Bailout Events today

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

So what do we think about the events today regarding the bailout and the conference and the alternate plan?

I spent most of today (which was an off day for me) watching the news and reading about this. Veeeeerrrrry interesting events.

I’m going to get slammed for watching fox, but I did. Along with all the other channels and CSPAN. Whatever you think of the source of info, this quote from Hannity/Colmes stuck with me (paraphrasing)…

" What about rushing through the Patriot Act? We spent 12 months debating the Patriot Act and somehow STILL managed to rush that bill…and now we’re looking at the biggest potential expansion of gov’t economic intervention, ever, and we’re expected to get it done in a week? "

Agree with that 100%. We need to make sure that whatever happens, we think this through. Yeah, if we’re going to intervene we need to give the markets confidence and act quickly… but then we also need to make sure we get it right the first time through. If we screw up the plan we may never get a second chance to fix it.

The other channels had a lot of good coverage of the meetings as well. Shelby was an interesting interview and I’d like to see what all those economists who wrote the letter to him said specifically. That many economists can’t all be totally wrong, and it would be criminally negligent to ignore them even if I weren’t already very skeptical about Congress.

I do think that the House Reps that are not on board have valid points that need to be addressed. Personally, I think that you need to at least discuss alternatives to this big taxpayer bailout.

The stock market WILL fall a bit, but it won’t be the epic fail everyone is worried about, as long as Congress stays active and progresses towards SOME kind of solution.

One problem I have is with the whole reported “well they had a deal in the morning but it started unraveling later in the day” sotry.

As far as I was aware, watching the speech in the morning, was that “we agree in principle” is basically saying “we agree something needs to be done”.

All the channels were saying early in the day that “well, they all agree something needs to be done, but the devil is in the details [i can’t tell you how many times I heard that one] and there’s lots of disagreement about the plan”

That turned into “they had a deal but now it’s unraveling”, which I don’t buy at all. There was never an agreement of any substance in the first place, from my observations of CSPAN and the coverage.

What do you think? How is this going to shape up?

2

Also in addition to this, what do you all think of the WaMu buyout today?

3

My head hurts thinking about all this stuff.

I think I’m still trying to grasp the concept of 700 billion.

Why though was this being pushed for Friday though? It’s either a politics move or some scary shit for it to be that dire.

As for WaMu… I’m surprised they found someone to take it for 2 billion. Months ago that would have been a steal though.

4

The current session of Congress ends on Friday, that’s why they were originally pushing for a conclusion this fast (ostensibly). In addition, the potential fallout for the economy is undeniably huge this time around.

I think this week and today in particular however sees a definite political posturing on each party with regard to this bailout, so it’s a bit of all three.

If I had to guess though I’d say it’s mostly due to the session being over and the severity of the potential fallout… except the antics today (and specifically this afternoon).

5

Seems to me that the only people really listening to the cries from the population is the House Republicans.

Very few citizens want this bill passed if it means a $700B weight they have to carry around their necks.

The Senate, the President, and the House Dems want it done yesterday, as if the biggest government takeover of private industry in US history is no big deal.

Bush’s actions in this are deplorable. You can’t tell the difference between him or Barney Frank.

6

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
The current session of Congress ends on Friday, that’s why they were originally pushing for a conclusion this fast (ostensibly). In addition, the potential fallout for the economy is undeniably huge this time around.

I think this week and today in particular however sees a definite political posturing on each party with regard to this bailout, so it’s a bit of all three.

If I had to guess though I’d say it’s mostly due to the session being over and the severity of the potential fallout… except the antics today (and specifically this afternoon).[/quote]

If any of these motherfuckers push something through, or push something off, because they need to go campaign they should be shot. Bunch of goddamn crooks… the lot of them. Fuckers.

7

The house republicans that want no bailout at all deserve some sort of medal.

I hope they keep delaying it, I really want to see what the epic crisis is gonna be like.

8

Tyler–yeah, that’s my worry. best something be done right here, because you might not get a second chance at all.

Ren–I’m not aware of many Reps besides Ron Paul that don’t want any sort of bailout at all (and I’m not even positive about him). Most of them want something I believe, but they’re extremely unhappy with the bailout plan as is.

9

Bush is coming on with his usual if we don’t do this immediately, the world is going to end bullshit. Only this time his Republican brethen aren’t supporting his need to spend like a drunken sailor.

Instead they are proposing a 250 billion dollar bailout(equivalent to 1 month in Iraq) and a possible 100 billion dollar boost and anything else must be voted on. The Republican side is finally acting like Republicans and not buying into government control of private business. They also see no need to reward those guilty with massive bonuses, this is another huge point of contention with the White House who is still demanding the bonuses be paid out.

This is more what one would expect from the Republican side of life rather than the corporate pandering of the last 8 years.

10

Spencer Bachus

Let’s put a face to a “Lone Warrior”.

“They gave up (on the bailout “deal”) after 10 p.m. EDT, more than an hour after the lone House Republican involved, Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, left the room”.

Bachus represents Alabama’s 6th District.

The demography of the district consists mostly of middle and upper middle class white-collar families who work in Birmingham.

Anyone know much more about him?

Mufasa

11

I only caught a minute of FOX this morning but it sounds like they would like offer insurance in lieu of a bailout. So instead of the tax payer holding all this bad debt for a couple of years, they can choose to purchase insurance against that bad debt actually being bad. This, along with the insurance and bonding THEY ALREADY HAVE should keep them in the black.

At the same time they are proposing some sort of of tax break to stimulate the economy.

Again, I don’t know the details but it sounds like instead of handing over 700B they would like to put some of that up as a bond that may not even be needed and then “create” the rest with tax breaks to stimulate new investment.

I am not a finacial expert but this sounds, at face value, to be much more attractive than writing a check. Especially if we were to cut spending a bit until the tax breaks took hold and increased tax revenues.

If it were me, I would eliminate capital gains tax. That should stimulate investment.

13

I dont get to hear the news as much as I’d like. Personally I think the guys that want the bailout are a bunch of crooks. Most of them sold off their stock, and gave themselves raises and big bonus packages before the company went under, and now they want US to bail them out. Would you loan money to someone who wastes it? Second of all when you go to the bank to get a loan they usually want collateral, why not make them all put up all their personal property? Third, if they do get the bailout why not give the tax payers a share of the profits if/when the banks become solvent again?

14

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Tyler–yeah, that’s my worry. best something be done right here, because you might not get a second chance at all.

Ren–I’m not aware of many Reps besides Ron Paul that don’t want any sort of bailout at all (and I’m not even positive about him). Most of them want something I believe, but they’re extremely unhappy with the bailout plan as is.[/quote]

At this point I will take anything that delays it. It has been 5 days since Paulson and Bernanke said “GIVE US $700B OR THE ECONOMY ASSPLODES!!” and I have yet to see the apocalypse.

WaMu just bit the bucket and things seem to be okay, market forces for the win!

15

[quote]Ren wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Tyler–yeah, that’s my worry. best something be done right here, because you might not get a second chance at all.

Ren–I’m not aware of many Reps besides Ron Paul that don’t want any sort of bailout at all (and I’m not even positive about him). Most of them want something I believe, but they’re extremely unhappy with the bailout plan as is.

At this point I will take anything that delays it. It has been 5 days since Paulson and Bernanke said “GIVE US $700B OR THE ECONOMY ASSPLODES!!” and I have yet to see the apocalypse.

WaMu just bit the bucket and things seem to be okay, market forces for the win![/quote]

There needs to be something done. I have been yammering for a couple of days now, that it could all be fixed on paper with no real cost to the taxpayer by simply modifying S-O.

The house republicans seem to be the only ones going to bat for mainstreet.

I just heard Reid speaking - he needs to be taken out. Other than Pelosi, there is not a more worthless waste of air in DC.