23 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyNo takers? I thought with the majority of posts on these boards saying that the US should NOT buy these worthless mortgages, that people who post such things would have an inkling as to the consequences for not doing so? If not, why then are people making uninformed comments?
The proposed legislation to ease the credit crisis fails to go through Congress? This is for everyone who thinks the legislation is a mistake.
Edit: I am not advocating nor disavowing the position of such action, rather, I am merely attempting to weigh the pro's and con's. However, if we are unable to weigh the pro's and con's, how can we take an informed position on the issue?
23 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyThere are plenty of people that think that the proposed bail out is a mistake, mainly because, as it is written, there is no punishment for those that caused it. There is also concern that it basically neuters Congress and gives all control of the situation to the White House. And we have seen they have managed everything else that they have touched.
The proposed legislation to ease the credit crisis fails to go through Congress? This is for everyone who thinks the legislation is a mistake.
23 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyGive me a good reason why this bailout is in the best interests of the country (a "pro"😉 and I'll try to measure that against the "cons" of bailing out poor investments done by rich folks to the tune of $700 billion of the taxpayers' money. I've heard all the "Chicken Littleish" predictions and quite frankly think they are exaggerated. Moreover, I see no reason to believe that lenders are going to start pumping a lot of money into this down economy even with this bailout. Maybe they'll just buy up the new government debt that will have to be issued to cover it, meaning they'll get to earn some nice tax free interest to be paid by the public by its taxes to save them for their crappy investments. That'd be a hoot, wouldn't it?
No takers? I thought with the majority of posts on these boards saying that the US should NOT buy these worthless mortgages, that people who post such things would have an inkling as to the consequences for not doing so? If not, why then are people making uninformed comments?
Edit: I am not advocating nor disavowing the position of such action, rather ...[text shortened]... are unable to weigh the pro's and con's, how can we take an informed position on the issue?
23 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWell, one pro, is that if they bail out the economy the Republicans won't look as bad and then McCain will stand a better chance of being elected (but this could also be accomplished by blowing up a hotel in Pakistan. Wait a second... ). I guess that is only a pro if you are a right winged, idiot that doesn't know better. Wait a second... where is DSR.
Give me a good reason why this bailout is in the best interests of the country (a "pro"😉 and I'll try to measure that against the "cons" of bailing out poor investments done by rich folks to the tune of $700 billion of the taxpayers' money. I've heard all the "Chicken Littleish" predictions and quite frankly think they are exaggerated. Moreover, I see no its taxes to save them for their crappy investments. That'd be a hoot, wouldn't it?
23 Sep 08
Originally posted by CliffLandinThe economy won't be affected in any significant way by November no matter what they do. It's probably politically worse for McCain if the bailout does happen; by all accounts the public is against it and blames the mess on Republican deregulation policies that McCain championed. Now about a month before the election the bill for the McCain-Bush policies are coming due and they want to give relief to the rich investors but not to average homeowners in bankruptcy court by allowing judges to rewrite mortgage loans to save peoples' homes. The dichotomy is political dynamite.
Well, one pro, is that if they bail out the economy the Republicans won't look as bad and then McCain will stand a better chance of being elected (but this could also be accomplished by blowing up a hotel in Pakistan. Wait a second... ). I guess that is only a pro if you are a right winged, idiot that doesn't know better. Wait a second... where is DSR.
24 Sep 08
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderSo you dismiss the dire warnings of the testimony Uncle Ben gave today before a Congressional committee if the bail out is not done? Specifically, he said that the liquidity of the market would freeze up meaning no more ability to finance mortgages etc, there would be rampant unemployment and with a near depressionary economic environment to boot.
Give me a good reason why this bailout is in the best interests of the country (a "pro"😉 and I'll try to measure that against the "cons" of bailing out poor investments done by rich folks to the tune of $700 billion of the taxpayers' money. I've heard all the "Chicken Littleish" predictions and quite frankly think they are exaggerated. Moreover, I see no its taxes to save them for their crappy investments. That'd be a hoot, wouldn't it?
So if we cannot trust the expertise of Uncle Ben and the Fed, who can we trust? Who do you trust? I watched some of the testimony given today and I can tell you many of the Congressional members seemed perplexed to say the least. In fact, I think they are wondering who they can trust as well. One thing I can tell you and that is they are between a rock and a hard place regarding the matter. On the one hand, if the Democratic Congress does not pass the legislation and economic armageddon occurs, they will suffer greatly in the next round of elections if not the elections for the next 20 years. However, if they do pass the legislation then things will continue to be bad, however, they will have the added burden of explaining to the American people why they put such a burden of debt on the tax payers. In addition, if economic armageddon occurs despite their passing of the legislation they might as well jump off a bridge. In fact, perhaps at that point everyone else will be doing the same.
24 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by CliffLandinAssuming that we are in an economic crisis, I dare say that going after those responsible should NOT be the first order of business, rather, we should be addressing the crisis at hand. However, if it is written in the legislation that there will be NO punishment for those that caused it, I feel that this may be a deal breaker if this is pushed by the Fed.
There are plenty of people that think that the proposed bail out is a mistake, mainly because, as it is written, there is no punishment for those that caused it. There is also concern that it basically neuters Congress and gives all control of the situation to the White House. And we have seen they have managed everything else that they have touched.
24 Sep 08
18 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderNow this is what I want to address the most. Specifically, I draw the line at partisanship regarding this matter. Both Republican and Democrat have gone hand in hand in helping to create this mess. In fact, if we are in the crisis everyone says we are in the welfare of the country SHOULD trump political one-ups-man-ship. For example, you harp on deregulation by the Republicans but fail to add that Clinton had a hand in this as well. In addition, you fail to put Carter in the mix as he created legislation that provided "poor" people with the ability to qualify for mortgages when they otherwise would have not been able to. In effect, the government forced many lenders to give mortgages to high risk individuals. If you take a partisan view of the matter you are simply sheep for the powers that be because that is exactly what they want us to do. Basically, they want the left to point out the Republican contributions and the right to point out the Democrat contributions and have you pick a side to defend to the death so that no one is held responsible because the problem lies ONLY within the other party.
The economy won't be affected in any significant way by November no matter what they do. It's probably politically worse for McCain if the bailout does happen; by all accounts the public is against it and blames the mess on Republican deregulation policies that McCain championed. Now about a month before the election the bill for the McCain-Bush policies ...[text shortened]... judges to rewrite mortgage loans to save peoples' homes. The dichotomy is political dynamite.
Also, the line between corporate and government is becoming blurred as government becomes increasingly intermingled with the corporate world. This will provide problems for both the far left and the far right as the far left will find it increasingly difficult to blame the corporate world for the world's problems rather than the corporations and the far right will find it increasingly difficult to blame government rather than the corporate world because they may one day be one in the same. In fact, they may already be so, even though they are not one on paper as of yet. You might even speculate that this has always been the way it has been and we are just waking up to the fact.
Here is my take on the matter. You had corporate thieves who created assets so complicated that not even Warren Buffet could completely understand them. In addition, these assets are basically worthless as they sold them, however, who will blow the whistle, especially when these assets are not fully understood as well as probable governmental collusion in turning a blind eye? Then when it all hits the fan as the house of cards fall and all is revealed, you are faced with a situation in which you must save the corporate world in order to save the nation as the average Joe is forced to pick up the tab regarding the worthless assets. In other words, you must save those guilty or otherwise the innocent goes down with them. However, if the average Joe does not pick up the tab and it all falls to pot, they could all escape to some Caribbean Island living it up from all the money they made, so who cares if the US and the rest of the world goes into a Depression?
Now as for government, many of the regulatory rules regarding such things as shorting, which has contributed to the problem, were not being enforced. So who was not doing their job and why? In addition, businesses like Fanny Mae and company were government creations that seemed to have gone about their businesses without any sort of checks and balances, so the responsibility for their failures should rest squarely on the federal government which means both Republican and Democrat alike. I would like to believe that government officials were not benefiting personally by their inaction, rather than simply being incompetent, but who is to say? To be honest I feel it was probably a little bit of both. Politicians were probably in collusion but had no idea as to the ramifications of their underhanded dealings. It is only now that they realize the errors of their ways.
24 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyIf everyone's kicked out of their homes, there will be a lot of empty houses.
So you dismiss the dire warnings of the testimony Uncle Ben gave today before a Congressional committee if the bail out is not done? Specifically, he said that the liquidity of the market would freeze up meaning no more ability to finance mortgages etc, there would be rampant unemployment and with a near depressionary economic environment to boot.
People will resort to squatting and the government won't do squat-diddley about it, because you can't have millions of homeless people.
People will rebuild, small scale, farm produce and will carry on from there, having learnt the lessen of how good capitalism was for them.
24 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWell, basically they said what would happen if nothing is done but yet they refused to describe exactly what they'll do if the bail-out is approved.
So you dismiss the dire warnings of the testimony Uncle Ben gave today before a Congressional committee if the bail out is not done? Specifically, he said that the liquidity of the market would freeze up meaning no more ability to finance mortgages etc, there would be rampant unemployment and with a near depressionary economic environment to boot.
So if ...[text shortened]... as well jump off a bridge. In fact, perhaps at that point everyone else will be doing the same.
We're talking about a lot of money here. Money that won't all be spent in an instant. I don't see why they should be given almost complete discretionary power over the full amount.
24 Sep 08
Originally posted by whodeyThen the United States taxpayers won't be on the hook for $700 billion. Personally, I wish we'd just follow India's example where angry mobs just murder the CEO every time this sort of malfeasance occurs.
The proposed legislation to ease the credit crisis fails to go through Congress? This is for everyone who thinks the legislation is a mistake.
24 Sep 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterNow, now, we are a civilized society and don't go around killing off people. Instead, we just take away their homes and jobs of innocent people who get caught up in the mix. Either that, or we strap the debt to innocent tax payers for generations to come.
Then the United States taxpayers won't be on the hook for $700 billion. Personally, I wish we'd just follow India's example where angry mobs just murder the CEO every time this sort of malfeasance occurs.
Edit: You know your right. Perhaps India is more civilized than we?
24 Sep 08
Originally posted by PalynkaAs I watched Uncle Ben give his testimony before Congress, I got the impression that if the money is not infused into the economy QUICKLY that all hell will break lose and there will be no going back. Then they can work out the details later. I could be wrong, but that was in impression I was left with and I could tell the Congressional members were not having any of it at the time, therefore, I doubt they will pass it according to Uncle Ben's time frame if at all.
Well, basically they said what would happen if nothing is done but yet they refused to describe exactly what they'll do if the bail-out is approved.
We're talking about a lot of money here. Money that won't all be spent in an instant. I don't see why they should be given almost complete discretionary power over the full amount.
24 Sep 08
Originally posted by shavixmirDo you think this scenario to be preferable to paying the $700 billion?
If everyone's kicked out of their homes, there will be a lot of empty houses.
People will resort to squatting and the government won't do squat-diddley about it, because you can't have millions of homeless people.
People will rebuild, small scale, farm produce and will carry on from there, having learnt the lessen of how good capitalism was for them.