need it".

Let these companies fail.

The US banking system will grow back into the power void created when these stupid companies go down. There are still a lot of smart people out there with money. They'll see the opportunity of a lifetime, and immediately set up shop in that space, and fast.

This is capitalism in action. Like a lion taking down a zebra, it's gruesome to watch the kill.

But it's the way the system works around here.

The system will recover, healthier and leaner, and we can get about our business once more.
 
2008-09-25 03:32:35 PM  
WaltzingMathilda: que.guero: WaltzingMathilda


You're putting no faith in the probability of what are considered "bad mortgages" being slightly written down and eventually paid to a profit on the whole bill. Certainly, if wall street and certain leaders stuff their pockets and run away screaming "haha, suckers" then yes, total failure. But I somehow don't think 100 senators and 500+ representatives are going to pull that stunt.

You're right, I am putting no faith in the possibility of this resulting in anything but total fail.

You are probably putting too much faith in the possibility that the magic finance fairy will make this all better.

Listen, we obviously disagree about this. Let me tell you my final thoughts on why I think we disagree:

It isn't a magic finance fairy, it is the fact that the US government has deeper pockets and the ability to wait out illiquid assets until they return to profitability, whereas these companies that went under were too leveraged to be able to hold out, especially given how quickly this came aobut.

It appears that your understanding of the structure of the deal or the crisis that it is attempting to solve is trumped by your reaction to it on an emotional level.


Why should the government bail out companies that are too leveraged?

If I take out a $50k loan to buy a ford focus and I lose my job, should I expect someone to bail me out?
 
Displayed 50 of 1002 comments

First | « | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report