JPF Home Page Forums Stop The Bailout

I just sent my Congressman the following email:
Dear Sir. With all due respect, if you vote to pass the bailout plan now before Congress, then you will not get my vote in November".

I then notified everybody in my address book that if they felt the same way, then do as I did.
If everybody would then forward that email on to everybody in their address book, then maybe the people in America will have their voice heard.
Every member of the House of Representatives is up for reelection in November and they all have official websites where you can contact them via phone/fax/email.

I might do the same But I have already decided I will NOT vote for the incumbent, for any office, in this election. I think it is time we voted them all out. End this Reign of career Senators and Congresspersons.

It's too late Roy. People have been getting "Bailed Out" since about 1935. You expect all those spoiled people to have to Pay the Piper now? They already spent the money! But guess what? They are going to pay the bill one way or the other. Higher gas bills. Higher grocries, maybe more rent now that they will have to get back to the level of their station in life. There is no free lunch. And the inmates, (Democrats) have been in charge of the Asylum for way too many years. You now see the results. A soon to be 11 trillion dollar national debt with a complete crash looming on the horizion. And people voted for it! Happy landings!

Are you joking? Democrats have been "in charge"? How many Democrat presidents have we had in the past 60 years, and what has been the dominant policy?

What brought about this financial crisis was deregulation and endorsed corporate greed which are "values" espoused primarily by Republicans. The idea of "let businesses do what they want; what's good for the shareholders is good for the public" is a 100% Republican belief. Less government in the economy is better, right? Look where it got us! The Reaganomics "trickle-down" theory, as it were.

Now, let's have a little history lesson, shall we? Under Clinton, the national deficit actually became a surplus. Under Reagan, the national debt quadrupled, an increase so huge that it was never matched again. Under Bush, our surplus became a DEEP deficit and government spending has increased a huge amount.

Andrew and Ray,

If either of you think that BOTH parties aren't responsible for this debacle, then neither of you are open to facts. Both parties have had ample opportunities to turn around the problems created by the other and they rarely if ever do. Instead, they go right along with it, knowing they can always point the finger at the other guy when it all crashes. This current bailout is a perfect example of this BS. The Democrats could have passed any bill they wanted to do bail anyone out. But they said they would not do it unless the Republicans ALSO voted for it in high enough numbers so they could share the blame. Bush was willing and ready to sign ANY version that came through, so he wasn't even in this mix. So the Republicans made some changes that protected their interests a little more and the Democrats, having no spine or courage of their convictions, accepted them and want to push it all forward. Neither of the presidential candidates took any hardline position, (or for that matter, any real position at all.. did anyone watch the debate?) showing, in both cases, no leadership. McCain falsely pretended to show leadership... Obama didn't even bother to pretend, since to date, he hasn't led on anything of substance. (And don't trot out a few bills he co sponsored.. there are Senate LEADERS in both parties.. Obama isn't one of them).

The Democratic controlled Congress was completely incompetent on this for the two years leading up. So were the Republicans for that matter. Both parties have their hands dirty and since they both are covered in mud, they'll all get away with it by having people like Andrew and Ray defend one while attacking the other. That way, nothing will EVER change. And in fact, it never does.

The seeds of this were planted by Clinton. The stewardship of it all fell on Bush. Both ALSO have their hands all over it. (By the way, the economy was in a mess when Clinton left office.. very short memory on that Andrew.. apparently you've forgotten the market crash around the Internet bubble bust.. it was ALL funny money back then). And Ray.. the Republicans had several years under Bush where they could have turned back all of this crap but of course it was all fine with them all along as well. Fanny Mae, a Democrat created and run effort, had, on the surface, a good mission. Get houses into the hands of people who otherwise could not afford it. They pushed so hard that banks and lenders also pushed hard on all the factors that let people borrow. To the point where people with no income and no assets were getting huge loans. (The slang for them is "Ninja" loans). There are reports of people with jobs making 20K a year with no down payment getting 500K loans. This systemic idiocy was encouraged by the robber barons running these insitutions and those overseeing them like Barney Frank. (What a proud piece of work this guy is, here is his great contribution to this disaster:

"In 2003, Frank opposed Bush administration and Congressional Republican efforts for the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis. Under the plan a new agency would have been created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. "These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said. He added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

That's not to suggest he's responsible alone... ALL of them are.. and there are countless examples of problems on both sides. McCain was all for deregulation. Obama is one of the biggest recipients of payola by Fannie Mae via lobbyist contributions. They both have shown zero leadership in all of this. And when one is president, I expect them to continue their lack of effort.

And of course either one will simply blame Bush for anything that happens... they have the perfect scapegoat for 4 or 8 years. And all the while the congress, who, in my view is REALLY the evil entity, will get off free from being held accountable because people like Ray and Andrew will be too busy pointing the finger elsewhere.

Brian

Ditto what Brian said.

Alan

We're not even nearly ready to get behind a leader who would go on national TV and tell us what really needs to be done about the credit crisis.

Because not one solution to this mess is painless, not one.

A credit-based economy is a dangerous notion in the first place, and once it reaches out as far as it has, you are really looking at a pyramid scheme. After a certain level of loaning and crediting and mortgaging...we find that there is more "credit" out there than can actually be paid.

Duh! Oops.

All a leader can do at this point is blaze a path through the inevitable adjustment. $700 billion dollars put out there under any plan they draft will put a bandage on the bleeding and possibly forestall or slow down a bank run. But it won't stop the bleeding, and it won't move the tectonic plates of this economy which is now seeing bubbles pop all over. The bailout is a spit in the bucket. And now that the money is disappearing, conservatives are turning into socialists and liberals are looking for Robin Hood.

We need to live within our means, and it could be that soon there will be no choice in the matter.

I'm not saying Democrats didn't have chances at fixing this mess, simply that the core values and philosophies that caused it are primarily held by Republicans. You're talking about the subprime crisis as if Fannie/Freddy somehow caused it. Huh? Those organizations have been around for over 50 years. Their role since the 60s has essentially been backing mortgages made by other companies and selling them as securities. They were NOT tasked with, as you said, getting houses to people with low-income. You're (perhaps) thinking of the Community Reinvestment Act, or CRA, which has been around since the 70s and, though it was expanded in the Clinton administration, is not widely considered to have been a primary factor in the subprime crisis.

Many, MANY people are at fault for this mess. However, again, deregulation and greed were at the core of this. And again, it is Republicans who constantly tout how LESS government and LESS regulation is better. Let the economy run itself, everything will be OK. The free market sorts everything out. Well, we gave that a shot and look what happened. THIS is the absolutely moronic philosophy that I am attacking here. It does not work in practice, and we've seen why. CEOs and high-level employees of these massive institutions who have engaged in corrupt and/or immoral practices can feel safe with the fact that they've accumulated tens of millions of dollars, so even if their actions affected vast numbers of people, they don't care.

Well,
I raalise it is hard to see the whole picture when you weren't there when it happened or haven't researched it. I can only skip over the events that have brought us to where we are today but let me try.
For some reason we had a depression in the 30's. Don't know exactly what happened but I suspect there were speculators that thought they were going to get rich from nothing to get rich on. Somewhat like the housing debacle today. People thought they could buy houses for a good price and sell them a few months later for a good profit. However the market can't sustain the ever upward prices so the bottom fell out.

Our great president Franklin D. Roosevelt got Social Security passed, even tho some were against it, it became reality. As of today it is going towards running out of money because there isn't enough money coming in to sustain the system.

Enter our next great president Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Protege of FDR by the way, who sold the people Medicare and suggested it would only cost about 9 billion dollars to run and sustain. It too is in the thros of failure but many don't pay attention to the ever mounting National debt of which is now over 11 trillion dollars.

The people were sold a "Pig in a Poke" and they bought it. Not all but most. And the people were left holding the bag. And let me repeat, People voted for this by keeping policitians in office that gave them what they wanted. Don't blame the policitians. A lot voted against these socialisim issues.

While some may want to deny all these facts it was the Democrats that started us down this primrose path. And we are headed right back to where we started in the 1930's. The question now is will the people be smart enough to not go down this primrose path again? While some Republicians may have voted for some of this from time to time they certainly can't be held responsible for the disasterous results. The facts do not square with passing around the blame.

There may be some good news however. Supposedly more conservative
veiws are in the pipeline of which will eventually repair this grand experment of the last 70 plus years.

The housing crunch certainly speaks for itself.

I find it {sadly} hilarious that the very fools who got us INTO this mess, are now in charge of getting us out OUT of it! Meanwhile us joe-shmoes are screwed either way.

a CNN guest, a professor who has been studying Wall street for 10 years answering to the question, "Didn't anyone see this coming?" said: Not only did Wall Street see it coming but emails were flying around two years ago saying things like, "You better hope you are retired and living overseas when the S__ hits the fan because this shell game can't go on forever.

Apparently some of the deliberately opaque financial machination were designed by mathematicians and physicist and were so complicated that no one understood how they worked. They did know that they were playing in a dangerous game- building a house of cards that could be brought down by the slightest of breezes.

Remember the arrogance of Enron and their corporate culture of "survival of the fittest". It had no heart, no humanity and no pity. I am a Republican and for the third presidential election in a row, I am voting for Ralph Nader because he is the only candidate who understands that the "Corporation" is a financial robot designed to have the legal rights of a human being but not the legal responsibilities. It can grow to any size, abuse any number of people and can acquire any amount of wealth and it can never be punished. If you want proof, just ask yourself where the 700 million is going. We have created financial robots that are ruling this country when what we need are co-ops, associations, community, charity, and unions. In the movie War Games, the technical robots take over because the defense of the country was too complicated for mere mortals. Just use that metaphor when you think about what is happening today in our Financial War Games and you will see the problem.

Ditto Brian

So the question for everyone is...
What are YOU going to do about it?

I know what I'm going to do come November. Vote them OUT. It won't happen because most people won't cross party lines when they walk in the voting booth. And I think a lot of people just vote the straight ticket. But I am going to look at each office up for reelection and vote against the incumbent.
And I think I may just vote Independent. Or write in Mike Dunbar.

It is easy to say the Democrats did it or the Republicans did it.
I have to laugh when people say Clinton left with a surplus. Nope. Any search into how the budget was balanced will reveal the GOP under Newt Gingrich were the true architect's of it.

Mark has a little insight into it. Live within our means.
But that isn't the only answer.
I don't believe a credit based society is doomed to fail as long as the credit doesn't get out of hand.
Most people will NEVER be able to save enough money to pay cash for a house. And a mortgage is credit/debt.
Or you can say you have no debt because you rent.
Most people will never be able to save enough money to pay cash for a new car either.
It is fantasy to think they will.

Part of this Mortgage meltdown has been caused by inflated housing cost's.
Cost is not the right word tho. Appraisal is the right word. The banks wrote loans based on bogus appraisals. Not true value. Now that is coming back and biting them on the arse.

I refinanced my house a couple years ago. The appraiser called me and asked me how much I was asking for on the refinance. He made the appraisal high enough to ensure I got the loan. I made sure I kept it low enough so that I retained good equity. I wanted to build a $40,000 addition on my house. It increased my value by $60,000 because I built it myself.
The appraiser NEVER came out and looked at my house.

They did the same thing for my neighbor. The problem with my neighbor is they appraised the house for about 40 K more than it is worth. He is considering just walking away from it. No way he will ever be able to sell it for what he owes.

Is credit tight? Is it impossible to get a mortgage?
Well I dunno.
I know a 19 year old who along with her dad who is on Social Security Disability just bought a house. It is in both their names. They closed on it two weeks ago and have already moved in.
It was a no money down mortgage.

What I find interesting is there are at least 5 new houses being built close by my house in Michigan.

MOST are against being in Iraq. DOESN'T matter.

MOST don't want politics as usual. DOESN'T matter.

MOST want health care to be cheaper. DOESN'T matter.

MOST voted for Gore. Didn't matter.

I could go on and on? OK, No need to, right?

MOST don't want the bailout. WON'T matter.

Shame, isn't it. They know we have short attention spans, and when voting comes, it comes down to who happens to be cute that month, or who seems nice, or who is in their party. They do what they want, unless heavily persuaded by others in their game who want it more and will make sure they know about. Letters? Ha! Now a days? They know it's all in the moment reactions, along with the above point. Wish it wasn't so. But that too WON'T matter. Revolution of some kind has been the action that has ever changed major things. And even then, sometimes it didn't matter. Vietnam?

Two of the biggest investment banking businesses, Goldman-Sachs and I forget the other one right now just had their statuses changed last week. The new status will make them elligible for a share in the 700 Billion dollar freebies. What a curious coincidence!

Naaaa..Ya Think?

It's not a freebie, and the Treasury and the bill itself intend not to overpay for the assets. There is a very real possibility the government will get back the money and maybe more. Goldman-Sachs and Morgan Stanley may not even want to be a part of it because of the restrictions placed on compensation, etc. And, they changed status so that they can obtain capital via deposits, not to be a part of the rescue package. Plus, they may have been eligible regardless of status.

Does the whole think stink? Absolutely. Andrew is exactly right, deregulation and blowing hard about a free market is what caused this. Again, capitalism has fundamental flaws which require a strong government to referee, oversee, and regulate. The trick is doing it in the right places so as not to hinder human spirit and initiative. Capitalism is not a perfect system.

One fatal flaw of capitalism is unhindered self-interest, which leads to pursuing money at all costs, including ignoring the future, morality, other people, etc. It leads to creating financial vehicles so complicated nobody understands them, with the purpose of obfuscating the truth. It causes normally conservative companies and investors to abandon principal because "look how much money these other guys are making!". "Everybody's doing it!"

It's the government's job to regulate this, and they failed terribly. And yup, Brian is so right, everybody in Congress is to blame, regardless of party. And, as someone said, many of the same blowhards that allowed this are the ones "fixing" it. Dodd, Frank, the conservative wing of the Republican party, the list goes on. Lest somebody blame only the Democrats, Phil Gramm, who was running McCain's campaign, sneaked into some bill awhile ago much of the banking deregulation that helped cause all this...

But, everybody will probably vote down party lines, just like always. We'll all vote for our nice incumbent Congressman because we personally like him/her. And then we'll all wonder why nothing changes...

I can't recall the last time I voted for an incumbent for any office from any party since the very first election I voted in.. and I think I got that one right as well. It's funny.. I get painted with so many different brushes (you're a liberal.. you're a conservative...blah blah blah) that I have a hard time ever taking anyone seriously who says they belong to either party. Both are so corrupt and so unwilling to do the right thing, and so few are willing to point all their rage and anger at their own party, even though in the best case scenario, they are STILL largely to blame for nearly anything bad going on in government. The only way to get the Republicans to change is for the REPUBLICAN voters to make them. The only way to get the Democrats to change is for the DEMOCRATIC voters to make them. But that's the last thing that will EVER happen in our country. People are so blind about party issues that it makes the most zealot religious fanatics look reasonable sometimes.

Andrew is correct that Republicans are fundamentally for deregulation. But Andrew doesn't seem the least bit bothered by Barney Frank's quote above when the Republicans tried to add regulation to FM and FM. So why was that? Because that deregulation let them conduct business however they wanted and yes, it has been a big trigger factor in all of this mess. The mess was still there, but it was like the match that lit the fuse.

On top of all of this, we have some very serious national defense issues coming our way that will quickly make all of this seem inconsequential. The Russians and Saudis and Iranians are going to make the next 10 years and beyond a nightmare for the entire free world. And I don't think either of these guys are going to be strong enough (Obama) or big picture enough (McCain) to keep it from getting much worse for whoever inevitably will be president in 4 years (which I doubt will be either of these guys).

Brian

That is not true about not enough money coming into Social Security to pay for it. Lyndon Johnson, back when he was President, changed the rules of the game. There has always been a surplus coming in every year since its enactment, but instead of taking that surplus and investing it to pay for future generations, Johnson and Congress changed the rules where the surplus went into the General Fund so Congress could get their greedy little hands on it and pay for all their earmarks and pet projects. If that money had been left alone, there would be no forthcoming Social Security crisis.

yip yip. $1.5T++ and counting. guess what doesn't show up as debt.

Its only when the rising tide that lifts all boats is receeding that the aristocracy like to remind the plebeians that we're all in the same one.

Its not like there's much choice, btw. China and Japan have the real dollar reserves to snap that stuff up with a flourish.

Well, the bill is dead. This is tough love. Unless something really radical happens, we'll have a worldwide financial mess. We may end up going to a cash economy. Folks who are liquid and in the black will fare a little better. People with ARMs or unsecured debt (credit card balances) will probably have a rough time. It won't happen immediately, but it will surely be felt by all.

Greed of the banks, the socialist idea of entitlement, and both fraud and corruption of the government are to blame.

Remember, folks, music usually flourishes in bad times.

http://www.votenader.org/index.html?submitted

Ralph Nader interview on the backasswardness of the bailout.

such drama

they'll cave

own the paper own the asset on default. it would be an international fire sale the likes of which even the IMF couldn't have set up in their heyday.

they'll cave. they're probably swapping pork over it as we speak.

Here is an interesting phenomenon: When the announcement is made that the bailout will probably succeed, oil prices skyrocket. When the news came it that the deal tanked, oil prices dropped $10 a barrel. Prediction: oil will drop below $50 if the deal totally tanks.

I have three retirement accounts- one is with the University of Oregon and has a guarantee of 8% per year. One here in Texas is limited to a 6% cap but cannot drop below 3%. The last one is CIAA CREF which is a very well run fund but I do have stock so I probably took a hit today. Still, to put it into perspective, the drop in October 1987 was 25% of the market. The stock market lost 400 points in 10 minutes after the announcement of no deal today but hardly the worst. I love to watch the piggys squeel- they are so cute when they panic!

Wachovia, the nation's 4th (I believe) biggest bank was bought by Citigroup today. A Japanese company bought 21% shares in JP Morgan. The DJIA has fallen over 770 points (nearly 7%.) Looks like we're in for a storm... God help us all.

DOW -689.51 -6.19% 10,453.62
NASDAQ -199.61 -9.14% 1,983.73
OIL -10.52 -9.84%
09/29/2008 © BigCharts

Well, I sure hope you're right Roy...No Bailout and look at the #s...Wow...Apple was at $175 on July 7...today it hit $100...This is all really scary stuff, the future could look very different than it does today! !

Damn, and all I did was send one little email. The stock market is definitely not a good place to have your money right now. As for me, I'm digging a hole in my back yard. It won't have to be very big.

Roy, maybe the emails you others said to send DID make a difference, (voting pressure). Huh?!!!

Wouldn't be the first time I was wrong! I'm glad it didn't pass. It's bad for either passing or not, but from what I can decifer, (and take this with a bottle of salt), the bad "could" be ten times longer if passed, for all the extra funds that would of course be asked for, and the lowering of the dollar more and for a longer period of time. Is that how you see it? Tragic either way.
John

Both parties are again to blame for nothing passing, or in my opinion, both deserve CREDIT for not passing it. But here's the worst possible thing... the hit has been taken for not passing it... we're all still here... if they pass it now, we'll get the worst of both worlds. And guess what will likely happen? They'll pass something... meaning we get hit from both sides.

The market has been artificially inflated for a very long time. It needed to be reset. I am guessing it's not done yet. Apple is a great example.. it's stock was not worth 175 dollars, even with the enormous success it has had. That higher number was always based on "potential" rather than reality. We need a market that has more to do with some reality going forward. Then you can find legitimately well run companies to invest in, not pie in the sky get rich quick companies.

We've lost over 75% of the value of our own stocks. BUT.. in all cases, we're still above what we paid for them all. Even with a 75% sell off, they are still fundamentally sound companies and all we lost was the funny money speculation that was built into the market. It sucks because that money was going to help fund some JPF stuff (our success in the market has been part of how we've funded it all along) but it has always been a little like playing Vegas. The difference here is that we made those choices, whereas these special interest whore politicians from both parties have let OTHER people make all the decisions for US.

People said that AIG had 1 trillion dollars worth of assets. They didn't need a bailout. They needed to sell off their stuff to pay their much lower debt. That's what assets are for. They could have paid off everything and still been totally solvent, but far less bloated. But that wasn't allowed. It's like a person with 5 houses, 10 cars and a jet going into serious debt but being unwilling to sell off half the cars and houses and rent the jet out to get out of debt.... they want to keep it ALL... we should have let them pay their bills just like all private interests must do.

Like Mike Dunbar, we have no debt other than our house which has a fixed rate mortgage. I hope folks going forward will make it their mission to do the same. We don't spend money unless we have it in hand. We have a little money saved for emergency expenses and we have a plan on what to do if that isn't enough. We've even been looking at finding a small piece of property somewhere where we can build a small house that is paid in full so we have to worry even less about about happens to markets and banks etc. It might be time for others to do the same. Don't buy computers and XBox's and new cars and giant TV's until you have the cash to pay for them in hand. If we all did that, none of us would be as affected by what the politicians are doing right now nearly as much. The other side of this is that in the market, when it bottoms out, the REAL companies that are solid will be priced where they should be for a change and with a little money invested in them, it can still grow.

Brian

I agree with Roy that we should vote every representative out of both houses of congress. I wish there was a web site based on the principals of "No Child Left Behind." Something that would grade all the folks in congress on their voting record. Where the average person could go and not have to muddle through a maze of crap to get to the basic facts. All of them would be graded on their record. If they don't pass, well "Leave that Representative Behind." Emphasis on the word "behind" next to "representative."

Wendy,

It couldn't work as you desire. The reason is that one person's "bad" decision is anothers "great" decision. When the country is split 48-48-4 (the 4 being the tiny number of us in the middle who think both sides are trainwrecks) any site "rating" the decisions made would find it impossible not to lean to one side or the other. And as soon as they leaned 1 inch either way, all of their rankings would be discredited by the opposition. I assure you if you rated all of them, Andrew and Ray (sorry guys.. nothing personal... you're just the two most outspoken advocates for your party in these discussions) would see those ratings in opposite ways. That's our fundamental problem right now in the US and I don't know what the solution is because it works so well to keep BOTH parties in serious power, even on an off year for either.

A perfect example of this BS was the insanely stupid diatribe by Nancy Pelosi not only playing maximum partisan politics, but also by making sure none of her buddies voted FOR it either. She's complaining about Republicans not taking 50% of the blame for this bill when she only needed 10 out of 86 Democrats who voted against it to vote yes, and when more than that number were her own personal cronies/friends. I don't care what you think of Pelosi's performance as a Representative, but as a leader she gets a ZERO. I suspect Pelosi supporters feel differently. And that sort of expedient blindness is why both parties get away with this crap and apparently always will going forward.

Brian

One thing that struck me in the aftermath of this debacle, was I heard more than once that if the bill passed they "hoped" it would get us out of this mess. They were willing to spend 700 billion dollars of our money on something they "hoped" would be a cure all. So, apparently even those that voted for it weren't all that sure. It seems to me they were saying, we've got a helluva mess here, let's do something even if it turns out wrong. Not exactly rocket science to me.

I believe something will eventually pass. Listening to a couple of folks who voted against the bill, if a couple of key provisions had been inserted in the bill they would have voted for it. So, I don't think it's over yet. If the market tanks, so be it. The real disasters will be the companies that are overpriced based on their actual value. At one time long ago,
I used to dabble a litttle bit in the market and one of the basic things I learned was PE value, or price to earnings. There was a formula that had stood the test of time about what a stock was worth based on its earnings. Just like the Dot Com bust, companies were overvalued and selling for ridiculous prices that hadn't even made their first dollar yet. It was all based on potential. Well, maybe it will get back to earnings now and a stock will be invested in based on what it has earned.

Regardless of whether something is passed or not, I think we are in for a long recession at least until 2010. Our economy is in a mess, gas prices and groceries are out of sight, unemployment is up, retail sales are down and bailing out a few failing banks ain't gonna solve that problem. I don't think either one of the candidates running for President is capable of solving the problem. We have a weak President, an inefficient Congress and two candidates that aren't ready for the job. It don't look good.

Let the crash happen..... and use the 700 billion to create employment projects in areas that result in high unemployment due to the crash... build some much needed infrustructure.. employ people who need to pay their bills, and not be proping up a gas giant that is failing because it can no longer support itself... Build some mobile oil rigs off the coast of the USA and that way they are a self sustaining project...

Noel,

What 700 billion? That's the kind of thinking that got us into this. There was no 700 billion, they were going to borrow it and make our grandchildren and great grandchildren pay for it if the companies didn't. Heck, if you want pie in the sky, let's borrow 700 trillion and feed all mankind, give them all free healthcare. Then there's no employment problem because no one needs to work...right?

I am not a fan of talk show host Glen Beck but he had an interesting quote tonight. I wish I could remember who he was quoting but apparently it was the guy who came up with the figure of 700 billion. The question was: "How did you come up with that figure? (700 billion)" The answer was something like: It wasn't based on any data or analysis of the market or estimation of asset values- we just wanted a really big number.

Still if you are gunna spend 700 billion even if its borrowed money fixing this problem.... put it to use where people are helped while the unstable system finds it's own balance....

Vote them OUT

And Vote Independent for President. It doesn't matter who as long as it's a independent.

I been reading this
http://www.voidnow.org/

Nobody's grandchildren or great grandchildren were going to pay for this. But that's OK, if people want to believe hype and not study what it's about, that's fine. That's usually the way it goes anyway.

You might check out this story, on the cost of not doing an orderly Rescue Plan (and on how taxpayers have been put on the hook anyway and are now spending billions - not recoverable like the Rescue Plan money):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/withoutabailoutplanwhatwillthecostbe

Some experts think the Great Depression was exacerbated because too many banks were allowed to fail. The hit here is not necessarily to the stock market, it's too the entire financial sector. Globally. Which will take more time to play out and suck in the entire economy.

It would be nice to attribute the House revolt to principal, and with some Members it was, but mostly I think it's cowardice. And Pelosi's incredibly two-faced, selfish speech.

I have no idea if the Rescue Package would accomplish it's goal, but it makes sense it would, and there is more of a chance of getting most, if not all or more, of the money back than the haphazard way the Treasury and the FDIC is going about it now. Maybe instead buying the assets outright, insuring them would be better, but it would have to include the option to buy out the assets anyway, if they are failing, and that could end up costing more money.

And...you may think you're insulated from everything, because your house is paid off, you have no credit cards, and you don't own stock. But consider just one example. Many people's health care is tied into a job. Lose the job, no health care. Have a problem, meet the bankruptcy judge. Goodbye house. If too many people get in that situation, the government will end up helping.

The taxpayer is going to pay this bill, no matter what. It's just a matter of if you want a chance to get the money back or not.

The scariest thing about this is that when you go down, you take a lot of european countries down with you.

Of course, european governments are guilty as well. Some were smarter and have always had stricter financial laws (France) so they aren't hit so hard, some others believed the american financial hype and are in deep trouble (England).

Let's all learn Chinese and switch sides before it's too late for us europeans (<--- only kidding, the Chinese are as greedy in their financial decisions, they are just in a better position now because they are a new economy and people don't expect yet all the luxuries of capitalism, but soon, 1 billion people will be asking for a private detached house and a car for each person over 15).

Actually I stayed up all night to see what happened to the Asian markets and guess what? Nothing happened. Perhaps they aren't buying into the hype and bullshit that our "leaders" are dishing out. It's clear they plan to pass something at the end of this week but my questions is WHY? We've already taken the hit on the market and the rest of the world apparently could care less about this if their markets are any indication. So let it go. But they won't. I am not questioning your position by the way Doug... I just think we need to start dealing with real numbers and real values and people who have no business in the houses they are in shouldn't be propped up nor the banks that lent them the money nor the politicians who might eventually take the fall for their actions.

But.. in the end, they'll borrow more money from the Chinese and the Saudis and both of those countries along with Russia are basically at war with us, only they are doing it financially and they are clearly winning.. and soon we'll be under their thumbs not only the rest of our lives, but our childrens and grandchildrens too. The only thing that will reset it all is a War but with nukes involved, that's not a very good way to go out either.

All of this so some politicians and wall street slimewads can rake in 100's of millions.

Ack.

Brian

Man, I'm having a tough time with this issue - mostly because I don't know enough about it.

I heard Suze Orman say on CNN yesterday that a trillion dollars just disappeared in one day. Poof! Gone!

I don't think I believe this. Now my thinking here is probably too simplistic but tell me the flaw in the reasoning. Let's suppose I have $100, Joe has $10 and Bill has a share of stock. I buy the stock from Bill for $100. I hold it for awhile and then decide to sell it but no one wants to buy it. So I sell it to Joe for his $10.

At the end of the game, there is still $110 and one share of stock - it's just in different hands. If the underlying value of the stock was really $50 then Bill came out $50 ahead, Joe came out $40 ahead and I came out $90 behind. But no wealth was lost.

The crisis appears to be caused by lenders making bad loans. What does this really mean? Forget that they talked people who couldn't afford it into paying on inflated properties. I think the crux is really this: As lenders, they bought the properties for more than they were worth and now they can't sell them.

Who made out on the deal? The people who originally owned the property. There are a ton of people out there who made beaucoup bucks on this - but they are not the banks and lenders. They are the builders or original property owners (who I guess might have been other banks in some cases).

I suppose these people who made out could turn around and buy these properties at bargain prices. A classic case of sell high and buy low. And they might just do it - but it will take a very long time. In the meantime, the banks stuck with these properties don't have cash to loan.

So what's my take on the bailout? The answer is that the devil is in the details. If the government buys up these properties for more than they are worth, then we lose. If they are tough and buy them at low cost, then we will win in the long run.

So I could support a bailout if we get a good deal on these properties. The question then becomes whether the banks (which would have to take losses if we buy at bargain prices) would get enough out of the deal to start making loans again.

If we do nothing, things will sort themselves out eventually - but it will take a very long time and many innocents will be hurt in the process.....

Anyway, what do I know - I'm no economist.....

Scott

He, He,
Brian, my Congressman, Jack Kingston, Republician, Georgia voted against this bill. As a lot of good Democrats also voted against this Bill. So there is still some fine tuning to do before it probably gets passed.

I am, for the record, a lot more conservative than Liberal. And it looks like the more conservative approach will win in the long run. I don't like huge budget deficits that we have every year and the ever increasing federal debt but it has been building for over 70 years now. But it has taken time to get to this point and it will take time, (If Ever), to get out of it.

I remember the words of the Late Senator Everett Dirkson of Illinois who used to say, A billion here, a Billion there, and pretty soon we're talking real money. And there are more than enough Greedy People right here in "River City" to go around before you get to many of the elected officials some want to burn at the stake. And on it goes.

It's going to take a long time to get it sorted out with or without something passing in the Congress. I have no doubt they will go back to the drawing board and something will pass. They just can't let it go.

My Congressman that I sent my email to, voted no. An article in today's paper, he stated he was flooded with phone calls and emails by the thousands from his constituents telling him to vote no. So, he listed to the voters. Every member of the House is up for reelection, so that is probably what happened in a lot of instances.

I even heard on CNN last night from several analysts that the primary reason for its defeat was the timing. If it had been presented after the November election it would have probably passed. So, you can believe all the rhetoric you want to and the BS they are handing it. Basically, it's all about them wanting to get reelected.

I still believe that if they just drop this hot potato, things will work out. There will be ups and downs, but that's gonna happen whether they do anything or not. We are still in for a long recession. Bailing out a few failed banks ain't gonna change that.

Scott,

I'm no economist either, but I agree with almost everything you said.

I only disagree with two points. One where I disagree is that the banks, lending institutions, and speculators most certainly made money. They made money by reselling the worthless paper. They sold that stuff all around the world. My mortgage has gone through five different companies since we bought our house. Along with my mortgage which is good paper (we can afford our house and have never once in 20 years been late with a payment), they sold many bad loans (people who couldn't afford the houses and are late on their payments). Then there were the short sellers, they've made a bundle on this. Of course now, the smart ones, the smart real estate flippers, builders, bankers, traders, and speculators, have cashed out. So who pays for it? The poor? How do they pay for it?...they're poor! No, it's the 401K.

Another is about the value of stock. Using your example, you say the $10 value just stays the same. No, it really doesn't. There's inflation, there's risk, and there are other relative occurrences in your life that devalue that $10. For one thing, the purpose of long term investment is to make your money increase in value. If you invest long term, not in single stocks, but with many different investments (I go with five different mutual funds: an agressive growth fund, a cautious low yield fund, a "green" fund that focuses on conservation and environment, a foriegn market fund, and a fund tied into the S&P 500) Then it's a fairly safe bet that you'll make money over the long haul. When the market goes down, you've lost that earning power.

But there's never, in the history of the stock market, been a 12 year period that lost money. That includes the Great Depression. If things do crash and get bad for longer than ten or a dozen years, then money will mean nothing, nor gold, you'll need to be able to entertain the war lords and know how to hunt and fish. I can do that

Don't depend on the government.

By the way, the Dow Jones is already back up over 200 points.

Whether or not the bailout is the best way to solve the crisis, the health of the economy is everyone's problem. You may not have stock in Wall Street but I guarantee that if the economy tanks you will be affected by something like:

Reduced or lost savings/investments including IRAs
No pension or health insurance from bankrupt employers
No job
Increasing crime rate
High rate of inflation/money worth less
the list goes on....

If you are already retired living on investments or company pensions, there will be few opportunities to recover since your employability will be about zero.

I suggest we need to do what it takes to get the economy back on track and then shoot those guilty of getting us in this position.

I think Scott has it right. And that's why I think this bailout is crap. The foreign markets didn't even blink. The US market is already going back up a bit after the scardy cats cashed out at a loss and the aggressive investors are scooping up all the bargins. EBay finished under $20 dollars a share... I might buy some of that action. There's several other companies that have bottomed out and I think that I might take a look at those as well. Nothing too over the top.. but perhaps a 100 shares here and there and see where they go.

Brian

By the way, my bank National City, seems to be the next to be on the verge of going down. They lost 72% of their value yesterday. I wonder if I should cash out my money and put it under a mattress somewhere? Perhaps I should buy a gun as well! = )

Brian

I know of people who are not in shaky institutions who have already done exactly that. Then they asked me if I thought they were paranoid. I replied, whatever floats your boat. Want to make a bank fail? Get more than 50% of the people with a decent amount of money in it to all go and pull out their money in cash. Money is only as good as it's perceived value, at least in America because it's backed by nothing.

I'm betting no one took the time to watch the video I linked to in the AIG thread. It will fully explain what is going on, in terms a non financial person can understand.

Other markets didn't blink?!? I guess we're not looking at the same news. The BBC stated otherwise, as did Fox and CNN. That's not to say they won't recover, but they did blink.