They could solve a lot of this by changing the regulations that banks operate changing the current value of the loan. They should put a lot of people in jail but instead will make them richer. It will wipe out the community banks.Soon there will only be four national (Sovier style) Wall street will make a lot of campaign contributions. It's been coming for a long time. They want to do it during the last days of the Bush presidency because not sure the new one will go along with it.

Another uneducated post that makes absolutely no sense and shows no indication of an understanding of the problem. The value of a loan is what it can be sold for, which means it needs a buyer. The bank can't just declare what a loan on its books is worth. By accounting rule, the loan has to be "marked to market," which is the value a similar loan has sold for on the market.

Maybe one could argue that "mark to market" should be suspended, allowing banks to value the loans on the assumption they will be paid instead of the 60 cents on the dollar the markets value them at. Then their leverage ratios look better and they can continue to operate.

The bill isn't a bailout at all. It has the government selling treasuries at 3% or whatever to buy mortgages that are paying up to 10%. With the sheer volume of the mortgage securities bought, that 7% will make plenty of money even with a high foreclosure rate. Small banks, medium banks, and big banks benefit by getting these loans off their books in exchange for cash to t-bills. That injects capital into the system and the banks can loan money again.

If this ISN'T done, credit will stop flowing altogether, including business credit. Business lines of credit will just go away. As one example, often (especially with gov contractors) work is done and employees are paid at least a month before the feds pay the invoice, often much longer. Businesses use their lines of credit to float the money. No line of credit, no pay.

As another example, you'll need a 780 credit score to get a car loan. That's fine for those of us who top 800, but the others will have to drive their clunkers around and all the car dealerships go under because they can't extend credit to their customers.

People just don't realize how much credit makes the world go round. If credit stops, the same people who post ignorant crap like this thread poster will be screaming "Why didn't they do it??? Why didn't they know this would happen???" the loudest.

The complexities of this issue are enormous and quite frankly, I'm appalled
at some of the comments I'm hearing. A couple of days ago, someone I know
said, "What do I care about the stock market?, I don't own any stocks!"
I replied by asking where his companies retirement funds were parked and
he shrugged and said, "Dunno". There is a lot more to it. Here's my
favorite group to watch:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20080926a.htm

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another uneducated post that makes absolutely no
> sense and shows no indication of an understanding
> of the problem. The value of a loan is what it
> can be sold for, which means it needs a buyer.
> The bank can't just declare what a loan on its
> books is worth. By accounting rule, the loan has
> to be "marked to market," which is the value a
> similar loan has sold for on the market.
>
> Maybe one could argue that "mark to market" should
> be suspended, allowing banks to value the loans on
> the assumption they will be paid instead of the 60
> cents on the dollar the markets value them at.
> Then their leverage ratios look better and they
> can continue to operate.
>
> The bill isn't a bailout at all. It has the
> government selling treasuries at 3% or whatever to
> buy mortgages that are paying up to 10%. With the
> sheer volume of the mortgage securities bought,
> that 7% will make plenty of money even with a high
> foreclosure rate. Small banks, medium banks, and
> big banks benefit by getting these loans off their
> books in exchange for cash to t-bills. That
> injects capital into the system and the banks can
> loan money again.
>
> If this ISN'T done, credit will stop flowing
> altogether, including business credit. Business
> lines of credit will just go away. As one
> example, often (especially with gov contractors)
> work is done and employees are paid at least a
> month before the feds pay the invoice, often much
> longer. Businesses use their lines of credit to
> float the money. No line of credit, no pay.
>
> As another example, you'll need a 780 credit score
> to get a car loan. That's fine for those of us
> who top 800, but the others will have to drive
> their clunkers around and all the car dealerships
> go under because they can't extend credit to their
> customers.
>
> People just don't realize how much credit makes
> the world go round. If credit stops, the same
> people who post ignorant crap like this thread
> poster will be screaming "Why didn't they do it???
> Why didn't they know this would happen???" the
> loudest.

It's exactly a bailout since the institutions would otherwise fail. No other "investor" would do this and thus the invisible hand of the market is in fact attached to a gov't body. I'm not saying it's not necessary but the free market rules have been forever bent. These (institutional) guys knew exactly what they were doing and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a pound or 50 of flesh here.

I compare this event to a looting similar to New Orleans (Katrina) or Rodney King in LA. The only difference is that the urban thugs just don't have the money for good lawyers (or lobbyist).

This is an example of cutting off your nose to smite your face. It is unfortunate that a fix is needed, but everything goes to shit if it isn't done. Don't do it to prove some point, and get reading for bread lines. It isn't only the "institutional guys" that will be hurt here. Sorry, but those are the facts.

Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They could solve a lot of this by changing the
> regulations that banks operate changing the
> current value of the loan. They should put a lot
> of people in jail but instead will make them
> richer. It will wipe out the community banks.Soon
> there will only be four national (Sovier style)
> Wall street will make a lot of campaign
> contributions. It's been coming for a long time.
> They want to do it during the last days of the
> Bush presidency because not sure the new one will
> go along with it.

You have no idea what you are talking about. How do banks change the value of the loan? They would have to post massive write offs of assets, which would further compound their solvency problems! What the government needs to do is take these loans off the books of banks, go through them and salvage what value it can - as it did during the Great Depression and S and L Bailout. All the recommendations the House Republicans have made will not result in this happening.

Already, Republican House members are receiving calls from businesses in their districts. Their lines of credit have been frozen. They won't make payroll next week. You can only imagine the cascading effect that will have. Rising foreclosures. Consumption dropping.

If the Congress doesn't deal with this effectively by tomorrow night, I am concerned that the term "Great Depression" may ultimately be an understatement.

Banks are still lending and credit applications are still flooding through the mail system. Wall street is still afloat, imagine that?

I believe Paulson said, it was a crisis which needed to be addressed last week, and we are still above water, that should tell us something. Each time Bush wants something, We the people shouldn't. The element of fear is being manipulated to produce the desired results, as with previous circumstances which hooked us. Hind sight has proven that we would have made better decisions, if we had it to do over again.

This is basic Finance 101, you don't make long term investments with short term assets. This is not rocket science. The market should be allowed to work as a free market, or there's no accountability, which breds greed. The fat cats knew what they were doing and they knew it was wrong, all the way down to the little loan processor who knew the clients could not afford their mortgage, but ignored the truth.

Same for the car makers, their products are not in demand now and we, the taxpayer, are asked to help them too. In the 70's we knew we needed to conserve oil, but they didn't focus on that, I knew eventually they would go out of business, why didn't they? Bad business.

We as a country can't make it our busines to prop up bad businesses. We have given that impression which has led us to this point and it will only get worse, unless we put our foot down.

If we pay for this bail-out it will be good money going after bad. Instead we need it for so many better things, like our children for one, education, health care...

Thought...Remember the power outage in the Northeast, prior to our going into Irag? We never really got the exact reason for that outage. Then shorthly afterwards England has an outage. Accident? Or a message? Who really has the power? How much power does Wall street really have? I think it's bad business to rush into anything that involves 700bn. We should demand more answers and total transparency.

We got it all backwards in this bailout. Taxpayer money should be used to provide new loans to credit worthy individuals, thereby loosening up the credit problem.

Banks can keep their sub-prime problems and sink or swim as the market sees fit.

spunky2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Banks are still lending and credit applications
> are still flooding through the mail system. Wall
> street is still afloat, imagine that?
>

This crisis started in earnest last week. Do you really think credit applications would stop in one week? As for banks lending money, that is actually not the case. Many businesses that rely on lines of credit are finding that they can't access funds to make payroll. You will start seeing that in news reports come this week on payday.

> I believe Paulson said, it was a crisis which
> needed to be addressed last week, and we are still
> above water, that should tell us something.

It tells us that the markets see Congress working on the problem. If the bailout fails, the markets will lock-up completely.

> Each
> time Bush wants something, We the people
> shouldn't. The element of fear is being
> manipulated to produce the desired results, as
> with previous circumstances which hooked us.

I realize Bush plays on people's fears. However, Bush has not orchestrated the failures of Lehman, AIG, WaMu and, from the sounds of it, Wachovia. You can deny there is a crisis, but the dominoes keep falling.

> Hind
> sight has proven that we would have made better
> decisions, if we had it to do over again.
>

Yes. I think that is why the Congress is pushing for more transparency this time around.

> This is basic Finance 101, you don't make long
> term investments with short term assets. This is
> not rocket science. The market should be allowed
> to work as a free market, or there's no
> accountability, which breds greed.

That's what Herbert Hoover said in 1929. There are times when Keynesian Economics are applicable. This is one of them.

> The fat cats
> knew what they were doing and they knew it was
> wrong, all the way down to the little loan
> processor who knew the clients could not afford
> their mortgage, but ignored the truth.
>

Yes. Well, that's pretty much moot now, isn't it? That's like standing on the Titanic and blaming the Captain instead of getting people to the life boats.

> Same for the car makers, their products are not in
> demand now and we, the taxpayer, are asked to help
> them too. In the 70's we knew we needed to
> conserve oil, but they didn't focus on that, I
> knew eventually they would go out of business, why
> didn't they? Bad business.
>

So at one time you advocate the free markets and then you say businesses are irresponsible and can't be trusted. Which is it?

> We as a country can't make it our busines to prop
> up bad businesses. We have given that impression
> which has led us to this point and it will only
> get worse, unless we put our foot down.

If we "put our foot down" we will have 25 percent unemployment. Warren Buffet and Alan Greenspan believe this downturn could exceed the Great Depression. You may think you want that, but you would be wrong.

>
> If we pay for this bail-out it will be good money
> going after bad. Instead we need it for so many
> better things, like our children for one,
> education, health care...

This is a crisis. We have to stop the bleeding.
>
> Thought...Remember the power outage in the
> Northeast, prior to our going into Irag? We never
> really got the exact reason for that outage. Then
> shorthly afterwards England has an outage.
> Accident? Or a message? Who really has the
> power? How much power does Wall street really
> have? I think it's bad business to rush into
> anything that involves 700bn. We should demand
> more answers and total transparency.


I agree about the transparency. However, there are plenty of experts in this area who have nothing to gain that say we must do something soon.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spunky2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Banks are still lending and credit applications
> > are still flooding through the mail system.
> Wall
> > street is still afloat, imagine that?
> >
>
> This crisis started in earnest last week. Do you
> really think credit applications would stop in one
> week? As for banks lending money, that is actually
> not the case. Many businesses that rely on lines
> of credit are finding that they can't access funds
> to make payroll. You will start seeing that in
> news reports come this week on payday.
>
What's your source? There are so many other options, none of which of been explored. Throwing money at the problem will not fix it, just postpone the problem, which will only get worse and cost more.

> > I believe Paulson said, it was a crisis which
> > needed to be addressed last week, and we are
> still
> > above water, that should tell us something.
>
> It tells us that the markets see Congress working
> on the problem. If the bailout fails, the markets
> will lock-up completely.

You know this because, you have been told this by the mkt in an attempt to frighten people into giving Wall street their desired results. We have spent years seeing profits increase on Wall street free enterprise must allow for market corrections without outside interference. But these corp. have rich CEOs, who have grown accustomed to their wealth and don't want to play by the rules, so they yell CRISIS, and enough of them together get the attention of the US Treasury and that JERK in the White House. It's no different really then Joe blow complaining about his sub-prime loan but since he has no money and no one in power in this country cares about poor people, no one cares. Poor people are expendable, you don't see rich people fighting in Iraq or Afganisitan. Granted it would be difficult for the market to correct itself but for less then what is being asked of us and our children now, and those who created this mess would be the ones paying, for sure.

> > Each
> > time Bush wants something, We the people
> > shouldn't. The element of fear is being
> > manipulated to produce the desired results, as
> > with previous circumstances which hooked us.
>
> I realize Bush plays on people's fears. However,
> Bush has not orchestrated the failures of Lehman,
> AIG, WaMu and, from the sounds of it, Wachovia.
> You can deny there is a crisis, but the dominoes
> keep falling.


No, but for years now they knew this was coming and no steps were taken to address it at all. Then when the inevitable arrives finally then it's treated as a crisis, a crisis is something you don't see coming. You most definately don't handle a crisis of this magnutude by throwing 1 tillion at it and requesting total unbridled control over the crisis. I say 1 trillion because anything Bush has been involved in has never come in on budget, and 1 trillion is probably low.


> > Hind
> > sight has proven that we would have made better
> > decisions, if we had it to do over again.
> >
>
> Yes. I think that is why the Congress is pushing
> for more transparency this time around.

There is a reason Congress has a lower approval rating then Bushy. Do you really have faith in Congress to look after our best interest?

>
> > This is basic Finance 101, you don't make long
> > term investments with short term assets. This
> is
> > not rocket science. The market should be
> allowed
> > to work as a free market, or there's no
> > accountability, which breds greed.
>
> That's what Herbert Hoover said in 1929. There are
> times when Keynesian Economics are applicable.
> This is one of them.


No he didn't, I said it here because my major was in Bus.

> > The fat cats
> > knew what they were doing and they knew it was
> > wrong, all the way down to the little loan
> > processor who knew the clients could not afford
> > their mortgage, but ignored the truth.
> >
>
> Yes. Well, that's pretty much moot now, isn't it?
> That's like standing on the Titanic and blaming
> the Captain instead of getting people to the life
> boats.

No, not really. There were in my opinion some serious laws broken here, at the least neglect. There should be a thorough investigation into the shady business policies which took place within this sub-prime mortgage industry. Would it comes to 700 BN, no 1 Trillion+, nothing is MOOT!

> > Same for the car makers, their products are not
> in
> > demand now and we, the taxpayer, are asked to
> help
> > them too. In the 70's we knew we needed to
> > conserve oil, but they didn't focus on that, I
> > knew eventually they would go out of business,
> why
> > didn't they? Bad business.
> >
>
> So at one time you advocate the free markets and
> then you say businesses are irresponsible and
> can't be trusted. Which is it?
>

Both, the free markets account for irresponsible behavior. If you are not a trustworthy reponsible businessman (person) it will eventually directly affect your business in direct proportion to how irresponsible you become in your business. Free enterprise is what America is built on, to change the rules now like this is bad, very bad.
Yes, we have seen first hand that businesses can not and will not regulate themselves, so they can't be trusted. If they could be trusted we wouldn't have this "CRISIS" they say we will have, if we don't pay them.

> > We as a country can't make it our busines to
> prop
> > up bad businesses. We have given that
> impression
> > which has led us to this point and it will only
> > get worse, unless we put our foot down.

>
> If we "put our foot down" we will have 25 percent
> unemployment. Warren Buffet and Alan Greenspan
> believe this downturn could exceed the Great
> Depression. You may think you want that, but you
> would be wrong.

WE may have it anyway, have you checked the trend of unemployment?
The Great Depression was the result of a lack of Federally insured accounts amoung other things, that is not a problem we will face now, as long as our government is sound.
You're right I don't want to see people hurting from fear or something as simple as a lack of imformation. Let me remind you Buffet and Greenspan are not poor.

>
> >
> > If we pay for this bail-out it will be good
> money
> > going after bad. Instead we need it for so
> many
> > better things, like our children for one,
> > education, health care...
>
> This is a crisis. We have to stop the bleeding.

Right now China has more smart people then our total population, there's no reason for that to be happening. This money we will throw at this "CRISIS", we will never see again, not in interest, or return...nothing. We should demand that our hard earned money be used wiser. If we don't start investing in our children and their education, it may soon be to late to make up for the time we've lost in the dumbing down of America as a whole. This is where the bleeding needs to stop and where we will actually see a return on our investment as a nation. Leave Wall street to their own devices, they created this mess let them fix it.

> >
> > Thought...Remember the power outage in the
> > Northeast, prior to our going into Irag? We
> never
> > really got the exact reason for that outage.
> Then
> > shorthly afterwards England has an outage.
> > Accident? Or a message? Who really has the
> > power? How much power does Wall street really
> > have? I think it's bad business to rush into
> > anything that involves 700bn. We should demand
> > more answers and total transparency.
>
>
> I agree about the transparency. However, there are
> plenty of experts in this area who have nothing to
> gain that say we must do something soon.

Yes, there are plenty of experts who say what's being presented is not the answer, and we should examine other options before leaping in blindly.

Well, it seems Congress turned 3 pages into 110 and said, "YES". This is bad.

Well Rod and Spunky, I hope you are happy. Just don't come crying to us if you end up car-less or homeless. Hopefully the dire threats of inaction were exaggerated, but if they weren't we can thank you and the uneducated Redneck Nation for calling up their representatives and demanding that America's credit systems be shut down.

The significance of this will be seen today and this week. The sad part is, the Democrats, with a larger majority in the House than the Senate, could not manage to pass this bill.

Wow.

I can see why this bill was important - and while I didn't like it, it seemed being proactive was better than waiting until after the crash. I think a lot of folks that had money on hand were the ones that fought this bill passing. If they did, and the lack of passage causes what has been predicted, this will set the field for a class warfare like no other.

Here's hoping for a bottom.

Well, here's a voice of reason. The "people's man" Michael Moore injects his opinion. Well, he didn't want the bill to pass so I guess he got his wish.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=235

Hmm, down 621pts at 3:18pm. It will be interesting to see whether it ends up 1000 down by the end of the day or not....

So you're basically telling us that Michael Moore and a majority of Republicans were against this?

The reason that it didn't pass is pressure from constituents during an election year. This is mostly from the REP side since most seats are up for election and this is not popular in the red states.

Funny huh?

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/

Hey Meep, try and be straight here. I think it is a bad thing this bill did NOT pass. But I guess we will see. God help us (and them) if they were wrong.

I am not telling you anything Meep, other than the fact that the Democratic majority who seemed to have been all for socializing the banking and investment industry managed to fail in passing this bill. Down 721 now at 3:26pm...

Whether right or wrong...and for the first time I hope them right..this is now on the shoulders of the religious right/radical republikans.

The Real Reason Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The reason that it didn't pass is pressure from
> constituents during an election year. This is
> mostly from the REP side since most seats are up
> for election and this is not popular in the red
> states.

this happened in the House, so ALL seats are up for election.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Whether right or wrong...and for the first time I
> hope them right..this is now on the shoulders of
> the religious right/radical republikans.

Hows that? Who is in the majority in the House?

How's that!!! Look at the votes...see who failed to vote for the rescue plan! The republikans! Mr McSame..comes to DC to rescue the plan..he fails...again..right or wrongs..dems were on board...they voted for the bill overwhelmingly...the right wing republikans are responsible! So..lets hope.....and PRAAAYYYY....they are right!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2008 04:34PM by Vince(1).

The House Republicans failed the American people yet again. They are putting their re-election campaigns before America. Country first, huh?! LOL.

Even scarier thought...If McSame is elected...actuarily...Sarah has a 20% chance of being president of the US sometime in the next 4 years.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How's that!!! Look at the votes...see who failed
> to vote for the rescue plan! The republikans! Mr
> McSame..comes to DC to rescue the plan..he
> fails...again..right or wrongs..dems were on
> board...they voted for the bill
> overwhelmingly...the right wing republikans are
> responsible! So..lets hope.....and
> PRAAAYYYY....they are right!

94 Democrats voted against the measure. Only 12 more votes were needed to pass the thing. 40% of the Democrats voted against this bill. Dems were on board? Losing 40% of your own party is hardly overwhelming. True, the twelve votes could have come from the GOP, but don't sit here and talk about overwhelming Democrackpot support.

Well, 70% of Republicans voted it down hoping to please their red state constituents. Look at the voting record.

Today's actions by House Republicans now give Obama a +23 point lead over McCain and +10 points in Virginia. http://www.intrade.com

Eat it.

Snausages Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, 70% of Republicans voted it down hoping to
> please their red state constituents. Look at the
> voting record.
>
> Today's actions by House Republicans now give
> Obama a +23 point lead over McCain and +10 points
> in Virginia. http://www.intrade.com
>
> Eat it.

Take Vince's balls off your eyelids and your vision might not be so clouded. Why did the 40% of Democrapheads oppose it? To please bone smugglers like you?

eDf89 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Snausages Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well, 70% of Republicans voted it down hoping
> to
> > please their red state constituents. Look at
> the
> > voting record.
> >
> > Today's actions by House Republicans now give
> > Obama a +23 point lead over McCain and +10
> points
> > in Virginia. http://www.intrade.com
> >
> > Eat it.
>
> Take Vince's balls off your eyelids and your
> vision might not be so clouded. Why did the 40%
> of Democrapheads oppose it? To please bone
> smugglers like you?


Are you feeling bitter there soon-to-be-loser? 70% of Republicans in opposition vs 40% of Dems. Even with the extra seats, that puts you, metaphorically speaking, about 18 pubes away from adolescence.

We need a list of the nay voters regardless of party. They don't own the cause for the problem, but they do own whatever the delta is between the result without the plan and the result that would have been with the plan. So far they own 778 negative points on the Dow.

The fact is the House of Representatives was designed to be the more populist half of the legislative body! The Senate is designed to be the more deliberative body. And We "the people" did nothing more then feed the populace body of congress with the fuel to reject the bill (30-1 calls against the bill).

As a consequence 66% of the republikans and 40% of the dems voted against it. We will now see the consequences.

After the vote I heard a lady from a think tank interviewed on 88.5. She was against it because 1.More money in a chaotic situation would confuse things more.2. giving money to failing companies instead of succesful companies was poor business and 3. it would make it harder for the succesful companies to compete against the unsuccessful companies getting government money.

In the end you would have to say it failed because it was unpopular with a lot of people. Would it of helped? It's not that clear. Would it be better to have a bad ecconomy and a broke government?

Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> After the vote I heard a lady from a think tank
> interviewed on 88.5. She was against it because
> 1.More money in a chaotic situation would confuse
> things more.

More than things are now? I wouldn't think so.

> 2. giving money to failing companies
> instead of succesful companies was poor business
> and

Actually, not poor business. Poor banks. Banks that control our financial system. The more banks fail, the less access to credit businesses will have. Eventually the economy will freeze.

>3. it would make it harder for the succesful
> companies to compete against the unsuccessful
> companies getting government money.
>
Name a bank that doesn't have this crappy debt on its books. There ARE none!

> In the end you would have to say it failed because
> it was unpopular with a lot of people.

Leadership could change that. Most Americans simply don't understand the problem or what's at stake.

>Would it of
> helped? It's not that clear.

It is clear. It would have helped. We have the history of the Great Depression and the 10-year recession in Japan to show us the way.

>Would it be better to
> have a bad ecconomy and a broke government?

We will have a broke government, regardless. The market lost $1.1 trillion today. Much of that tax revenue the government will never see to help service existing debt and obligations, such as entitlements.

I hate to tell you..our government is already broke. Years of deficit spending..the war in iraq have drained our coffers.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2008 10:43PM by Vince(1).

Everyone get your favorite spoon ready it's going to be soup lines pretty soon.

We seem to be forgetting we have already injected hundreds of millions: Fannie Mae, Fredie Mac, AIG were all bailed out to avoid this.

The more I hear about this bailout the more I think it is a temporary fix with short term benefits. I think we're all fucked either way.

The Congress is all on "Jewish Holiday" until Thurday morning....things are certainly going to get much much worse before then....I am with Mofo -- however, I think Soup lines may not even be in the picture!

The firstime I ever mentioned having soup for a meal to my children, they were horrified, they thought we were poor. We've never had soup.

I have faith in our markets, and the government should stay out. We have been faced with a downward unemployment spiral along with decreasing housing values, and no amount of money thrown at that will change it now. It's a trend that must run it's course. We are not a socialist government.

My investment dollars are going to the socialist countries...tip of the day...look at european (aka socialist countries) with experience in alternative energy source experience. Imagine that..the experts in the field are foreiners from socialist countries with a longer term view to their energy needs...lol!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S27yitK32ds

I wish I could disagree with her!

GE Capital has informed Sonic and Panera Bread that it is severely cutting back on lending to their franchises. No remodeling, no equipment, no new buildings, zilch.

Yesterday the Congress voted down a $700 billion "rescue plan" that would buy up subprime mortgages. The selling of these mortgages over time would result in the government recouping a significant portion of that $700 billion. Instead, we got a $1.1 trillion drop in the stock market that is crushing people's 401Ks.

This is a crisis. This is a problem.

Registered Voter,

So the Democrats didn't pass the bill? But, 2/3 of REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST the bill?

Of course in your mind it's all the Democrats fault? Right?

If you havent figured it out yet...Mr RV thinks everything is the fault of the Democrats. The "promise" made by leaders of both parties was to deliver 50% their congressman/women to vote for the bill. The Democrats fulfilled their promise..the republikans did not. Who cares what RV has to say?

spunky2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The firstime I ever mentioned having soup for a
> meal to my children, they were horrified, they
> thought we were poor. We've never had soup.
>
> I have faith in our markets, and the government
> should stay out. We have been faced with a
> downward unemployment spiral along with decreasing
> housing values, and no amount of money thrown at
> that will change it now. It's a trend that must
> run it's course. We are not a socialist
> government.

You've never had soup? What kind of life is that?

Miserable.

Lopter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter,
>
> So the Democrats didn't pass the bill? But, 2/3 of
> REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST the bill?
>
> Of course in your mind it's all the Democrats
> fault? Right?

Of course it is.

He's preparing further exposition on the community reinvestment act as we speak.

Now that the markets have taken the hit and I have directly paid for the crisis, I am not not in favor of the package. Especially section 110, which authorizes the Treasury to adjust loans INCLUDING reducing principal.

MODIFICATIONS.—In the case of a residential mortgage loan, modifications made under paragraph (1) may include—
(A) reduction in interest rates;
(B) reduction of loan principal; and
(C) other similar modifications.

I don't mind an interest rate getting shaved to zero in order to let someone keep a house, but lowering the loan principal is more than I can stomach. It's basically letting people keep stolen property. And since the markets have already taken the hit I say let the system fix itself. I don't want to take the investment hit AND let the thieves off the hook. Strike B and C and I am fine with it.

Lopter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Registered Voter,
>
> So the Democrats didn't pass the bill? But, 2/3 of
> REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST the bill?
>
> Of course in your mind it's all the Democrats
> fault? Right?

No, but interestingly and conversley you hold the Democrats completely blameless.

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now that the markets have taken the hit and I have
> directly paid for the crisis, I am not not in
> favor of the package.

The market hasn't "taken the hit" yet. It is waiting to see what Congress does. If Congress decides to walk away from the package for good, the Dow is going to be bearish for several thousand more points.

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you havent figured it out yet...Mr RV thinks
> everything is the fault of the Democrats. The
> "promise" made by leaders of both parties was to
> deliver 50% their congressman/women to vote for
> the bill. The Democrats fulfilled their
> promise..the republikans did not. Who cares what
> RV has to say?

Obviously Vince misses my voice of reason out here in the hinterlands of Fairfax County Internet forums.

Now Vince, if you would care to read through my posts, I have made it pretty clear that I hold all of them at fault for first, getting us to this point, and 2nd, for not passing the bailout bill.

Seriously, they sit for the entire weekend, and hammer out the issues, and yet by Monday morning when they say they have a done deal, they still manage to essentially sit on the pot and pass gas, rather actually push out this turd they are going to foist on us all. (Sorry, I have gotten into poopy metaphors lately)...

I will say this - after all these years of the Democrats calling Bush a liar, they have now made it so unless people can feel it, see it, smell it, and hear it, they don't believe anything this government (Congress, Executive, or Judicial) tells them is true. Also if you read my posts, I am pretty sure the folks behind it failing are the folks that have money and are not in debt, therefore they do not want to be saddled with debt they never even created.

But no, I blame all of them. I would be elated if this year every incumbent in Congress that has bought into the "stupidity system of government" would get voted out and replaced. And then the first thing the new Congress should pass is term limits. As a good example of the brain dead mentality of Congress, they just voted Federal Government employees a 3.5% raise this year?? Any of you familiar with government pay know that most of them already get built in step raises every year or other year as it is (like to see that in the private sector) unless they have topped out their pay grade. Anyone here think that they have done such a good job they deserve a raise on top of their regular (3 to 5%) increase this year?

This "promise" you speak of is pretty funny. The way I hear it, Rahm Emmanuel was running the democratic side of the voting, and he decided not to whip any of the Democrats to vote either - even though they had the votes. Also 12 members of Barney Frank's committee voted no on this bill also (so I hear). Seems those 12 people would have been right in the middle of the negotiations, and yet they chose to stand aside also. Enough blame on both sides of the aisle.

Maybe they would have all been better served to go to the microphones, and instead of giving partisan speeches every few hours, or feel good comments about having a deal - maybe instead they should have explained why this bill had to be passed, and what they truly believed the consequence of it not passing would be. By the way, anyone know if the ACORN provision was left in the final version? I haven't seen if they took it out or not.

"By the way, anyone know if the ACORN provision was left in the final version? I haven't seen if they took it out or not."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I hope so. I happen to be stashing acorns away for this cold winter we're expecting.

erik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spunky2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The firstime I ever mentioned having soup for a
> > meal to my children, they were horrified, they
> > thought we were poor. We've never had soup.
> >
> > I have faith in our markets, and the government
> > should stay out. We have been faced with a
> > downward unemployment spiral along with
> decreasing
> > housing values, and no amount of money thrown
> at
> > that will change it now. It's a trend that
> must
> > run it's course. We are not a socialist
> > government.
>
> You've never had soup? What kind of life is that?
>
>
> Miserable.

I love soup, my kids are afraid of what it seems to represent, and I was going through a divorce at the time, so they were judging everything. I am working on their taste buds and trying to fix everything else too.

This is a good thing.

Pelosi said she'd get 140 votes for the bailout. She did that.

Boehner couldn't even get 100 votes, and then tried to blame a speech Pelosi gave. It was so ridiculous that three GOP backbenchers came on the cable news to declare that Pelosi's speech

Like it or not, the past eight years have belonged to the Republicans. You can't claim Bush was 'not a real conservative;' this makes conservative philosophy akin to Communist, where failures associated with it are excused due to insufficient ideological purity.

The American people will deliver their verdict on the past eight years in about five weeks.

My point was, if this was supposed to be so important, why was Pelosi unable to craft a bill that her entire conference would vote for? Oh right - politics. She didn't want to be the one that passed a bill (or not in this case) that the dems would then be held responsible for.

They should have been able to sit through the entire weekend, and if they all actually did give a shit about the rest of us, and not their political liabilities, craft a bill they could all agree to vote for, even if all it said was - "This bill indicates we have a problem". None of them were will to admit they couldn't do it, so instead they come out and say they have an agreement - and they didn't. So they all sat there and BS'd all of us out here. That is what makes this even more laughable.

I will say it again. IMHO They ALL suck. If you do anything this year, vote out the incumbents in all aspects of government that are up for re-election. Since Bush has to leave anyway, his position is a moot point. If somehow you think just electing Obama is going to change much of anything in the way the government works... then you obviously need another marble to rub against the one rattling in your head at the moment.

That would send a message to the senators left that the people are serious about them actually getting something done for a change.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My point was, if this was supposed to be so
> important, why was Pelosi unable to craft a bill
> that her entire conference would vote for? Oh
> right - politics. She didn't want to be the one
> that passed a bill (or not in this case) that the
> dems would then be held responsible for.
>
> They should have been able to sit through the
> entire weekend, and if they all actually did give
> a shit about the rest of us, and not their
> political liabilities, craft a bill they could all
> agree to vote for, even if all it said was - "This
> bill indicates we have a problem". None of them
> were will to admit they couldn't do it, so instead
> they come out and say they have an agreement - and
> they didn't. So they all sat there and BS'd all of
> us out here. That is what makes this even more
> laughable.
>
> I will say it again. IMHO They ALL suck. If you do
> anything this year, vote out the incumbents in all
> aspects of government that are up for re-election.
> Since Bush has to leave anyway, his position is a
> moot point. If somehow you think just electing
> Obama is going to change much of anything in the
> way the government works... then you obviously
> need another marble to rub against the one
> rattling in your head at the moment.
>
> That would send a message to the senators left
> that the people are serious about them actually
> getting something done for a change.


While I generally agree that blame needs to be put aside, I for one am sick and tired of people not being held accountable for their actions. Pelosi, while not the most graceful person in the subject, generally expressed the frustrations I've been feeling with this administration. I'll be fine if they put the blame thing aside for now and then get back to it, but we never seem to get back to it. I want some heads to roll for the shit wreck we're in because of failed policies and decisions. At worse, I bush/cheney shouldn't be getting any type of pension crap/secret service security/health care...

Time or Newsweek will undoubtedly do some probing, in-depth expose on why Paulson and the rest of the Administration folks are on the take for Wall Street.

The Fed chairman is the one who is the expert on the Depression Era financial issues and policies, so I would trust him above the others to a point. The rest of the idiots charged with running the oversight regulatory agencies should all be put out to pasture once this is resolved. Of course, there are only a few months left in any case, so that move may be a moot point.

Anyone in Congress who ever prevaricated on why we should not have fixed Fannie or Freddie in the last 8 years should be voted out this election if they are up for re-election. That is the root of the mess at this point by all accounts. There are roots going farther back that led here, but the way those two entities shaped their policies to support the lending practices in these last few years are what should have been stopped. Their willingness to buy and back the bad loan policies is what really ballooned this issue out of hand IMHO.

Also, you can't tell me they didn't know about all this before the Nth hour. Then we're expected to make a quick judgment on a resolution these idiots provide?

They all knew about it before this - the responsible agencies as well as the folks that were sitting on the various banking and commerce committees.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2008 03:33PM by Registered Voter.

Registered Voter Wrote:
>
> I will say it again. IMHO They ALL suck. If you do
> anything this year, vote out the incumbents in all
> aspects of government that are up for re-election.
> Since Bush has to leave anyway, his position is a
> moot point. If somehow you think just electing
> Obama is going to change much of anything in the
> way the government works... then you obviously
> need another marble to rub against the one
> rattling in your head at the moment.
>
> That would send a message to the senators left
> that the people are serious about them actually
> getting something done for a change.


LOL..how gracious of you..vote them all out when the democrats just happen to control bith houses and you exempt Bush! What a saint...what a republikan creep!

The facts are...republikan neglect and abuse caused this problem at at least the 80% level. The republikan party has run out of steam..they have no new ideas..they have no more intellects to appoint to critical positions (just look at the populist idiot they nominated for VP)...their time is OVER!

Give the democrats what the republikans held for 6 of the last 8 years...a veto proof majority of both houses and then you can hold them accountable! Otherwise we'll hear all day the whining of the republikan dregs how pelosi had to compromise to draft a bill to make the republikans happy and couldnt pass it on their own! Vote Obama! Vote Warner! Vote Connoly!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/01/2008 04:17PM by Vince(1).

Anyone have Vince's meds? Seems someone let him out of rehab a bit early.

Get some help dude. You see folks following you all the time don't you?

Vince, you are like that guy wandering down the street with the placard hung on him saying "The government controls you with radio waves!!"

Seriously, tinfoil the windows.

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyone have Vince's meds? Seems someone let him
> out of rehab a bit early.
>
> Get some help dude. You see folks following you
> all the time don't you?
>
> Vince, you are like that guy wandering down the
> street with the placard hung on him saying "The
> government controls you with radio waves!!"
>
> Seriously, tinfoil the windows.


Crawl back in your hell hole!

pgens Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well Rod and Spunky, I hope you are happy. Just
> don't come crying to us if you end up car-less or
> homeless. Hopefully the dire threats of inaction
> were exaggerated, but if they weren't we can thank
> you and the uneducated Redneck Nation for calling
> up their representatives and demanding that
> America's credit systems be shut down.


Well, well, well...look at you now. An uneducated Redneck Nation? Maybe you underestimated me, no doubt, along with your other Nazi gang. I guess you all aren't as smart as you think you are.

I told you this would be "good" money going after "bad".

I believe I have been hounded about being out on the "fringe" with my posts, well I have just proved once again I deserve "props!" Rather you acknowledge this or not is irrelevant at this point to me, because I have made my point, as I always knew I would.

We can not get out of this problem without a PLAN, and we don't even have a PLAN for Iraq or Afganistan. This administration is clueless and is without a leader. We are facing some MAJOR problems and no one is assuming a leadership role. There must be some radical change soon or our future generations will forever pay the price, and that price is more then we can afford.

Good points Spunky

Rod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good points Spunky


Thank you Rod. You pegged it too! You now have my respect.