I am angry. I am THOR angry. Why is the Government giving away loads of free cash to losers and skipping out on the American people? What ever happened to the idea that "Give people more money and they can have more to spend to keep the economy going?"
Lets say that as long as they are giving money away they should take around $180 million of the $700B and give directly to U.S. citizens? After all, the amount they are using for bailout is an estimate. We could have a nation of nothing but millionairs. Since that money would actually be spent, the government could tax everyone in a higher bracket. They could get lots of the money back. With everyone now able to buy in Wall Street then it would be saved. Forget the middle-man who got us in the crisis in the first place. I want my share of Uncle Sam's free goodies.
The most depressing, and revealing, is that the Democrats are all in this just as much. Yes, those "people's party" proclaimers are on the side of *shock* giving money to big business. Then again, they are fans of the big government take over of private enterprise. Who were the sour grapes on this? A few lone Republicans - not that the rest of them don't disgust me at this moment.
I want my share of the money pit pie. Frankly, there are some people who need it more than me. A bailout windfall could save lives.
Politically I think those banks and lenders should go under with no bailout at all. Some say the repercussions would be world wide depression. Good. We need a few of those at times to humble us into sanity and take greed down a few notches. Besides, this bailout isn't saving anything. It is just keeping the economy afloat for a few more years or months and shifting the consiquences on the government. In turn, of course, that means the consiquenes will shift to ALL Americans stuck with the bill they cannot pay. The only people who should pay, besides the speculative lenders, are those who bought houses they couldn't afford because they listened to oil salesmen bankers.
Honestly, I could have millions of dollars. You could too. Now if I could only convince the Government that I need a bailout with no strings attached.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
If they gave the money directly to U.S citizens we would each end up with a couple thousand.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
ok, your right. Still, the idea is that they are giving money to those who don't diserve it in my estimation.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:...they should take around $180 million of the $700B and give directly to U.S. citizens...
Wow. Fifty cents for every person in the US. Whee!
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I told you it is THOR angry. I didn't say it was logical.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
How much was the tax rebate in advance thingie earlier this year? $300? $600?
Edit to add: Using TomD's figure of 200 million tax payers and $600, we get a rough estimate of the bailout costing roughly 5.8 stimulus bills. Put another way, according to the New York Times, that gives you about 3.5 years of an Iraq War.
Or 1.5 times the total federal debt of Canada. Huh.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Honestly, I could have millions of dollars.
No, you couldn't. $700 billion spread across 200 million taxpayers isn't enough to cover more than a couple mortgage payments.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by Threads: If they gave the money directly to U.S citizens we would each end up with a couple thousand.
I bet my school raises tuition by exactly that amount.
--
I want to know if I'm understanding this situation correctly: people didn't pay their mortgages, so some banks failed, which caused more banks and insurers to fail, which has left the largest banks with a liquidity crisis. So the proposal is to give the largest banks a lot of money from the Treasury, because if they go down, we all go down. Is that a fair summary?
If it is, I'm a little confused. Don't the folks at the bottom of all this still have to pay their mortgages? And they pay taxes too -- are we about to send a portion of their taxes to their banks -- who certainly aren't going to forgive any part of their debt?
--j_k
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The only people who should pay, besides the speculative lenders, are those who bought houses they couldn't afford because they listened to oil salesmen bankers.
It's almost certainly impossible to restrict who "pays" to those people. If there's not a bailout, people who do not fall into either category will almost certainly pay something. It's possible that they will pay significantly less under the bailout.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Lets say the government gives every citizen who owns a house in the U.S. 300,000 dollars. That should be the amount that would cover the highest of the average home costs. How much "bailout" money (assuming 1/3 of U.S. citizens own houses). How much would that total?
Just for fun, lets say the government is able to give every U.S. citizen $500,000 each adult. How much money would that total?
To be fair and honest, I hate math and have always been close to illiterate when it comes to numbers. I am honestly wondering how much it would cost to actually give money away since the Gov. seems to be doing that right now.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For some more fun statistics, the US National Debt clock http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ a total debt (I'm unclear if this is just federal or not) of 9.85 trillion or $32,340.73 USD per person in the US, converted this gives $33,603.058 CAD
This http://www.ndir.com/SI/education/debt.shtml gives the total federal, provincial, and municipal debt of Canada as $22,127.05 CAD per person.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"It's possible that they will pay significantly less under the bailout."
Until the already oversized U.S. debt comes crushing the heads of the same.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: ... So the proposal is to give the largest banks a lot of money from the Treasury, because if they go down, we all go down. Is that a fair summary?
If it is, I'm a little confused. Don't the folks at the bottom of all this still have to pay their mortgages? And they pay taxes too -- are we about to send a portion of their taxes to their banks -- who certainly aren't going to forgive any part of their debt?
IMHO, (not an economist) the bailout is more than giving the banks money. The liquidity injections that have been going on for months now to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars over the world, thats giving the banks money.
The bailout is borrowing money via the sale of US treasuries to buy up packaged and bundled loans gone bad.
As for the rest, yes they will have to pay the same mortgages, pay the same taxes, and no debt will be forgiven under the current proposal, although amortization periods might be lengthened(?) lowering monthly payments.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I bet my school raises tuition by exactly that amount.
My university raised tuition this semester by 12%. They also increased fees.
College has never been easy to afford, of course, but I think it's getting harder and harder.
I intend that a significant portion of my take-home pay when I begin working (as in more than 50%) will have to be spent on sending my oldest to college and saving up for the other three.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I am still waiting for my scholarship check. $1300 sitting in my bursar's account that I can't get to. I am sitting here trying to figure out how to pay all my bills and they are just sitting on my money. So far, they have just blown me off whenever I try to find out anything (they'll e-mail me the moment it is ready is where we are at- but no clue why it is taking them a month and a half to be ready to give me my check).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Occ, it would cost $2.5 trillion to give every home owner in the U.S. $300,000. That said, I'm pretty sure that's still cheaper than the Iraq war.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
The bailout bill just failed in the house. CNN Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
One other thing to consider is that while the government is buying bad debt, it's buying it dirt cheap. Assuming this injection of money stimulates the economy, the government may wind up making a huge windfall once the value of that investment goes up.
It would be really ironic if the U.S. Government manages to pay down the national debt because of a crisis caused by mismanagement. Bush could come out of this looking like a hero. (Reminds me of how the Simpsons got their dog)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: The bailout bill just failed in the house. CNN
This should be fun.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:One other thing to consider is that while the government is buying bad debt, it's buying it dirt cheap.
I haven't seen any indication that this is necessarily going to be the case. Paulson's plan was, as far as I could tell, not looking to pay current market prices for the mortgages. The $700 billion number they came up was not pegged to any metric, but instead a number they chose because it sounded big.
In the bill they just voted down, there wasn't, I don't think, any provision guaranteeing that the debt would be bought cheaply. The best indication of this was that there was some weakly worded provisions about how, if the mortgages weren't making money for the government, that the finanical firms would have to make up for it, in some unspecified way.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
If the gov't pays so little that it is making a lot of money, that probably wouldn't help the markets much.
And add in a ten to twenty percent (of the calculated price) haircut for the firms.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
Dear Investment Banks, Since the bailout bill to buy your mortgage-backed securities did not pass, I am willing to step up to purchase your toxic securities to get them off your books and inject you with much-needed liquidity. In exchange for all of your firm's mortgage-backed securities I will provide you with one $20 bill. This is a new, crisp $20 bill which has not yet been creased or wrinkled from overuse or long stays in a billfold. I understand that this may not be as favorable of a price as you were hoping to get from the government, but with this $20 you can buy a lot of ramen noodles and that's more than you can say for most of your assets at the moment.
Note: I only have one $20 bill on me, so this is a first-come, first-served offer.
Thanks, --Enigmatic
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
YES! It failed!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's possible that the members of Congress will take this to mean that trying to ram a bill through and be overwhelmed with a horde of protests from their constituents who were supposed to just shut up and take it was a bad idea.
Regardless of what bill they end up passing, they owe the public a full explanation of why they are doing this and what they expect it to accomplish, not just fear mongering and Bush-style empty assurances.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Hey I didn't make it up:
quote:OBAMA: There's no doubt it will affect our budgets. There is no doubt about it. Not only -- Even if we get all $700 billion back, let's assume the markets recover, we' holding assets long enough that eventually taxpayers get it back and that happened during the Great Depression when Roosevelt purchased a whole bunch of homes, over time, home values went back up and in fact government made a profit. If we're lucky and do it right, that could potentially happen but in the short term there's an outlay and we may not see that money for a while.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There are a lot of stories out there about the political upheaval that's going to come over this. Political analysts are saying this could give what is already shaping up to be a nation in the beginnings of class warfare a huge, huge push.
I'm a little worried about that, but the next election is two years away, and a lot will change in that time. If it stays bad, Congress could experience a seachange. It's impossible to say, but I'm extremely impressed by the response Congress is getting from constituents.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
So, now the question is - are we voters and our representatives so angry that we'll let the whole ship sink rather than bail out the ones who have been steering it unwisely?
Hopefully, Congress can come up with a solution - but unfortunately for them, I think the average Joe understands justice better than he understands economics, and probably won't be too happy with any bailout.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If we're lucky and do it right, that could potentially happen but in the short term there's an outlay and we may not see that money for a while.
You'll notice the very not certain nature of the statements he is making here. The only people who I've seen claim that this is almost definitely going to happen work for the Bush administration, which has lied to me far too much to have any credibility.
If there were strong indications that the people planning this bail out were structuring it in such a way that there was a very good chance that we'd come out of it making money or even breaking even, it would go a long way towards answering my concerns about it.
Right now, I am not seeing this and, from what I can tell, if they did bargain for these things, it would be bad for the big money men, so I don't expect it.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
"Full fathom five thy father lies. Of his bones of coral made. Those are pearls that were his eyes. Nothing of him that doth fade, but that suffers a sea change, into something rich and strange."
Pet peeve: people using "sea change" as if it means sweeping changes.
Not your fault, Lyrhawn, everybody and his brother has been using it that way lately.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:You'll notice the very not certain nature of the statements he is making here.
Sure. Also notice the not very sure nature of my original post. I said it may happen, and it would be ironic if it did happen.
In any case, this is the model to strive for. The bailout should be an investment, not a gift.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Unless Congress can convince the average American that the bill is A. Not a bailout, and B. That what happens on Wall Street will hurt them too, possibly catastrophically, then I don't see support turning. That's the problem with having an electorate so often taken advantage of for their inability to either understand or to try to understand, depth and nuance. When you drop a complicated issue on their doorstep, they show an unwillingness to dig deep to find out all the possible endgames and how it could effect them.
I suspect that if this wasn't sold as a Wall Street bailout package and was instead sold as a measure to save taxpayer retirement funds and jobs, the movement against this thing wouldn't be quite so bad .
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: So, now the question is - are we voters and our representatives so angry that we'll let the whole ship sink rather than bail out the ones who have been steering it unwisely?
Hopefully, Congress can come up with a solution - but unfortunately for them, I think the average Joe understands justice better than he understands economics, and probably won't be too happy with any bailout.
Pretty sure that the ones who have been steering also have all the life rafts. Fancy, luxury life rafts.
ETA: I have always understood "sea change" to mean deep profound transformation rather than broad change.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Right - unfortunately, I suspect the people who'll be stuck if the ship goes down are the ones most likely to think justice is being served by refusing to bailout the rich.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: "Full fathom five thy father lies. Of his bones of coral made. Those are pearls that were his eyes. Nothing of him that doth fade, but that suffers a sea change, into something rich and strange."
Pet peeve: people using "sea change" as if it means sweeping changes.
Not your fault, Lyrhawn, everybody and his brother has been using it that way lately.
Yeah, I used to actually try and correct people for it too, but I think it's one of those things that has entered the vernacular with a different meaning than its origin. It's not like there are a ton of people out there using "sea change" in its originally intended form. In it's original form, from what I've read and understand, it merely meant a change that took place at sea, or because of the sea, it was hydrologically related. Now it's used to mean either like kate said, a transformative change, or as many use it, to denote sweeping change. I've used it both ways. I've never heard anyone ever use it in reference to water.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Pretty sure that the ones who have been steering also have all the life rafts. Fancy, luxury life rafts.
Where's John Jacob Astor when you need him?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well one of them underwent a sea change.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
A change from eyes to pearls, and from bones to coral, seems pretty deep to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It was sad.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: Republican House leaders may have signaled the new strategy for the party in a news conference moments ago when they blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) for a partisan speech that, they argued, tanked the possible passage of the legislation.
McCain followed that lead in a statement by senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain, and refused to even say if he supported the final bill," said Holtz-Eakin. "Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome. This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country."
Ah, finger pointing. It brings a small amount of amusement to my life. A small amount.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Since there are so many cross-threads, I'm reposting my comment from the AIG thread here: The whining about how Pelosi's speech undermined the vote is annoying. Vote for or against the bill because of its merits. Her speech didn't suddenly add amendments to the bill. Now they're back to bickering about how "partisan politics" caused the failure of the bill. People who let her speech change their vote are more to blame than her. It shows yet again how many of them care less about the actual nuances of the bailout plan and more about posturing.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I wondered where the term "sea change" came from to begin with. Of course I've heard it as "seed change" and several other mispronunciations/bastardizations too.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, I need a beer. Or maybe time to invest in beer stocks.
Eh, one of the two.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote: Republican House leaders may have signaled the new strategy for the party in a news conference moments ago when they blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) for a partisan speech that, they argued, tanked the possible passage of the legislation.
McCain followed that lead in a statement by senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain, and refused to even say if he supported the final bill," said Holtz-Eakin. "Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome. This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country."
Ah, finger pointing. It brings a small amount of amusement to my life. A small amount.
Wow. What an absolute load of horse-puckey. Given that the Democrats rallied more than half their number in support of a bill that Bush favored and the Republicans failed to do so, about the best one can say is that some of the GOP are once again allowing the whole mess to burn because they feel someone slighted them on a plane. And McCain personally said he'd work to rally the Republican votes! You'd think they'd have the decency to blush.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
When we might have had a deal on Thursday.
quote: But a top aide to Mr. Boehner said it was Democrats who had done the political posturing. The aide, Kevin Smith, said Republicans revolted, in part, because they were chafing at what they saw as an attempt by Democrats to jam through an agreement on the bailout early Thursday and deny Mr. McCain an opportunity to participate in the agreement.
Because it is all about him. And he just couldn't get to Washington any sooner and phone calls just don't provide photo ops.
Like most people, I have pretty mixed feelings about this whole thing, but the democrats aren't the ones holding things up.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah, I used to actually try and correct people for it too, but I think it's one of those things that has entered the vernacular with a different meaning than its origin. It's not like there are a ton of people out there using "sea change" in its originally intended form. In it's original form, from what I've read and understand, it merely meant a change that took place at sea, or because of the sea, it was hydrologically related. Now it's used to mean either like kate said, a transformative change, or as many use it, to denote sweeping change. I've used it both ways. I've never heard anyone ever use it in reference to water.
The sea-related sense is archaic. I've never before heard it used to mean sudden change; just a really big change, like going in the opposite direction from before.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I just checked the balances on my pension fund. I've lost considerably more during the last quarter of economic instability than this bail out would have cost me.
I get the feeling the most Americans have so little understanding of how these things are connected that they are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
scholarette, you don't have an email listed, but if you'll email me, I might have some suggestions.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Wrong thread? Deleted post?
Edit: Response to post way back in the thread, further up than I looked? Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit: Well, from that perspective, an American with an investment in a domestic S&P500 fund such as SPY http://finance.google.ca/finance?q=AMEX%3ASPY could have lost more than $2000 with as little as $31,000 invested *today*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Edit: Response to post way back in the thread, further up than I looked?
Yeah, it's been a pretty busy thread today. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yeah, I used to actually try and correct people for it too, but I think it's one of those things that has entered the vernacular with a different meaning than its origin. It's not like there are a ton of people out there using "sea change" in its originally intended form. In it's original form, from what I've read and understand, it merely meant a change that took place at sea, or because of the sea, it was hydrologically related. Now it's used to mean either like kate said, a transformative change, or as many use it, to denote sweeping change. I've used it both ways. I've never heard anyone ever use it in reference to water.
The sea-related sense is archaic. I've never before heard it used to mean sudden change; just a really big change, like going in the opposite direction from before.
I've never heard it used to mean sudden change either, at least, not by itself. If a really big change comes suddenly, then it gets folded in, but a small sudden change wouldn't count.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:The sea-related sense is archaic.
What? Shakespeare is archaic?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The Rabbit: Well, from that perspective, an American with an investment in a domestic S&P500 fund such as SPY http://finance.google.ca/finance?q=AMEX%3ASPY could have lost more than $2000 with as little as $31,000 invested *today*
Yup! Every American with money in an IRA or a Pension fund ought to be screaming right now. The houses failure to pass this bill has just cost you more than the bailout.
Of course, you only loose this money if you sell today or if you sell at any time before the market recovers. Its hard to calculate the real long term impact of such things. We will never know how much more I would have had in my retirement fund 20 years from now if the house had passed todays bill. Nonetheless, I think its a pretty safe conclusion that if the house and senate can't agree on a bailout package that will stabilize the banks and markets, we can all kiss our comfortable retirement good bye.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Yup! Every American with money in an IRA or a Pension fund ought to be screaming right now. The houses failure to pass this bill has just cost you more than the bailout.
Here's another point of view, if you're interested.
quote: Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.
It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.
--Ron Paul
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:The sea-related sense is archaic.
What? Shakespeare is archaic?
When's the last time you used "thither" or "thine" in a conversational sentence with friends?
I don't think the basics of his stories are archaic; we still find ways to make them relevent and important, but the language is most certainly archaic.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
umm... /sarcasm
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Speed:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Yup! Every American with money in an IRA or a Pension fund ought to be screaming right now. The houses failure to pass this bill has just cost you more than the bailout.
Here's another point of view, if you're interested.
quote: Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them up.
It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.
--Ron Paul
Correct me if I'm wrong, but by memory FDR didn't take office until 1 1/2 years after the 1929 stock market crash so based on RP's assessment, the great depression was over before any of those destructive strategies were implemented.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: umm... /sarcasm
Sorry, I'm multitasking, and when I split my focus my sarcasm-meter tends to go on the fritz. Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: scholarette, you don't have an email listed, but if you'll email me, I might have some suggestions.
Thanks! I did find out that they are updating charges on October 1 (for like printing charges and stuff), so if they don't send my check then, I will definetely e-mail you. I really appreciate the offer of your expertise.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote: Republican House leaders may have signaled the new strategy for the party in a news conference moments ago when they blamed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) for a partisan speech that, they argued, tanked the possible passage of the legislation.
McCain followed that lead in a statement by senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin. "Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain, and refused to even say if he supported the final bill," said Holtz-Eakin. "Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome. This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country."
Ah, finger pointing. It brings a small amount of amusement to my life. A small amount.
Wow. What an absolute load of horse-puckey. Given that the Democrats rallied more than half their number in support of a bill that Bush favored and the Republicans failed to do so, about the best one can say is that some of the GOP are once again allowing the whole mess to burn because they feel someone slighted them on a plane. And McCain personally said he'd work to rally the Republican votes! You'd think they'd have the decency to blush.
Pelosi's uncanny ability to piss people off didn't really help, though, did it? Considering a sizable number of Republicans decided to drop their support *after* her speech, this seems to be a better example of the rhetorical tactic of "insult them until they agree with you" that seems to be so popular among democrats these days.
The Democratic party has an awful lot to learn about influencing the decisions of people. Frankly, attempting to prove that you're better than me just does not fly when you're not dealing with the type of people who don't give a crap about following the herd.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I did find out that they are updating charges on October 1 (for like printing charges and stuff), so if they don't send my check then, I will definitely e-mail you. I really appreciate the offer of your expertise.
Good luck. Just keep in mind that with the holidays my availability will be spotty in the next few weeks.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Pelosi's uncanny ability to piss people off didn't really help, though, did it? Considering a sizable number of Republicans decided to drop their support *after* her speech, this seems to be a better example of the rhetorical tactic of "insult them until they agree with you" that seems to be so popular among democrats these days.
The Democratic party has an awful lot to learn about influencing the decisions of people. Frankly, attempting to prove that you're better than me just does not fly when you're not dealing with the type of people who don't give a crap about following the herd.
That's possibly true, I haven't seen the actual speech she gave yet though. Even if it is true, it's damn thin excuse. How anyone can justify not voting for a measure that they were previously going to vote for, especially when it's arguably the most important piece of legislation since the Iraq War resolution of 2003, just because a fellow Congressperson hurt your feelings is beyond me.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
A sizable number of Republicans may say they dropped their support after Pelosi's speech. An NPR analyst stated that it seemed that a number of the GOP voted against it thinking there would be enough votes on the table for it to carry anyway, hoping they could use their votes as populist, "sticking it to the rich" credentials in their home states while still allowing the necessary act to go through.
Acting against your interests because you're miffed is bad. Hoping someone else will take the blame for doing what you think is necessary is worse. And frankly, even if they were angry at Pelosi, that's an incredibly contempable excuse. They're public servants. They're supposed to do what they think will best serve the public, not what will stoke their egos- or even what will get them elected next term, as rare as I grant such a genuinely self-sacrificing and public-minded view is these days on either side.
I'm sure the Democrats weren't thrilled by a bill backed by this administration, or the prospect of giving Bush's people what some might see as a win right now, but they still came through with a majority. And they're being lambasted for playing politics? Tripe. Jackals would sneer.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Initial memo inviting analysts to join in. Apparently about 800 people nationally participated, according to the first link above. The memo states "This call is specifically for analysts," but there is no specification of secrecy, or the like.
rivka [Edit: does not note] that "tranching" is currently the top Google hit. [rather, the wikipedia page is the top hit, as it seems likely that a lot of non-finance types are currently googling and finding the most accessible source -- namely, Wikipedia]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(Then rivka was unclear. The wikipage is the top hit for tranching; normally I'd expect a financial site to be for such a specialized term.)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Oh, fie. I really am not good at this. (will go edit)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not you; me. I looked at the post and I totally see where you got that from what I said.
And it totally spiked.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Well, I need a beer. Or maybe time to invest in beer stocks.
Eh, one of the two.
Mucus, I read got this emailed to me today. "If you had purchased $1000.00 of Nortel stock one year ago, it would now be worth $49.00.
With Enron, you would have $16.50 left of the original $1000.
With WorldCom, you would have less than $5.00 left.
If you had purchased $1000.00 of Delta Air Lines stock you would have $49.00 left.
If you had purchased United Airlines, you would have nothing left.
But, if you had purchased $1000.00 worth of beer one year ago, drank all the beer, then turned in the cans for recycling, you would have $214.00.
Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle.
This is called the 401-Keg Plan."
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I like the 401-Keg plan.
For those who are interested, here is Ron Paul's reponse to the vote today.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I think that might be an oldie from a few years back because $1000 of Nortel should be worth $138 even after today's joyous events and Enron should be long dead.
Nonetheless, it is certainly amusing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Congress appears to have demonstrated either a remarkably dysfunctional level of Epic Fail, or else courage and principle in difficult days. I wish I knew which.
Actually, if the Republicans really did change their votes in response to Pelosi's speech, that's despicable. I hope they're only using that for an excuse.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Congress appears to have demonstrated either a remarkably dysfunctional level of Epic Fail, or else courage and principle in difficult days. I wish I knew which.
Actually, if the Republicans really did change their votes in response to Pelosi's speech, that's despicable. I hope they're only using that for an excuse.
That's one of the failings of poor leadership. The speaker of the house is responsible for ensuring that debate is honest and that the work done there is as bi-partisan as possible. Not furthering their own career by bashing the opposing political party. Pointing fingers about who is responsible is completely useless in a crisis. You dig in, do your work, get it done, and see what happens. You don't use the opportunity to grand stand and vie for the alpha male position. But then, Pelosi has always been a power hungry she-wolf. It isn't like it surprises me that she took the opportunity to turn what should have been a bi-partisan ignorance of the average American's opinion into an opportunity to further her own career.
Seriously. Do you expect to be able to spit in someone's face and then have them do what you want them to? That's just pure idiocy. If anything, Pelosi's speech probably served to push the ones that were just barely into accepting out of a feeling of need (and ignoring the cries of their constituents, no less) right back into reality, where this bail-out is as ill-conceived an idea as it could ever be.
If the banking industry were intelligent, it would make every effort in the world to turn those poisonous loans into good ones by renegotiating percentage rates, or even leveraging the number of homes in receivership by getting people out of homes they can't afford and into homes they can. But, no. The idiot CEOs are waiting for the government to bail them out so they don't have to worry about losing all that money they've made over the past decade.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The speaker of the house is responsible for ensuring that debate is honest and that the work done there is as bi-partisan as possible.
I agree on principle, but I'm not sure if that's ever been the actual case in the House of Reps. Speakers often use the position as a bully pulpit to control the House for their own party's benefit. That's been the case at least for the last 30 years, and I suspect that if I really researched it, it'd be the cast for the last 200 years.
So, I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of her behavior, it's nowhere near unique in historical context.
But I still wouldn't put most of the blame on her for this one. Changing your vote on something like this because of a hissy fit is just as irresponsible.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: [QUOTE]But I still wouldn't put most of the blame on her for this one. Changing your vote on something like this because of a hissy fit is just as irresponsible.
See, that depends entirely on whether or not you believed what you were voting on was a good thing in the first place. If someone told me that I had to get in line and follow the crowd, I'd be much less inclined to do so if
1. I didn't believe I needed to do that thing they wanted.
2. They just insulted me and everything I believed in.
edit to add: I think that for the most part, the people who changed their minds after Pelosi's speech were probably the ones who didn't want to vote for the resolution in the first place, but got coerced into doing so in whatever manner they do such things. I would *hope* that they would refuse to accept it out of an understanding of the average American's view of this debacle. Such people would be very justified in choosing not to follow behind a poor leader.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
I'm truly enjoying the mass delusion that politicians can be effective at anything but getting themselves reelected and lying.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by HollowEarth: I'm truly enjoying the mass delusion that politicians can be effective at anything but getting themselves reelected and lying.
Ha ha. Seriously though. It is not impossible and is in fact fairly common for politicians to be effective administrators of governmental affairs.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: If the banking industry were intelligent, it would make every effort in the world to turn those poisonous loans into good ones by renegotiating percentage rates, or even leveraging the number of homes in receivership by getting people out of homes they can't afford and into homes they can.
Not having been on the loans side of things, I'm not even sure it would be legal for us to try to help folks find a new house. You have to remember, banks aren't just acting on their whims here. There's a massive amount of federal, state, and local laws we have to follow before we cash a check let alone negotiate hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of loans. We can't give folks advice on how to invest, I doubt we can give them advice on which house to buy.
As for the interest rates, I'm not sure why that would be the problem. Interest is still low. And if you bought your place for one price and it goes up in value, we don't get to charge you more.
I think the problem there is the property taxes on the new, larger value of your home. That's your county government right there. Talk to them. (Unless you live in Florida where the Save Our Homes ammendment required taxes to go up even if the value of your home fell. Law of Unintended Consequences, indeed.)
[ETA] I just saw aspectre's post in the election thread. I work for a reputable credit union that serves it's membership with quality products. We offer fixed rate and the normal kind of adjustable rate mortgages. I've never heard of a product with a 25% interest rate. I'm not sure how that isn't usury, but yes, those kinds of notes should be renegotiated if the business wants to stay open. Especially if they sold folks the loan with the expectation of refinancing anyway.
[ September 30, 2008, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: AvidReader ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The issue is that many people with the worst loans just cannot afford to own houses in their area. It doesn't matter what terms there are. Indeed, the only reason they had a chance of getting a home loan in the first place was the ridiculous housing market increases that would let them refinance later based on equity from rising prices and rainbows, probably into another ARM that they'd have to restructure again several years down the road.
Additionally, if a home loan defaults or is significantly restructured in certain ways, the bank will owe a payment to those holding securities based on the loan.
Not to mention that a lot of the problem is too many people in homes with too little equity. As some recent research shows, the biggest factor in determining the percentage value of a home loan is the fraction the owner has in equity. No restructuring is going to give the particularly troubled owners much equity, so there is no restructuring that significantly improves the value of loan portfolios.
One of the better suggestions I've seen is to create a federal housing authority to buy up home loans, and then to restructure those loans . . . but since most of the loans they'd be buying up are just infeasible, they should be 'foreclosed' (perhaps not in a real foreclosure, but in some sort of buying out, to preserve personal credit) but converted into rental properties for the families currently occupying them, getting those families out of the impossible to sell due to lack of equity hole and restoring mobility. As rental properties they could then be re-sold with riders ensuring minimal occupancy lengths at reasonable rates (not that rates are going to be very high anywhere with all the available housing stock).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Blame can go all around on this issue. I think Pelosi was foolish to put such a partisan spin on such an important bipartisan effort. I think some house Republicans were even more foolish if they voted against such an important bill just because of something as trivial as a speech.
But really, the biggest problem is that the Bush administration is the boy who cried wolf. They've spent their political capital elsewhere, and now can't rally the support needed when they truly do need it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If that is what people are all up in arms about, then I'm even more firmly planted in the camp that thinks they're being beyond silly. That isn't some hyper partisan speech, and it's absolutely no worse than anything Republicans have been saying over the weekend.
I was expecting some fire and brimestone speech about the evils of Republicanism. They've got to be kidding.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that her actual speech differed slightly from her prepared remarks. Still.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Link?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I can't watch it from work (and just saw bits on TV last night) but this is probably the video.
Come on folks. The fiscal conservatives, the liberal-anti-rich folks, and those needing to save themselves from the ire of their blue-collar voters said No. Some were brave to do so. Some were cowardly to do so.
Nobody said no because Madame Pelosi was mean to them, and you will get no House Member to admit that is why they did it. They'd sound like weak childish brats.
Yes, Pelosi's grandstanding was a mistake. The Dems were having a field day watching the Reps disintegrate between the Fiscal-cons and the Pro-Biz-Cons. She gave them a partisan way out. That is all.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Boris: Seriously. Do you expect to be able to spit in someone's face and then have them do what you want them to?
To the extent that both they and I believe that what I want done is necessary for the good of the nation, yes, I do expect exactly that. If the Republicans believed that the bailout bill was genuinely required to save the economy from a Great Depression, they should have voted yes if they had to crawl through broken glass to do so. That is why they were elected. This is not to say that Pelosi's actions were any less despicable. Nobody covered themselves in glory here. But Pelosi is one step removed in the causal chain; she gave the Republicans a chance to show themselves as the better men, and they blew it.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:Blame can go all around on this issue.
So can celebration.
However, considering the Fed pumped 630 billion into the economy recently, we have had a host of other bail outs, this bill will likely pass this week or next week, and we are going to have huge deficits because of our foreign interventions, I am not all that hopeful that this is a sign of fiscal responsibility.
quote:The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.
quote: Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.
In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.
quote: Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.
Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.
quote: So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:Do you expect to be able to spit in someone's face and then have them do what you want them to?
Something about this seemed to be bothering me for a while. It seemed to slick and quick.
Then I remembered. This isn't Ms. Pelosi's bill that is getting approved. It's the bill and bail out wanted by the Republican administration. They begged, pleaded, and argued Speaker Pelosi into agreeing to it, only after she got a few of her demands put in the bill.
If you force a Republican Administration sponsored bill on a Democrat, you know what? They may make some disparaging remarks about that administration. Now when that Republcian Administration sponsored bill is not passed because a vast number of the Republican representatives don't vote for it, why do we blame the Democrats again?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
That's a good point.
Although I still think it wasn't a classy (for more or less obvious reasons) or smart (gives people a ducking excuse) move for Pelosi, I still think you're making a good point, as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not her finest hour.
Judging from my email, the left hates this bill as much as the right.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think everyone sees it as an 'evil necessity', with no one questioning the first part and a minority questioning the second part.
No one LIKES it, but the selling is based on how necessary this hated thing is.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The very loose language concerning any sort of protection, guidelines of how this money would be spent, the pricing/bargaining of the assets that were going to bought along with the "You need to pass this now without consideration or even time to read it." fear mongering makes it so I will never support this bill, even if I agreed with what they say it is supposed to do.
Congress and the Bush administration has the choice to play this on straight and go to appropriate lengths to show to the public that this is the case, that they are not trying to sneak thinks like pay outs and unjustified support of the big money men in. I doub that this will happen. I expect that they'll keep hammering away with a very flawed version until they can wear people down.
---
If this is such an important thing to John McCain, I've got to wonder why he seems to be spending all his time trying to play politics with it as opposed to saying "I'm going to leave my presidential ambitions aside here. I won't reference my opponent. Instead, I am going to explain why this is necessary and why we are doing the way we are." That would be a "suspending" of his campaign that I could respect.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think everyone sees it as an 'evil necessity', with no one questioning the first part and a minority questioning the second part.
No one LIKES it, but the selling is based on how necessary this hated thing is.
Right. I'm just pointing out that some of that minority is on the left. I am on several mailing lists and some of them are planning protests.
'Course with some of these groups, isn't much that they won't protest.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:No one LIKES it, but the selling is based on how necessary this hated thing is.
The people who are largely responsible for this mess and will be saved by the government intervention seem pretty happy with it.
If they were upset with it, I don't think there would be as much opposition to it.
---
While it does seem to me that something needs to be done, I am skeptical that this plan is necessary.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yes, I'm seeing the same, kmboots.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Here is a perspective on the current crisis.
If the Teamsters (or some other major union) acted in a way that hurt the economy as much as the greedy irresponsible bankers have, they would call out armed National Guard. They would be ready to shoot Teamsters in the streets. Major labor disputes have frequently been resolved by calling out the Guard and the use of force.
So, rather than call out the Guard and declare martial law on what is essentially an act equivalent to terrorism, we are going to give the greedy bastards $700 billion dollars instead.
Seems very much like a double standard to me.
Here is what I want. First I'm not against using federal money to stabilize the economy in a time of crisis. But I am very much against that happening to preserve the wealth of the already extremely wealthy. Especially when it was their corruption and irresponsibility that caused this crisis.
So, I want them to pay and pay big. I want them to feel financial pain as punishment for their irresponsible behavior. I want civil and criminal penalties for all those who perpetrated this act of terrorism on the American people. The greedy bastards on Wall Street have come close to bringing the world economy to its knees. They do not need to and certainly should not profit from such gross level of irresponsibility.
Also, I don't think the penalty should just be applied to the people currently in power on Wall Street. I want all people past and present, government and civilian, who have a hand in causing this problem, to pay a severe penalty for such dangerous and irresponsible action.
They have hurt the USA and the world far worse than any act of terrorism that has occurred so far in history.
We go to war with terrorists, we lock people up without bail or trial or access to representation, we torture and kill. But the far greater world threat of greed, is rewarded by giving away a massive pile of money to people who are already rich. (Slight exaggeration, but metaphorically true.)
I want some assurance that the people responsible for this problem are first punished, and then most assuredly do not profit for their blatant level of irresponsibility.
Again, in my mind, they have committed an act equivalent to financial terrorism, and I see no reason to reward that.
I was some assurance that the people's money is protected.
I was some assurance that ALL THE PEOPLE who are responsible are punished.
I want some assurance that already rich people are not going to profit from their irresponsibility.
I want consequence to the rich equivalent to the consequence that would be faced by any other aspect of American society that cause such massive damage to the safety of the country.
This level of damage would never be tolerated from Labor. This level of damage would never be tolerated from farmers. This level of danger and damage to the USA and the world would never be tolerated from a foreign government. That would be the equivalent of an act of war.
I'm not throwing money at rich people.
Also, I want to know what the people and organizations who cause this problem are going to do to fix it. They need to take action. they need to accept responsibility. They need to devise their own plan to save the economy.
What I've seen so far from Big Business, is scheming to protect their own wealth. They are willing to let the country crumble as long as they still walk away rich.
Satisfy these requirements, then you can dole the money out with EXTREME caution and oversight.
But then, that's just my opinion.
Steve/bluewizard
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I simply don't believe we should be a real estate based economy. If the bailout came with provisions guiding private industry to transition a healthy share of those real estate jobs(i.e. construction) into energy related fields, I'd support the bailout because it would serve as the first step to a planned, healthier economy. At least the Internet boom created Google, all we got with this real estate mess was urban sprawl, McMansions, and a sense of entitlement among housing speculators. You don't get 700b without strings, if you want the money, suffer the strings.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I feel for you Occasional I'm still poor too. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:After one spectacular failure, the $700-billion (U.S.) financial industry bailout found a second life Wednesday, passing through the Senate and gaining ground in the House where conservative opposition seemed to soften. ... House GOP opposition appeared to be easing after the Senate added $100-billion in tax breaks for businesses and the middle class, plus a provision to raise, from $100,000 to $250,000, the cap on federal deposit insurance. They were also cheering a decision Tuesday by the Securities and Exchange Commission to ease rules that force companies to devalue assets on their balance sheets to reflect the price they can get on the market. ... Tax cuts new and old are favourites for most House Republicans, the main target of intense lobbying to gain support for the measure. Help for rural schools was aimed mainly at lawmakers in the West, while disaster aid was a top priority for lawmakers from across the Midwest and South.
Another addition, to extend the deductibility of state and local taxes for people in states without income taxes, helps Florida and Texas, among others.
And there were plenty of obscure tax breaks to go around, like one for certain wooden arrows used by children, and another benefiting litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill.
Tax breaks for wooden arrows? Oil spill victims? Disaster relief and help for rural schools?
So its the old bill ... with a whole lot of random. Politics annoys me.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
I think raising the FDIC insurance is probably a good thing for banks more than individuals. All this really does is let people keep more of their money in one place.
Say you have an account, your spouse has an account, and you have one together. Each individual account is insured for $100,000 and each of you get $100,000 for joint accounts. (The 100,000 is split between all joint accounts you hold at one institution.) With three accounts in two account types, you're insured for $400,000 between you.
Now say we do the same thing but with $250,000 each. That would let you keep $1,000,000 in three accounts with insurance. Instead of three banks sharing the money if you want your insurance, now one bank can gain the benefit.
Advantage for the customer? A little less paperwork. You can see what you have without looking in as many places. Better interest.
It's probably not going to hurt anything, but I don't think that's really going to be the benefit that I expect politicians to play it up as.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, if FDIC works the same way as CDIC in Canada, you can simply use one investment account but split up your investment in groups of $100,000 each in a different GIC issued by a different insured entity.
e.g. Have $400,000 in one account at RBC Direct Trading, which holds four GICs at $100,000, one issued by RBC, one by CIBC, one by TD, and one by BMO.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Mucus, as far as I know, Americans actually have to put the funds in someone else's bank. I've never heard of Wachovia insuring Bank of America accounts, for example. But again, that's just a little more paperwork and a little less interest at stake.
Nighthawk, I'm not sure I get the effect you think that would have. The credit card companies have a large infusion of cash but no guarantees on future payments. Americans no longer owe money, but they don't have anything material-wise that they didn't have yesterday. Now what?
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)