3

9/25/2008 11:11:56 PM

i can has opuzishun?

9/25/2008 11:15:08 PM

Quote :

"...of crafting an alternative to undercut Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. "

Well thank God someone is undercutting Paulson, Barney Frank, Bush and the rest of the sell-outs.

I'm gonna tacitly give the GOP hold-outs some credit for at least suggesting an alternative way that doesn't include a total socialist cave-in.

Quote :

"right now he looks like a complete jackass "

Look..most all the Washington politicians look like jackasses (except for Ron Paul). Don't forget Barney "Fannie & Freddie are fine" Frank and his fellow democrats that high-pressured the banks so everyone could buy a home. This is a bi-partisian mess.

Quote :

"Crap. This is getting nuts."

You said it!

9/26/2008 12:44:43 AM

...so now what?

Breadlines?

9/26/2008 1:48:39 AM

Well now what happens now is this:

people with bad credit have to give up their houses; banks have to go back to asking people if they have a job before giving them loans; CEOs resign and shareholders find better management; and we go back to paying $80 for a tank of gas and wishing we had Hybrids.

9/26/2008 2:27:21 AM

shut the fuck up...i mean good god

[Edited on September 26, 2008 at 2:37 AM. Reason : ^in addition, all you posted is a GOOD thing]

9/26/2008 2:36:27 AM

My remark was only tongue in cheek.

I'm quite shocked at the wave of real anger and frustration that broke through the dramatic political theater today. Perhaps Congress is ready to accept the responsibility of the office, perhaps this is just posturing during campaign season. I only hope voters are paying attention to the actions of their representatives.

The clock ticks on the doom and gloom scenarios Paulson and Bernanke pitched, then Bush echoed to us Wednesday evening. Congress has apparently balked, but this was just the first shot. The Executive is floating the idea of strong-arming Congress into approving a bailout by attaching it to a mandatory spending bill needed to keep the Federal government funded after October 1st.

Despite the Networkesque display of organized opposition to this bailout, I have little doubt that we're still in line to see another titanic failure of a bailout in its place.

The questions I'm getting at are: (1) "What will it look like?" and, (2) "What should it look like (if it should happen at all)?"

9/26/2008 2:55:37 AM

Quote :

" The clock ticks on the doom and gloom scenarios Paulson and Bernanke pitched"

lolololololol

9/26/2008 2:58:47 AM

^^Quick-posting before I go to sleep...
My answer to your second question would be that... if we are certain a bailout is going to happen, it absolutely CANNOT include the

Quote :

""Decisions by the Secretary (of the treasury) 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.""

part, and it should be based on actual mathematical figures instead of a random "big number" thrown out for no good reason.

Personally I'd rather see no bailout happen at all, because to do so would essentially guarantee that these banks will fail again some time in the future...

9/26/2008 3:08:32 AM

Quote :

"Personally I'd rather see no bailout happen at all"

9/26/2008 3:09:55 AM

I can barely stand this Barney Frank guy, hes so hard to understand when he talks, wtf is wrong with him

9/26/2008 9:08:19 AM

What's your (thread contributors) feelings on the House Republican alternative plan?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gTkAWM5Ona9_HWJbLv0IUhR6SSywD93E4GQO0

Basically it exchanges the bailout for a new insurance plan.

Also:

Quote :

"The House conservatives' plan also would: _Offer temporary tax relief to free up capital for companies to lend one another. _Temporarily suspend dividend payments by financial institutions. _Require participating firms to disclose to the Treasury Department the value of mortgage assets on their books, private bids on them in the past year and their last audit reports. _Forbid government-sponsored mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from issuing securities on unsound mortgages. _Require the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate the performance of credit-rating agencies. "

9/26/2008 9:26:18 AM

Hey, we already bought the largest insurance company in the world, we're already in the insurance business.



(P.S. That plan is fucking stupid)

9/26/2008 9:31:20 AM

I'm listening to Glenn Beck this morning and he said some people that have been with Bush behind closed doors are describing him as so distraught and using phrases like "if we survive this." Aside from the Bush jokes that I know will follow, this shit sounds pretty scary. It's not just him either, didn't Ron Paul predict a Soviet-type collapse earlier in the week? That's some serious shit, for sure

9/26/2008 9:32:12 AM

Who would have thought that the Democrasts would be on board with Bush, while the Republicans are dissing him .... Mercy ... What times we live in.

9/26/2008 9:41:42 AM

Not all republicans, house republicans. The senate was ready to go on this thing. Then McCain showed up and house republicans all of a sudden had a cause to fight for (we're going to save his campaign, lol). This thing would have almost certainly passed and we'd be on our way to fixing things if McCain hadn't interjected presidential politics into it, just like Obama said would happen.

9/26/2008 9:44:54 AM

Quote :

"Well now what happens now is this: people with bad credit have to give up their houses; banks have to go back to asking people if they have a job before giving them loans; CEOs resign and shareholders find better management; and we go back to paying $80 for a tank of gas and wishing we had Hybrids."

What will happen very soon is American car companies will begin pushing the market towards making all of their vehicles hybrids/greener by default, making the older hybrid models a thing of the past. This is a good thing overall and the American people will be more likely to carpool and drive less because of the higher gas prices.

Quote :

"Personally I'd rather see no bailout happen at all"

I don't blame you.

Make sure to watch the debates tonight. As I said several months ago, this election will be a landslide victory for the Democrats. I hate to say it... wait that's a lie... the vindication is wonderful.

I told you so!

[Edited on September 26, 2008 at 10:03 AM. Reason : -]

9/26/2008 9:46:06 AM

If Bush were serious about this then why are we still wasting money on foreign military bases to defend places that hate us like Europe.

9/26/2008 9:47:31 AM

Quote :

"This thing would have almost certainly passed and we'd be on our way to fixing things if McCain hadn't interjected presidential politics into it, just like Obama said would happen."

.... seriously?

9/26/2008 9:48:47 AM

Quote :

"I'm listening to Glenn Beck this morning and he said some people that have been with Bush behind closed doors are describing him as so distraught and using phrases like "if we survive this." Aside from the Bush jokes that I know will follow, this shit sounds pretty scary. It's not just him either, didn't Ron Paul predict a Soviet-type collapse earlier in the week? That's some serious shit, for sure"

hahahaha

If we survive this

Wake up. He's talking about surviving keeping a GOP prez and an almost 50/50 split in congress. Why else would a supposedly fiscally conservative administration engage in the most socialistic national economic practices since the Russians perfected it to complete failure.

9/26/2008 9:52:10 AM

^^Yes, seriously. Have you not been keeping up with current events? Can you give me another reason why we went from having a deal on the table around midday yesterday to nothing today? House republicans are playing politics with this thing.

9/26/2008 9:53:48 AM

Quote :

"and we'd be on our way to fixing things"

Have you not been keeping up with current events? The proposed plan that was rushed and supposedly almost passed until McCain showed up (OMG he hates America!) was a piece of shit plan that allowed no oversight, no reasons for proposed numbers other than picking a random ass high number, and all the analysis of the plan suggested it wasn't going to fix a damn thing, it was just going to put it off until later, but everybody knows it's going to come eventually.

But Obama said it, so wtf do I know

[Edited on September 26, 2008 at 9:57 AM. Reason : .]

9/26/2008 9:56:16 AM

from what I understand of it, the house repubs. plan is much better than the initial one.

The main goal here is to keep people from making a depressionesque run on banks, which the added insurance will do. In addition, it will encourage additional deposits into the financial institutions (investors were content to buy bonds with a negative return a few days ago, so the safe investment with gov insurance will be very attractive at this point). Hopefully, the additional deposits will create enough liquidity to loosen up the credit crunch.

All this w/o making a full blown turn down socialist ave.

9/26/2008 10:04:43 AM

^^Wrong, the plan that was on the table was not the original plan proposed by Bush/Paulson that everyone in this thread is shitting themselves over. It was the democrat version of the plan that included a number of things, including

-a congressional oversight committee so Paulson/Bernanke aren't the only ones in control of this

-Guaranteed equity in the companies helped by the plan

-Mortgage reforms to help people on the verge of foreclosing keep their homes

-Wall Street reform to guarantee that CEOs can no longer take massive risks with no fear of repercussions (golden parachute)

Also, the final number was no longer $700 billion. It wasn't perfect, and it still sucks, but it was a long long way from the original plan.

[Edited on September 26, 2008 at 10:08 AM. Reason : :]

9/26/2008 10:05:20 AM

It was the original plan plus democratic riders. And then plan wasn't near ready to go when McCain showed up, and he barely had any input into the process. You might have heard on the news that they heard from questionable sources that it was ready to go, but respected sources claim that it wasn't even close.

9/26/2008 10:08:05 AM

Quote :

""I didn't know I was going to be the referee for an internal GOP ideological civil war," Barney Frank, D-Mass., said on CBS's "The Early Show.""

I guess it would surprise mush-mouth Frank that some people actually stick to their principles.

Quote :

"Then McCain showed up"

I understand the desire to tarnish McCain with this crisis, but the conservative backlash to this socialist Bailout wasn't his doing.
The hold-out republicans are really tempting the panic-factor of the country. They are trying to calm people down and not do the usual knee-jerk response to a crisis which is to give more power to the gov't. Power that is seldom returned to the people.

9/26/2008 10:08:57 AM

^^Respected sources? You mean like Lindsey Graham? The biggest McCain supporter in congress? Ok.

^Republicans trying to calm the fears of the public so no knee jerk reactions are taken. The irony here is blowing my mind.

[Edited on September 26, 2008 at 10:13 AM. Reason : :]

9/26/2008 10:09:25 AM

Quote :

"I guess it would surprise mush-mouth Frank that some people actually stick to their principles."

But others in the same camp apparently don't? Why the snarky comment? Because Frank is a Democrat?

9/26/2008 10:14:25 AM

I was waiting for this to devolve into partisan bickering


Im much more comfortable with the bickering than when everyone was agreeing



^I mean, the guy can barely talk, I cant understand a damn thing he is saying on TV

[Edited on September 26, 2008 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

9/26/2008 10:14:46 AM

Has anyone posted this?
http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/23/bailout-paulson-congress-biz-beltway-cx_jz_bw_0923bailout.html

Quote :

"In fact, some of the most basic details, including the $700 billion figure Treasury would use to buy up bad debt, are fuzzy. "It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number.""

Ha!

9/26/2008 10:16:21 AM

By the way, for those of you that don't think that this is a big deal, when BANK OF AMERICA is reconsidering it's lending commitment to MCDONALDS, you know shit is about to hit the fan.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aDy9UdLRu6Xw&refer=us

9/26/2008 10:23:20 AM

Quote :

"It wasn't perfect, and it still sucks, but it was a long long way from the original plan. "

That's the point.

But your own admission, it was a sucky plan. So why should we have passed it? Because the Democrats wanted it and the Republicans and evil McCain opposed it? If McCain really had anything to do with stopping the plan (which I don't think he did, but it seems like you do) then I'm glad he did.

9/26/2008 10:28:18 AM

Yeah, it did suck. Any plan that calls for the government to spend $billions of taxpayer dollars to fix wall street's problems sucks. The thing is, we're passed the point where a perfect or even good solution to this problem exists, all we have are ones that are less bad. Something has to be done though, this is not a drill. If the credit markets seize, everyone will suffer, not just wall street.

And no, McCain did not (personally) have anything to do with stopping it. By all accounts, he basically sat in the conference room with Bush, Paulson, Obama and other congressional leaders, and said absolutely nothing. It was actually Obama who brought up the House republican plan to Paulson to see if it would be acceptable. Paulson said no, and now we're stuck back at square one.

9/26/2008 10:43:56 AM

I'm confused, which plan was Obama for? The Democrat revision of the original plan or the House Repub plan?

9/26/2008 10:48:18 AM

He was for the democrat revision of the plan, but that plan was never going to pass without the support of house republicans. So he brought up the republican plan to Paulson to see if was a viable solution, and if it was, maybe they could get some agreement on it from the democrats. Paulson though, basically said "this is not going to work".

9/26/2008 10:52:29 AM

Here is the shit that steams me, no financial experts in the field have been consulted

http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/253762/rge_conference_call_on_the_economic_and_financial_outlookand_why_the_treasury_tarp_bailout_is_flawed

Quote :

"The Treasury plan (even in its current version agreed with Congress) is very poorly conceived and does not contain many of the key elements of a sound and efficient and fair rescue plan. Like in my 10 step HOME plan many other economists and commentators (Charles Calomiris, Raghu Rajan, Kotlikoff and Mehrling, Luigi Zingales, Martin Wolf, Barry Ritholtz, Chris Whalen and twenty others whose views have been featured this week in the RGE Monitor group blogs) have presented ideas that would have minimized the cost to the US taxpayer of a resolution of this financial crisis. It is a disgrace that no professional economist was consulted by Congress or invited to present his/her views at the Congressional hearings on the Treasury rescue plan."

Just who do these two faced suits in congress think they are to come up with a plan to solve a crisis that was created because some of the (supposed) brightest minds in the financial world cooked up some schemes that even they couldn't fully grasp.

For fucks sake. It really is going to take a nasty recession and depression-like times before the American public wakes up and actually participates in Democracy.

9/26/2008 10:57:07 AM

Another thing I don't understand is. If the Democrats collectively agree on a plan, why don't they pass something? Can the Republicans really stand in their way?

9/26/2008 10:58:54 AM

You've heard of a veto before right?

9/26/2008 11:03:55 AM

they might not say it publicly, but the Republicans could filibuster any bill the Dems agree on

yeah, and ^ too

[Edited on September 26, 2008 at 11:04 AM. Reason : .]

9/26/2008 11:04:12 AM

Again, that's just shameful party politics. The democrats probably could pass it without republican support, but they don't want to be the only ones with their name on it if it does end up blowing up in everyone's face.

That's also why the original plan proposed by Bush/Paulson was so ridiculous. They didn't really think a $700billion blank check with no oversight would pass through congress. They wanted the democrats to get involved so they would have their names on it as well.

9/26/2008 11:05:40 AM

Democrats have Bush's blessing though

9/26/2008 11:06:40 AM

lol, unfortunately Bush's blessing doesn't mean much anymore in the public eye

9/26/2008 11:09:53 AM

yeah, but that assumes that the Democrats actually want to pass this bill.

Oh, right. All Democrats are Socialists, so this is exactly what they've always wanted to do

9/26/2008 11:09:55 AM

^^ irrelevant

^ true, I never assumed, I just kept reading "Democratic proposal"

9/26/2008 11:11:40 AM

so Im assuming most of you posting recently support this bailout?

what kind of "protections" do you think are needed?


personally I dont support any type of bailout and feel that most of America is the same way (I could be wrong though). Naturally Im Ticked that Congress is arrogant enough to pass this anyway,

I mean Congress always knows what is best for us dont they . . . . . .

9/26/2008 11:24:00 AM

I certainly do not want this.

9/26/2008 11:27:52 AM

^against it in just about every form right?


To me this is where most of America stands, but I cant be sure. One of Ron Paul's emails claimed that only about 7% of Americans actually support a bailout according to some gallup poll (I havent seen anyone else use that number though). That was also the bailout in its original form.



[Edited on September 26, 2008 at 11:43 AM. Reason : .]

9/26/2008 11:34:16 AM

with a sub-15% approval rating, definately!

9/26/2008 11:40:09 AM

^^Pretty much. I would like to see some consumer protections and the ability to let the courts re-write mortgages to try to keep some people in their homes. But I don't even know how effective that would be. Most of the people who are in trouble wouldn't be able to afford their payments in ideal conditions.

I'm just not down with the blank check bailout strategy that seems to be prevalent in Washington. To me, that's going to punish everyone in the country for the huge fuck up of giant banks and the irresponsible minority. If they simply let the banks fail, let the market correct itself, and allow new banks to grow in their place we'll be back on the growth wagon in a couple of years. A lot of people will get screwed hard, but it's better than the alternative which is a long, slow steady decline towards a new depression with massive inflation due to the fact that they're just dumping money on this problem.

I also don't think it's a coincidence that Paulson is being a huge douchebag about this whole thing when he was working at one of the biggest failure banks in this whole debacle.

I think that something like 70% of America is against this.

[Edited on September 26, 2008 at 11:44 AM. Reason : ]

9/26/2008 11:43:43 AM

Quote :

"We just wanted to choose a really large number."

I think this shows definitively that the folks running the world operate the same as Joe Tofu on the street. Major financial crisis? Entrusted with taxpayers' money? Ah, fuck it. Just roll a d10 and add a pile of zeros.

9/26/2008 11:47:25 AM