'Bailout' Voted Down

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]rainjack wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
Saying this is govt. takeover of an industry is showing ignorance of the bill itself.

This bill would actually authorize and finance the Treasury on behalf of the taxpayer to act as a clearing agent and market maker for assets who have no market because a PANIC in the credit markets has seized and the banks have shut down all lending and borrowing. By allowing the FED and Treasury to step in through a reverse auction to find the lowest price the banks will compete amongst themselves to unload these assets at the cheapest price. This will force the weakest to show themselves and help the taxpayer get the best price.

The taxpayer actually stands to profit from this plan.

I know, it’s not perfect and it has shades of socialism but why anyone would want to commit financial suicide and vote this down is unfathomable. Here we have Ben Bernanke, chairman of the fed, an acclaimed scholar who earned his PhD by studying the Depression and Treasury Chairman Hank Paulson who lives and breathes the markets coming up with a plan and the American people are telling them to buzz off!

If our country wants to stand back and commit financial suicide so be it but this is one instance that will prove ignorance is not bliss.

They are not making a market for these bad loans. That is just an outright pile of shit.

The government wants to PURCHASE the bad loans. Not help find a market for them - they want to own them.

FYI, sparky - to own something is to take a position in the market. A $700 billion position is taking over.

Suspend mark to market, and let the private sector find a market for the affected paper.

[/quote]

By acting as a buyer and seller a market is made…

142

[quote]orion wrote:
rainjack wrote:
orion wrote:
shookers wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
shookers wrote:

I recognize many of you are free market libertarians - hell I am too, but how anyone can responsibility not vote yes for this bill is beyond me. Why you would “accept” a huge recession when you could correct the problem is rediculous. Someone enlighten me as to your thinking?

This is an outrageously inconsistent and non-sensical paragraph.
Not really. Sometimes practically has to trump idealism

You seem to forget that practically noone is a libertarian because of idealism.

This is a deeply practical issue.

I learned not to throw good money after bad by doing it a few times. However I learned that on my time, wasting my own money.

I think wanting this to be over in 2 intead of 10 years is a very practical issue.

Bush could, for once, do the right thing and stop this madness.
He has no time or reputation left, so why not do the right thing?

How is this about Bush? What could he possibly be doing that he isn’t? He’s been on TV more in the last few days than he has in the last 5 years combined.

You do realize he can’t pass laws on his own, right? You do know that it is the responsibility of Congress to act, right?

I think he is a fucking idiot for wanting this bailout package - but to think he can do any more than he is doing right now is on the same level of idiocy.

He could veto any bail-out bill that comes from congress, instead of actively trying to get one passed?[/quote]

Dude - there is no bill for him to veto. The turncoat democrats who voted against the bailout saw to that.

So exactly what is it he should be doing right now? I think he should fire Paulson, and get someone in there without a conflict of interest.

143

[quote]bdog527 wrote:

I know, it’s not perfect and it has shades of socialism but why anyone would want to commit financial suicide and vote this down is unfathomable.

Here we have Ben Bernanke, chairman of the fed, an acclaimed scholar who earned his PhD by studying the Depression and Treasury Chairman Hank Paulson who lives and breathes the markets coming up with a plan and the American people are telling them to buzz off!

[/quote]

So, what you’re saying is that to let the ‘free’ market recover, we should swallow the status-quo Socialism that creates un-natural market environments, like giving credit to high-risk people so they can buy homes they can’t afford and would never even be able to touch in a true stable lending environment;

AND listen to the very people (with very impressive credentials and resumes) who let us get to this point under their watch.

BRILLIANT!

144

[quote]bdog527 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
Saying this is govt. takeover of an industry is showing ignorance of the bill itself.

This bill would actually authorize and finance the Treasury on behalf of the taxpayer to act as a clearing agent and market maker for assets who have no market because a PANIC in the credit markets has seized and the banks have shut down all lending and borrowing.

By allowing the FED and Treasury to step in through a reverse auction to find the lowest price the banks will compete amongst themselves to unload these assets at the cheapest price. This will force the weakest to show themselves and help the taxpayer get the best price.

The taxpayer actually stands to profit from this plan.

I know, it’s not perfect and it has shades of socialism but why anyone would want to commit financial suicide and vote this down is unfathomable.

Here we have Ben Bernanke, chairman of the fed, an acclaimed scholar who earned his PhD by studying the Depression and Treasury Chairman Hank Paulson who lives and breathes the markets coming up with a plan and the American people are telling them to buzz off!

If our country wants to stand back and commit financial suicide so be it but this is one instance that will prove ignorance is not bliss.

They are not making a market for these bad loans. That is just an outright pile of shit.

The government wants to PURCHASE the bad loans. Not help find a market for them - they want to own them.

FYI, sparky - to own something is to take a position in the market. A $700 billion position is taking over.

Suspend mark to market, and let the private sector find a market for the affected paper.

By acting as a buyer and seller a market is made…

[/quote]

Buy buying up all the affected paper - you are taking over.

Please. If you are for the bill, that is fine. There were 205 representatives who feel just as you do.

But don’t make shit up and try to pass it off as fact in here.

145

Now for the weekly scoreboard:

Friday WaMu went bust, seized by US regulators.

Sunday the FSA stepped in to nationalise UK’s Bradford and Bingley at a cost of £40 billion, with anticipated loss to the tax payer of £20 billion ($35 billion).

Monday, Wachovia on the brink of going bust is pushed into the arms of Citicorp.

European bank Fortis was nationalised at a cost of $17 billion by the governments of Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

Germany rescues Hypo Real Estate for a huge $ 50 billion.

Iceland’s Government rescues and effectively nationalises their third largest bank Glitnir HF for approx $1 billion.

146

[quote]bdog527 wrote:
700 billion may not be enough, but we certainly have seen how this plays out before and we know what will happen if nothing is done. The Great Depression cost our nation trillions in lost GDP and put us back decades. If nothing is done 700 billion will seem like pocket change by the time the printing presses have devalued the dollar out of this mess.

[/quote]

Have you ever ready anything about the great depression? It was gov’t medaling that made this worse than previous recession. You better read up.

147

[quote]bdog527 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
shookers wrote:

I recognize many of you are free market libertarians - hell I am too, but how anyone can responsibility not vote yes for this bill is beyond me. Why you would “accept” a huge recession when you could correct the problem is rediculous. Someone enlighten me as to your thinking?

Many on here are simply not reading all the posts and are not open to reason.

The free market is ready to gobble these up. There is no need fo gov’t to get involved, pay too much, and fuck things up worse than they arleady are.

Bankruptcy, liquidation, obsorbtion. Not terribly difficult. If those in the free market bid on this junk you can bet they will get the lowest price possible. If gov’t buys it, they will likely overpay. The market is ready to act. Gov’t just needs to get out of the way and let the healing begin.

The free market cannot access the necessary capital to buy these assets. This is because lending has essentially come to a standstill. This will trickle down to the average small business owner who lives on his credit lines to fund inventories, research, etc…

There is significant demans for these assets but an inability to raise the funds to buy them. The taxpayer has that ability and stands to make money on this deal.

The free market is frozen solid.

[/quote]

You are so full of shit. Are you just making this stuff up? I just heard Cuban and Buffet say that they and others are ready to start bidding on this shit. Where do you think all the money has gone? There is plenty of money available. Nothing is frozen. Quit watching NBC.

148

[quote]rainjack wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
Saying this is govt. takeover of an industry is showing ignorance of the bill itself.

This bill would actually authorize and finance the Treasury on behalf of the taxpayer to act as a clearing agent and market maker for assets who have no market because a PANIC in the credit markets has seized and the banks have shut down all lending and borrowing.

By allowing the FED and Treasury to step in through a reverse auction to find the lowest price the banks will compete amongst themselves to unload these assets at the cheapest price. This will force the weakest to show themselves and help the taxpayer get the best price.

The taxpayer actually stands to profit from this plan.

I know, it’s not perfect and it has shades of socialism but why anyone would want to commit financial suicide and vote this down is unfathomable.

Here we have Ben Bernanke, chairman of the fed, an acclaimed scholar who earned his PhD by studying the Depression and Treasury Chairman Hank Paulson who lives and breathes the markets coming up with a plan and the American people are telling them to buzz off!

If our country wants to stand back and commit financial suicide so be it but this is one instance that will prove ignorance is not bliss.

They are not making a market for these bad loans. That is just an outright pile of shit.

The government wants to PURCHASE the bad loans. Not help find a market for them - they want to own them.

FYI, sparky - to own something is to take a position in the market. A $700 billion position is taking over.

Suspend mark to market, and let the private sector find a market for the affected paper.

By acting as a buyer and seller a market is made…

Buy buying up all the affected paper - you are taking over.

Please. If you are for the bill, that is fine. There were 205 representatives who feel just as you do.

But don’t make shit up and try to pass it off as fact in here.

[/quote]

If the govt. were “taking over” they would come in and seize the assets without paying for them.

When they buy them and then sell at a later date they are acting as a market maker.

You’re welcome.

149

[quote]dhickey wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
dhickey wrote:
shookers wrote:

I recognize many of you are free market libertarians - hell I am too, but how anyone can responsibility not vote yes for this bill is beyond me. Why you would “accept” a huge recession when you could correct the problem is rediculous. Someone enlighten me as to your thinking?

Many on here are simply not reading all the posts and are not open to reason.

The free market is ready to gobble these up. There is no need fo gov’t to get involved, pay too much, and fuck things up worse than they arleady are.

Bankruptcy, liquidation, obsorbtion. Not terribly difficult. If those in the free market bid on this junk you can bet they will get the lowest price possible. If gov’t buys it, they will likely overpay. The market is ready to act. Gov’t just needs to get out of the way and let the healing begin.

The free market cannot access the necessary capital to buy these assets. This is because lending has essentially come to a standstill. This will trickle down to the average small business owner who lives on his credit lines to fund inventories, research, etc…

There is significant demans for these assets but an inability to raise the funds to buy them. The taxpayer has that ability and stands to make money on this deal.

The free market is frozen solid.

You are so full of shit. Are you just making this stuff up? I just heard Cuban and Buffet say that they and others are ready to start bidding on this shit. Where do you think all the money has gone? There is plenty of money available. Nothing is frozen. Quit watching NBC.[/quote]

So why haven’t they?

Why did they pass on Lehman Brothers assets?

Why did Buffet invest 5 Billion in Goldman Sachs then come on the air and publicly state he was doing it under the assumption that Congress would do the right thing and pass the Treasury bill? He went on to state that if they didn’t we would fall off a precipice.

150

[quote]bdog527 wrote:
Why did Buffet invest 5 Billion in Goldman Sachs then come on the air and publicly state he was doing it under the assumption that Congress would do the right thing and pass the Treasury bill? He went on to state that if they didn’t we would fall off a precipice?

[/quote]

Because Buffet made the loan on his terms thinking that the loan would have a safety net called the US Government if his $5 billion became worthless.

Only 60% of the “Wall Street Elite” think that the bailout is a good idea, or that it will even work. That came from a blurb I just heard on CNBC.

Even those with a real job on Wall Street can’t agree that this bailout is going to work.

Who are you listening to? The Talking Heads? President Bush? Paulson?

151

[quote]rainjack wrote:
bdog527 wrote:
Why did Buffet invest 5 Billion in Goldman Sachs then come on the air and publicly state he was doing it under the assumption that Congress would do the right thing and pass the Treasury bill? He went on to state that if they didn’t we would fall off a precipice?

Because Buffet made the loan on his terms thinking that the loan would have a safety net called the US Government if his $5 billion became worthless.

Only 60% of the “Wall Street Elite” think that the bailout is a good idea, or that it will even work. That came from a blurb I just heard on CNBC.

Even those with a real job on Wall Street can’t agree that this bailout is going to work.

Who are you listening to? The Talking Heads? President Bush? Paulson?

[/quote]

The terms Buffet recieved would give him asset claims if Goldman goes bankrupt. His investment was very favorable and shrews on his part. Goldman basically payed out the nose to have his endorsement of the company.

152

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Dude - there is no bill for him to veto. The turncoat democrats who voted against the bailout saw to that.

So exactly what is it he should be doing right now? I think he should fire Paulson, and get someone in there without a conflict of interest. [/quote]

Are you for this bailout or against it? If you are against, why are the Democrats turncoats for voting it down? Also, brush up on your math 66% of the Republicans (bless their hearts) voted against it and 40% of the Democrats voted against it. This means (at least the I learned math) that the Republicans were responsible for the failure not the Democrats.

153
  1. I still don’t understand why the government is allegedly getting a steal on these debts and is lined up to make money off them.

To me it seems if it was so obvious all the paper would have been snatched up as banks started to fail months ago motivating the sellers to get rid of these debts at a premium to save face.

  1. $700 billion will dilute the currency more eventually driving prices up making it harder for the average joe to buy gas and healthy food

  2. MAYBE it will not be as detrimental as many of us believe it will be… but please explain how people my generation and younger will benefit from this down the road when we start moving up tax brackets and take on this burden.

154

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Who are you listening to? The Talking Heads? President Bush? Paulson?

[/quote]

The Talking Heads should really stick to their music… I highly doubt RISD offers any economics courses.

155

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Suspending ‘mark to market’ would free up tons of cash immediately.

even if it were only a temporary measure to give the government more time to figure out a better plan, it would most certainly ease the current tightness of the credit market.

And the Chairman of the SEC could do that immediately - without congressional oversight.

[/quote]

My accounting professor was talking about this this morning. He pretty much said the same thing, except the part about the SEC chairman being able to do this immediately.

156

What exactly is mark to market?

157

[quote]bdog527 wrote:

Here we have Ben Bernanke, chairman of the fed, an acclaimed scholar who earned his PhD by studying the Depression and Treasury Chairman Hank Paulson who lives and breathes the markets coming up with a plan and the American people are telling them to buzz off!

[/quote]

I agree that Bernanke is the guy to be listening to right now. He has nothing to gain from this bailout at all. And Paulson, I think, is the ideal go to guy for coming up with a solution to this problem.

If I may be so bold… while I was watching CNBC yesterday they were having a roundtable discussion with the talking heads, and a few of their inside guys, adn they were saying something to the effect that most of the Americans who are against this bailout are likely liberal arts majors who know nothing about business, economics, or the banking system.

They also went on about how the average American only thinks this bill is somehow rewarding the Wall Street elite that got us into the mess, when in fact, bailout or no the Wall Street fat cats will still be rich at the end of the day. This is not a bailout of Wall Street, this is a rescue of the banks.

158

[quote]RoadWarrior wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Dude - there is no bill for him to veto. The turncoat democrats who voted against the bailout saw to that.

So exactly what is it he should be doing right now? I think he should fire Paulson, and get someone in there without a conflict of interest.

Are you for this bailout or against it? If you are against, why are the Democrats turncoats for voting it down? Also, brush up on your math 66% of the Republicans (bless their hearts) voted against it and 40% of the Democrats voted against it. This means (at least the I learned math) that the Republicans were responsible for the failure not the Democrats.
[/quote]

Go back and try again.

There are more democrats than republicans in the HOR by a margin of 230ish - 198, give or take. I’ll try to slow down here so that you can call your mom, and see if she can help you out with big words.

All that is needed to pass the bailout is a simple majority. You do know what a simple majority is, right? If you have just one more “yes” votes than “no” votes - the “yes” wins.

So let’s go back to the balance of power (you might need mom to explain that one to you). If the Dems would have voted along party lines - 100% of the Republicans could have voted against the bailout, and it still would have passed.

You might want to go get a scratch pad and re-read the last paragraph.

So - the one’s who truly voted this bill down was the democrats who sided with the house republicans.

But to answer your question, I am 1000000% against the bailout. All one need to is actually read what I have written in this thread to figure that out.

159

[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:
What exactly is mark to market?[/quote]

Marking the price of your assets to “market value”. In a really simple definition: if you own some financial instrument and you paid 100 bucks for it last month, but you could get 110 in the market today, you mark the value of that asset at 110 when in the accounting world it should be recorded at cost, 100. It is sort of a sneaky accounting trick to manipulate earnings.

160

[quote]AssOnGrass wrote:
What exactly is mark to market?[/quote]

I hate wiki, but it offers a pretty straight forward explanation.

Basically, it is requiring ownership in an asset - particularly financial instruments - to be carried on the books at Fair Market Value instead of historical cost.