NationStates Jolt Archive

I just heard on the radio that the proposed bill to "fix the financial crisis here in the US has failed to pass the house. Interesting that it has, alot of democrats must think its a bad idea. I wonder if the issue was smaller portions of the bill that were a problem or the overarching idea of the thing. I'll see if I can get a link, but it just happened so I doubt it. 226 against 207 for.

found something:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown

they're saying 228-205 but I've heard 226 and 207, and several here have said what I've heard, so I'll stay with that for now.

I'm not seeing anything on cnn.com saying it's failed...

Democratic Yes 141 No 94

Republican Yes 66 No 132

Total: 207 226

Dow Jones has dropped about 4% but there's the potential for haggling of votes and horse trading on the Congress floor as we speak.

Edit: I'm watching it on SKY and BBC News 24

its not over yet. they can still persuade enough people to change their minds.

We're watching the vote live...nothing has been decided yet. Currently the vote is Democrats 141 Yay, 94 Nay...Republicans 66 Yay, 132 Nay for a total of 207 Yays, 226 Nay.

Fuck you PM, you just beat me like a red-headed stepchild!

*muahahahaha*

its not over yet. they can still persuade enough people to change their minds.

Yes, but we can hope that they won't, probably will by removing random things that representatives objected to, or by adding something someone wanted.

Fuck you PM, you just beat me like a red-headed stepchild!

You know it turned you on.

You know it turned you on.

well, she does like to be beaten....

the House is now at 207 of the 218 votes needed.

defeated.

now they have to start again.

too bad the president sucks and doesnt have enough influence to get his party members to go along with him.

too bad the president sucks and doesnt have enough influence to get his party members to go along with him.

haha, too bad the speaker of the house sucks and doesn't have enough influence to get her party members to go along with her. I should hope its alot harder to make people vote against their fundamental beliefs, than just being told by the president they ought to. Personally I'm glad this thing didn't pass.

Yes, but we can hope that they won't, probably will by removing random things that representatives objected to, or by adding something someone wanted.

The latter is far more likely than the former.

Anywho, does anyone know exactly what is being objected to by our wonderful Congressmen in this bill? Or the most likely bits that are being objected to?

Or, for that matter, how many have actually read the bill? I wouldn't be suprise, honestly, if very few really know much about what it actually does, like most others, sad to say.

See this is the problem with your Presidential system. You let your Congressman and Senators have their own opinions.

If this were a British Parliament, all the boot-licking MP's would have rubber-stamped the legislation already.

Seriously, I'd rather the Congress had a long drawn out debate about this issue, rather than allow the private firms and the President hurry them into a deal that might prove unsatisfactory over the longer term.

Anywho, does anyone know exactly what is being objected to by our wonderful Congressmen in this bill? Or the most likely bits that are being objected to?

Or, for that matter, how many have actually read the bill? I wouldn't be suprise, honestly, if very few really know much about what it actually does, like most others, sad to say.

I'd say the fact their constituents are super pissed about having to bail out rich fat Wall Street types, leads them to think "Hmmm, I'd like to keep my job come next election... I'd better listen to 'em."

Anyone know what in the hell happens now? Is it just "Bank X collapses" ?

Rome is officially on fire. Hope you like the depression congress just threw us in, government action was the only way to keep it from happening and now look. 500+ point drop in the NYSE and will only get worse, my bet is 8000 by friday if not lower. Time to jump this sinking ship.

I'd say the fact their constituents are super pissed about having to bail out rich fat Wall Street types, leads them to think "Hmmm, I'd like to keep my job come next election... I'd better listen to 'em."

Anyone know what in the hell happens now? Is it just "Bank X collapses" ?

What happens now? A depression, that what happens now.

Fucking Republicans. Oh, and fuck those few democrats who voted against it too.

Rome is officially on fire. Hope you like the depression congress just threw us in, government action was the only way to keep it from happening and now look. 500+ point drop in the NYSE and will only get worse, my bet is 8000 by friday if not lower. Time to jump this sinking ship.

:rolleyes:

We'll see. It was already down 200+ before the vote, apparently, the senate wasn't going to vote on it until Thursday.

Down almost 5% on the DOW now. Glad I never plan to retire, my 401(k) is fucked this quarter.

Fucking Republicans. Oh, and fuck those few democrats who voted against it too.

few? you call 94 few? Assuming what PM said was right.

I'd say the fact their constituents are super pissed about having to bail out rich fat Wall Street types, leads them to think "Hmmm, I'd like to keep my job come next election... I'd better listen to 'em."

Anyone know what in the hell happens now? Is it just "Bank X collapses" ?
they tweak the bill, twist some arms and vote again.

few? you call 94 few? Assuming what PM said was right.

In the grand scheme of things, yes.

the hold outs can either get this bill tweaked or promises for programs/pork that they want in later bills.

this is where politicians earn their money.

In the grand scheme of things, yes.

Whats the grand scheme of things? 40% isn't usually called a few. or are you talking about the 11, whoever they may be, that they needed.

the hold outs can either get this bill tweaked or promises for programs/pork that they want in later bills.

this is where politicians earn their money.

mostly, maybe they won't vote for it, but I'm sure they have their price.

You know it turned you on.

Don't be stupid. It only turns me on when it's specific persons administering the beating. Otherwise it just pisses me off, and I fight back.

That's right, PM...watch your back!

Fucking Republicans. Oh, and fuck those few democrats who voted against it too.

Fuck congress.

Don't be stupid. It only turns me on when it's specific persons administering the beating. Otherwise it just pisses me off, and I fight back.

That's right, PM...watch your back!

*showers, puts on aftershave*

Bring it.

Down almost 5% on the DOW now. Glad I never plan to retire, my 401(k) is fucked this quarter.



More than your 401k is fucked.

If this causes one of the bigger banks to collapse...

It'll end up being the economic apocalypse.

few? you call 94 few? Assuming what PM said was right.

3/5 of the democrats voted for this measure, in a ratio of 1.5:1

1/3 of the republicans voted for it, in a ration of .5:1

More than your 401k is fucked.

Nah, economy will recover eventually. This isn't a major concern yet.

If this causes one of the bigger banks to collapse...

It'll end up being the economic apocalypse.



That is a promise. Who falls now? Wells Fargo? BofA? Citi?



USA 1776 - 2008

Whats the grand scheme of things? 40% isn't usually called a few. or are you talking about the 11, whoever they may be, that they needed.



mostly, maybe they won't vote for it, but I'm sure they have their price.
there are few politicians without a price.

haha, too bad the speaker of the house sucks and doesn't have enough influence to get her party members to go along with her. I should hope its alot harder to make people vote against their fundamental beliefs, than just being told by the president they ought to. Personally I'm glad this thing didn't pass.

That's right. This isn't the fault of the Republican Administration that proposed the bailout and couldn't get 1/3 of the House Republicans to vote for it. It is really the fault of the Democrats for only supporting it by about 60%.

:rolleyes:

I'm torn about whether this was a good idea, but people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Nah, economy will recover eventually. This isn't a major concern yet.


And why do you say that? Do you really believe we are not staring down the barrel of a depression?

Don't be stupid. It only turns me on when it's specific persons administering the beating.

Oh? Who's that?

And why do you say that? Do you really believe we are not staring down the barrel of a depression?

I'm an incurable optimist.

That is a promise. Who falls now? Wells Fargo? BofA? Citi?



USA 1776 - 2008

I doubt it considering they're buying Wachovia.

That is a promise. Who falls now? Wells Fargo? BofA? Citi?



USA 1776 - 2008

More like: Banking 1406 - 2008

I'm an incurable optimist.

I'm a realist.

This is getting good. *munches on a taco* You know, the financial meltdown of the country is a lot more fun when you own your home outright and all your money is in places safe from meltdown. It's like Wall Street is an ant farm and somebody just shook it. A little advice: Invest in pharmaceuticals because a lot of formerly rich investment bankers are going to need a lot of anti-depressants, prescription strength antacids and maybe even anti-psychotic pills.

:)

Oh? Who's that?

It's a short list. The people on it know who they are. :p

3/5 of the democrats voted for this measure, in a ratio of 1.5:1

1/3 of the republicans voted for it, in a ration of .5:1

It is obvious that a higher portion of republicans than democrats voted against it. I was simply pointing out that "the republicans voted against it" isn't quite accurate as the dems could have passed it on their own if they could have got all of them to vote for it.

That's right. This isn't the fault of the Republican Administration that proposed the bailout and couldn't get 1/3 of the House Republicans to vote for it. It is really the fault of the Democrats for only supporting it by about 60%.

nope, cause its not his job to pass legislation.


:rolleyes:



ditto


I'm torn about whether this was a good idea, but people that live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

I didn't want it to pass, so I'm glad they didn't vote for it. I just was surprised so many dems voted against it, I thought it was a done deal.

Republicans 2-1 against it....Well, hello Democratic filibuster proof majority in both houses and President Barack Obama. Republicans proved they don't want to win in 2008.

Republicans 2-1 against it....Well, hello Democratic filibuster proof majority in both houses and President Barack Obama. Republicans proved they don't want to win in 2008.

Considering what 2009 is going to look like for them, can you blame em? ;)

Considering what 2009 is going to look like for them, can you blame em? ;)


They had a chance to help 2009 look better and they choose to fuck us up the ass instead. Bitter because people turned on them?

....Well, hello Democratic filibuster proof majority in both houses and President Barack Obama. Republicans proved they don't want to win in 2008.

While I personally would like that, don't hold your breath. The American public was overwhelming against the bailout. The house did as they were told by their constituents.

Republicans 2-1 against it....Well, hello Democratic filibuster proof majority in both houses and President Barack Obama. Republicans proved they don't want to win in 2008.

Well this bailout was very unpopular, they didn't vote for it so they can claim dems are big spenders come November. Which is probably why the Democrats didn't unilaterally pass it.

Republicans 2-1 against it....Well, hello Democratic filibuster proof majority in both houses and President Barack Obama. Republicans proved they don't want to win in 2008.
supposedly they are being deluged with calls and emails against the bailout. if they want to WIN they cant vote for it.

While I personally would like that, don't hold your breath. The American public was overwhelming against the bailout. The house did as they were told by their constituents.


To bad their constituents are morons. Reminds me of this.


http://www.cinescopes.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/idiocracy.jpg

supposedly they are being deluged with calls and emails against the bailout. if they want to WIN they cant vote for it.
If they want to have a chance of winning they have to vote for it.

There won't be a damn election if the economy collapses.

If they want to have a chance of winning they have to vote for it.

There won't be a damn election if the economy collapses.



And our economy just did. Quote me, 8000 dow by friday.

While I personally would like that, don't hold your breath. The American public was overwhelming against the bailout. The house did as they were told by their constituents.

Although it doesn't always (or even usually) work, part of the point of our having a Republic was so that we would have leaders that were not simply slaves to public opinion, but would exercise their best judgment about the public good.

Unfortunately, the House failed to provide a example of such courage.

As for what I've seen of the bill itself, it had good merits, despite its cost. link (http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/financial_rescue_101/index.htm), (pdf of bill (http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/09/28/ayo08c04_xml.pdf) (which I've only briefly scanned))

There seems to have been little point in having lengthy bi-partisan talks that included the House Republicans if they were going to balk at voting for what they agreed to.

Again, this may still work out, but it is hardly our nation's finest moment.

If they want to have a chance of winning they have to vote for it.

There won't be a damn election if the economy collapses.
of course there will be. there were elections during the great depression werent there?

Who knows if they'll even have a second chance at passing a bailout? Considering the fact that the stock market just plummeted after the announcement, who's to say that most people won't pull their money out of the stock market and head for the hills?

Gold also went up 30 dollars since opening today. People might just be saying "When in doubt, buy gold." banking on the fact that a lot more are going to buy into it, then sell a bit higher to try and cut their losses.

I'm no where near being an economist, but from this average joe's point of view it looks like a rocky road ahead, and not the tasty kind.

To bad their constituents are morons. Reminds me of this.

Or perhaps they just haven't allowed themselves to get whipped up into the mass hysteria the media and banking industry has created. Yes, we are going into a recession (with or without the bailout), but either way it isn't the end of the world.

To bad their constituents are morons. Reminds me of this.


http://www.cinescopes.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/idiocracy.jpg

Or maybe they are asking the logical question:

We got fucked up the ass by big business for the last seven years, why exactly should we pay to get fucked by them some more?

I think it's great that it failed, why should the government bail out banks that are suffering because of their own financial irresponsibility?

maybe john mccain can suspend his campaign long enough to go back to washington and get the republicans to go along with this.

then he can be the hero

not that he wants the glory...

I think it's great that it failed, why should the government bail out banks that are suffering because of their own financial irresponsibility?

I think the more prudent question the taxpayer should ask before giving their assent to any deal is this: Who ends up with all the money?

maybe john mccain can suspend his campaign long enough to go back to washington and get the republicans to go along with this.

then he can be the hero

not that he wants the glory...


Wasn't he against this?

Wasn't he against this?

Once he figured out it was unpopular, probably so.

Wasn't he against this?
i dont think so.

I'm looking forward to not being able to use my ATM card in the forseeable future.

of course there will be. there were elections during the great depression werent there?

The possible fall of major banks will end the financial markets as we know them.

Also, consider China and Russia and how much they have invested in financial markets at risk....A friend told me that China alone has 380 billion dollars in freddie mac & fannie may. Now s'pose that because of retarded US policy they're at high risk of losing that money and decide to bail out all their overseas investments - Or even worse, are not allowed to do so.

What comes next? The election or the nukes?

edit:
And the bill was CHEAP - Today, alone, the companies in NYSE lost 1200-1500 billion dollars in market value.

I'm looking forward to not being able to use my ATM card in the forseeable future.

It's bad for you anyway. DO what I do: Buy and fix up a couple dozen old bicycles. They will make great bartering material once the system collapses. :)

It's bad for you anyway. DO what I do: Buy and fix up a couple dozen old bicycles. They will make great bartering material once the system collapses. :)

I will give you ten shiny beads for one said bicycle.

The possible fall of major banks will end the financial markets as we know them.

Also, consider China and Russia and how much they have invested in financial markets at risk....A friend told me that China alone has 380 billion dollars in freddie mac & fannie may. Now s'pose that because of retarded US policy they're at high risk of losing that money and decide to bail out all their overseas investments - Or even worse, are not allowed to do so.

What comes next? The election or the nukes?

edit:
And the bill was CHEAP - Today, alone, the companies in NYSE lost 1200-1500 billion dollars in market value.

Doesn't the United Arab Emirates have a shit ton of money in our stock market as well?

I will give you ten shiny beads for one said bicycle.

How much for the little girl? How much for the women? Your women. I want to buy your women. The little girl, your daughters... sell them to me. Sell me your children.

Doesn't the United Arab Emirates have a shit ton of money in our stock market as well?

Probably, but they don't have the military force to back those investments up...if you catch my drift.

I think it's great that it failed, why should the government bail out banks that are suffering because of their own financial irresponsibility?

Because no one looks back on the 1930s fondly?

of course there will be. there were elections during the great depression werent there?
There was also a sudden tendency towards Fascism. I wonder whether that'll be revisited too...

How much for the little girl? How much for the women? Your women. I want to buy your women. The little girl, your daughters... sell them to me. Sell me your children.

Jokes on you, that's my emo little brother with the girl pants and the long hair.:p

There was also a sudden tendency towards Fascism. I wonder whether that'll be revisited too...

I would say the socialist aspects have already reared their head.

I would say the socialist aspects have already reared their head.

Socialism =/= Facism.

http://media.e24.no/archive/00862/Financial_Meltdown__862662t.jpg

Well, I have no idea what happens now...

Though really, it not passing doesn't mean that there are no other options. There are still cram downs, selling financial institutions to the chinese, forced mergers.

Banking crises can be dealt with without using government funds.

And though I am for recapitalization, I can certainly understand the skepticism, given the way these idiots have buggered things up since Jan 2007.

Also, it's not actually that bad anymore. Things are a lot better than two weeks ago. Even the treasury acknowledged that last night. Strong banks are hoarding cash, and the weaker ones are being dealt with regardless of the status of the bill. (WB, WM).

Still a crisis, but not the armageddon it looked like.

Of course the SOOPER SEKRIT is still floating around. I am wondering how that will pan out.

well I am going to miss the banking system.

Jokes on you, that's my emo little brother with the girl pants and the long hair.:p

Oh fuck.

Ah well, I'll take him. :p

http://media.e24.no/archive/00862/Financial_Meltdown__862662t.jpg

Well, I have no idea what happens now...
This:
http://a.wordpress.com/avatar/countertrend-48.jpg

http://media.e24.no/archive/00862/Financial_Meltdown__862662t.jpg

Well, I have no idea what happens now...

Now the Dow Jones drops 600 points. 661 according to Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/index.html).

Oh fuck.

Ah well, I'll take him. :p

Donut's a donut, long as it's got a hole.

Now the Dow Jones drops 600 points. 661 according to Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/index.html).


Will drop more tomorrow. Maybe a while before we see DOW above 10,000 again.

Trading day not over? If not the DOW could drop 700+ because of this.

The Dow was going to go shit anyway, and it's not a very good proxy for financials. SPX is better, or better yet BIX, which is down about 15% right now.

I would say the socialist aspects have already reared their head.
Oh, I'm all for socialism. I'm more worried about the militarism, supremecism and... repressive... jingoistic... media... ?

*Mulls that thought over a bit*

Trading day not over? If not the DOW could drop 700+ because of this.

Still 30 minutes. We're already down 700+. 712.45 as of this post.

www.nyse.com

edit: It's not just the US, either.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/international/Europebanks_bailout.ap/index.htm

Almost every single market is down today, some by huge percentages.

http://money.cnn.com/data/world_markets/

Yep sir, I was right. Checked the market and 700+ point drop and no end in sight.

Donut's a donut, long as it's got a hole.

Never look a gift horse in the mouth. ;)

I don't believe we were ever privy to exactly how this would be the end of the world if the bailout didn't happen or how they came up with the $700B figure beyond "we just wanted to pick a really big number".

The responsible banks who deserve to stay alive will do so and those that were reckless with their loans will be eaten up by the bigger guys.

I heard that those mortgage securities were on the whole being undervalued; that a very small number of homes were actually in foreclosure; and after the recession, those securities should gain their strength back fairly quickly.

If the govt. is so sure that it will pay off in the long run for them, then wont it also do so for the banks currently holding them or the banks buying the collapsing banks?


If the market is so great at self regulation - let's see them in action - I'd love to see them take a long hard look in the mirror and make some tough choices without having to be told to. I kinda doubt that weill happen though.

So in the end I really just hope that we get a good stake in these banking institutions that we are purchasing and reap some heavy rewards once the economy turns back around.

This has been another installment of "I don't know what the fuck I am talking about"

Europe is closed. It closed before the bill didn't pass. American markets only right now.

U have to remember that FORTIS, and WaMu happened this weekend, so it was never going to be a good day anyway. You should figure - 300 for those two events alone because of the credit events.

Yep sir, I was right. Checked the market and 700+ point drop and no end in sight.

Aye, that's roughly a loss of 2000 billion dollars of market value.

I'd say the fact their constituents are super pissed about having to bail out rich fat Wall Street types, leads them to think "Hmmm, I'd like to keep my job come next election... I'd better listen to 'em."

Anyone know what in the hell happens now? Is it just "Bank X collapses" ?

Already happened. I gotta consider whether to fight the line and try to get my money out of Wachovia before they close for the night.

Aye, that's roughly a loss of 2000 billion dollars of market value.



Well, the US was fun while it lasted.

Already happened. I gotta consider whether to fight the line and try to get my money out of Wachovia before they close for the night.

If it's under 100,000 don't bother. It's insured.

thank god that it didn't pass. That would be horrible for our economy. If they need the money, they need to go to the people who ran it and get the money from them.

Lets face it, we need to go through a recession for at least a year.

But the last thing we need to do is bail out these big companies that did bad investing.

Already happened. I gotta consider whether to fight the line and try to get my money out of Wachovia before they close for the night.

Considering that Wachovia didn't actually fail that'd be pointless. They were exposed to liquidity issues due to high mortgage losses and then sold themselves to Citigroup for a discount. The only thing that changes is that you bank with Citi instead of Wachovia now.

Considering that Wachovia didn't actually fail that'd be pointless. They were exposed to liquidity issues due to high mortgage losses and then sold themselves to Citigroup for a discount. The only thing that changes is that you bank with Citi instead of Wachovia now.

Yeah, we haven't actually seen a full on savings bank failure.

Yet.

thank god that it didn't pass. That would be horrible for our economy. If they need the money, they need to go to the people who ran it and get the money from them.

Lets face it, we need to go through a recession for at least a year.

But the last thing we need to do is bail out these big companies that did bad investing.

Maybe I'm being self centered, but the bailout will cost me personally a few thousand dollars. The 600 point drop today will cost me personally a few thousand dollars. The bailout would force regulation to try to prevent this idiocy in future, not passing it means it can happen again.

Perhaps you see my point.

Yeah, we haven't actually seen a full on savings bank failure.

Yet.

Indymac failed about a month ago. FDIC friday shutdown, accounts closed out, people lost money above insurance limits. The whole nine yards.

There have been a few other little ones. But some happen every year.

I don't think any nationals will fail, they'll end up like WaMu, crammed down and force merged with one of the giants. But I expect some of the large regionals will end up on the FDIC chopping block.

Dow Jones closed at -646.

*begins to play taps*

Yay Pharmaceuticals! :D

Atleast Oil dropped a shitload. Donald Trump says oil could drop even further to 20 - 25! He called this economic mess before anybody so I believe him.

Holy crap it's still falling. -770 now.

600 billions today, a trillion tomorrow, in a week...who knows?

Holy crap it's still falling. -770 now.

And morons really believe it will rebound. I'm not buying, DOW BS down another 400.

Indymac failed about a month ago. FDIC friday shutdown, accounts closed out, people lost money above insurance limits. The whole nine yards.

There have been a few other little ones. But some happen every year.

I don't think any nationals will fail, they'll end up like WaMu, crammed down and force merged with one of the giants. But I expect some of the large regionals will end up on the FDIC chopping block.

Also, don't forget that most US banks are small community banks, the vast majority of which stayed out of the overheated real estate markets, we well as subprime. As a result these banks are in little to no dnger of failure for the forseeable future.

Maybe I'm being self centered, but the bailout will cost me personally a few thousand dollars. The 600 point drop today will cost me personally a few thousand dollars. The bailout would force regulation to try to prevent this idiocy in future, not passing it means it can happen again.

Perhaps you see my point.

The bailout bill as introduced actually further deregulated things. And it did nothing about OTC derivatives. Which are the big problem here. The CEO pay thing is a red herring.

The bailout bill as introduced actually further deregulated things. And it did nothing about OTC derivatives. Which are the big problem here. The CEO pay thing is a red herring.

We will likely still see a bail out bill, just in a different form.

And morons really believe it will rebound. I'm not buying, DOW BS down another 400.

I'm calling -1000 before closing bell tomorrow.

And morons really believe it will rebound. I'm not buying, DOW BS down another 400. it will. the question is how far down will it go before rebounding?

Also, don't forget that most US banks are small community banks, the vast majority of which stayed out of the overheated real estate markets, we well as subprime. As a result these banks are in little to no dnger of failure for the forseeable future.

but those smaller banks will be less inclined to lend money, add to that the number of people losing confidence in the market and in banks...

We will likely still see a bail out bill, just in a different form.

I'm not against a recap plan. I really think that banks do need a bailout. There is no question that there is a massive solvency problem at the moment.

This plan wasn't very good though.

i'm with brad delong (and, technically, krugman) - time to sweden up this joint

Let it fall! I am happy that the bailout is not going through.

It is true that the financial system must be rescued; it must be rescued from the institutions holding bad debt that are currently draining capital while waiting for a bailout and adding little in return. It is they that are preventing wealth-generating activities in the financial sector and the other parts of the economy from expanding real wealth.

As we say in the IT world, "Give it a hug and let it go!"

it will. the question is how far down will it go before rebounding?



but those smaller banks will be less inclined to lend money, add to that the number of people losing confidence in the market and in banks...

8000-7500. It's not going to go straight down to there, but that is the target.

I'm calling -1000 before closing bell tomorrow.



1000 for both days total or 1000 in one day? Because if so....shit.

i'm with brad delong (and, technically, krugman) - time to sweden up this joint

^^this.

Let it fall! I am happy that the bailout is not going through.

It is true that the financial system must be rescued; it must be rescued from the institutions holding bad debt that are currently draining capital while waiting for a bailout and adding little in return. It is they that are preventing wealth-generating activities in the financial sector and the other parts of the economy from expanding real wealth.

As we say in the IT world, "Give it a hug and let it go!"



:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

1000 for both days total or 1000 in one day? Because if so....shit.

Haha, 1000 for the two days combined. Estimates are in the 1000-1200 range.

Shit . . . .i think we may be screwed . .. not saying the bill was perfect but oh god btw any idea on which party nixed it?

Shit . . . .i think we may be screwed . .. not saying the bill was perfect but oh god btw any idea on which party nixed it?

Republicans mostly.

Shit . . . .i think we may be screwed . .. not saying the bill was perfect but oh god btw any idea on which party nixed it?

Republican

greeeeeeaaaat aw hell I guess I can always move to nunavut and sit it out in the cold

Shit . . . .i think we may be screwed . .. not saying the bill was perfect but oh god btw any idea on which party nixed it?

Republicans mostly.

It didn't exactly smell like roses with the Dems either. only about 60% of dems voted for it. I think it's an excellent sign of how much it stunk when Democrats and Republicans alike can hold their noses and go, 'EWWWW!!!"

could some one explain what a 'point' is worth?

Socialism =/= Facism.

uh... obviously, someone brought up the 1930's and fascism, the other side of the coin was a lot of socialism.

Shit . . . .i think we may be screwed . .. not saying the bill was perfect but oh god btw any idea on which party nixed it?

The Republicans voted against it almost 2 to 1, while the Democrats voted for it approximately 1.5 to 1.

Incidentally, while today was the single largest net loss in history, it doesn't even come into the top 10 largest percentage losses in history.

It didn't exactly smell like roses with the Dems either. only about 60% of dems voted for it. I think it's an excellent sign of how much it stunk when Democrats and Republicans alike can hold their noses and go, 'EWWWW!!!"

aw hell LG's being somewhat serious now I know were fucking screwed

I would say the socialist aspects have already reared their head.

Hope you liked it then, because that's a taste of things to come.

We've got two choices ahead of us, and both of them involve going 'red' to some extent. Alphabet agencies, social aid programs, and public works... or the thing those policies were instituted to prevent, the revolt of the proletariat.

It didn't exactly smell like roses with the Dems either. only about 60% of dems voted for it. I think it's an excellent sign of how much it stunk when Democrats and Republicans alike can hold their noses and go, 'EWWWW!!!"

Democrats have enough votes to pass it on their own. To do so however would be political suicide. Just enough of them voted for it so that over half of Republicans would have to. That way it limits it's use as political ammo.

aw hell LG's being somewhat serious now I know were fucking screwed

Are you kidding? I'm enjoying the hell out of this. Implosions are fun. :)

Incidentally, while today was the single largest net loss in history, it doesn't even come into the top 10 largest percentage losses in history.

Shows how inflated the dollar really is.

but those smaller banks will be less inclined to lend money, add to that the number of people losing confidence in the market and in banks...

Some of them may, but loan demand is still strong in many areas. The ones hardest hit by the credit crunch are really big corporations.

The biggest issue isn't so much any real economic conditions but fear. Today's market performance was driven more by emotion than by reason.

Democrats have enough votes to pass it on their own. To do so however would be political suicide. Just enough of them voted for it so that over half of Republicans would have to. That way it limits it's use as political ammo.

They forced the Republicans to make it a bipartisan decision rather than to have the Democrats hold the whole stinky basket? Those Unamerican Bastards! :mad:

The Republicans voted against it almost 2 to 1, while the Democrats voted for it approximately 1.5 to 1.

Incidentally, while today was the single largest net loss in history, it doesn't even come into the top 10 largest percentage losses in history.

The facts haven't stopped the Chicken Littles of this forum before.

And while the "bailout" is, I hope, being stalled by the GOP (with some Democrat help but don't let that stop the bluster) the reason we are in this mess is the Democrat party itself. Look up the lending practises of FMae and FMack and who benefitted most from this whole thing. Some names to look for: Raines, Gorelick, Frank, and Dodd.

They forced the Republicans to make it a bipartisan decision rather than to have the Democrats hold the whole stinky basket? Those Unamerican Bastards! :mad:

Well this way the Dems can crow that the Republicans are obstructing economic recovery and lament that while no one likes doing this is must be done to avoid total implosion.

The facts haven't stopped the Chicken Littles of this forum before.

And while the "bailout" is, I hope, being stalled by the GOP (with some Democrat help but don't let that stop the bluster) the reason we are in this mess is the Democrat party itself. Look up the lending practises of FMae and FMack and who benefitted most from this whole thing. Some names to look for: Raines, Gorelick, Frank, and Dodd.

How hopelessly partisan of you.

Well this way the Dems can crow that the Republicans are obstructing economic recovery and lament that while no one likes doing this is must be done to avoid total implosion.

And the Republicans can crow that the Democrats wanted to suck your wallet dry to prop up Wall Street fat cats, etc. etc. Both sides are going to try to smear the other on this one.

Some of them may, but loan demand is still strong in many areas. The ones hardest hit by the credit crunch are really big corporations.

The biggest issue isn't so much any real economic conditions but fear. Today's market performance was driven more by emotion than by reason.

The whole 'crisis' is driven by emotion. Investment banks are trying to play us for suckers. They know they are economic tumors but they are trying to convince the American Public they are vital organs.

How hopelessly partisan of you.

The Republican plan by the way is to suspend capital gains tax. That way they can all sell out without getting taxed. That'll fix things, right?

Hope you liked it then, because that's a taste of things to come.

We've got two choices ahead of us, and both of them involve going 'red' to some extent. Alphabet agencies, social aid programs, and public works... or the thing those policies were instituted to prevent, the revolt of the proletariat.

I didn't like it obviously, but I don't see why that would be inevitable.

I don't buy there being a depression, maybe a recession, but frankly I don't think we can responsibly run all that deficit spending, considering where our debt already is, inflation would probably jump up quite a bit, hurting the "working man" more than anything else.

I think the more prudent question the taxpayer should ask before giving their assent to any deal is this: Who ends up with all the money?

The bailout needs to happen. Credit markets are too important to our day-to-day economy to allow to stagnate. It isn't the kind of crisis that requires immediate and irrational action, though.

Just as Warren Buffett cut an excellent deal with Goldman Sachs this week, the government needs to strike an excellent deal on behalf of taxpayers. We should participate in the value creation brought about by the "second lives" we are providing. And these profits the government makes should be returned to the taxpayers.

We can't afford to settle for less.

Some of them may, but loan demand is still strong in many areas. The ones hardest hit by the credit crunch are really big corporations.

The biggest issue isn't so much any real economic conditions but fear. Today's market performance was driven more by emotion than by reason.
It's insane how the most important aspect of our society - functional economy - is driven by chaotic emotions instead of rational thought.


...They probably should kill free economy and replace it with something more rational, before free economy kills itself that is :p

It didn't exactly smell like roses with the Dems either. only about 60% of dems voted for it. I think it's an excellent sign of how much it stunk when Democrats and Republicans alike can hold their noses and go, 'EWWWW!!!"

and now... with the stocks at -780... what do you think they're saying now?

the reason we are in this mess is the Democrat party itself.

Whatever helps you sleep at night kiddo. Isnt one of McCains top guys high up on the Fmae chain?

The bailout needs to happen. Credit markets are too important to our day-to-day economy to allow to stagnate. It isn't the kind of crisis that requires immediate and irrational action, though.

Just as Warren Buffett cut an excellent deal with Goldman Sachs this week, the government needs to strike an excellent deal on behalf of taxpayers. We should participate in the value creation brought about by the "second lives" we are providing. And these profits the government makes should be returned to the taxpayers.

We can't afford to settle for less.

The man makes sense.

How hopelessly partisan of you.

How hopelessly factual as well.

The bailout needs to happen. Credit markets are too important to our day-to-day economy to allow to stagnate. It isn't the kind of crisis that requires immediate and irrational action.

They won't stagnate. Their entire business depends on lending money to make more money. Stagnation hurts them far more dearly than the rest of the economy. They're trying to sucker us into paying for their mistakes. Nothing more.

How hopelessly factual as well.

Only in Fantasy Land.

and now... with the stocks at -780... what do you think they're saying now?

"Shit, who is going to pay for my golf vacation now?"

I didn't like it obviously, but I don't see why that would be inevitable.

I don't buy there being a depression, maybe a recession, but frankly I don't think we can responsibly run all that deficit spending, considering where our debt already is, inflation would probably jump up quite a bit, hurting the "working man" more than anything else.

It isn't a matter of whether or not you 'like' it. Reality has a tendency to ignore our littl aspirations as an effective 'cause'.

Without alphabet agencies and public works, and all the rest, the US would have joined the revolution - because that's what people that haven't eaten and can't feed their families do.

The bailout needs to happen. Credit markets are too important to our day-to-day economy to allow to stagnate. It isn't the kind of crisis that requires immediate and irrational action, though.

Just as Warren Buffett cut an excellent deal with Goldman Sachs this week, the government needs to strike an excellent deal on behalf of taxpayers. We should participate in the value creation brought about by the "second lives" we are providing. And these profits the government makes should be returned to the taxpayers.

We can't afford to settle for less.

For once, I think I agree with you.

What should happen, I believe, is that not only should there be a moratorium on these mortagages that sparked the crisis in the first place, but also that this shouldn't be a straight bailout, where the government just gives companies cash, and politely asks if they can return some of it later if they feel like it.

The bailouts need to be in the form of loans, where the the government will charge a lot of interest, and so make money for the taxpayer.

It isn't a matter of whether or not you 'like' it. Reality has a tendency to ignore our littl aspirations as an effective 'cause'.

Without alphabet agencies and public works, and all the rest, the US would have joined the revolution - because that's what people that haven't eaten and can't feed their families do.

I only reason I mentioned what I liked was be cause of "Hope you liked it then, because that's a taste of things to come." I'm far from self involved enough to think my likes or dislikes affect much.

They won't stagnate. Their entire business depends on lending money to make more money. Stagnation hurts them far more dearly than the rest of the economy. They're trying to sucker us into paying for their mistakes. Nothing more.
The part that pisses me off the most is that no one is held accountable for their actions anymore. And we are paying for their mistakes. Not in an outright gift, but in an "investment".

I'm more and more convinced that the smelly securities need to be bought up to clear the balance sheets. If that doesn't happen, the big investment banks just won't have the money to lend. That will hurt more than we can imagine.

For once, I think I agree with you.

What should happen, I believe, is that not only should there be a Moratorium on these mortagages that sparked the crisis in the first place, but also that this shouldn't be a straight bailout, where the government just gives companies cash, and politely asks if they can return some of it later if they feel like it.

The bailouts need to be in the form of loans, where the the government will charge a lot of interest, and so make money for the taxpayer.
This bailout is not an outright gift. It is an "investment", where we, the taxpayers, buy crappy securities and hope that they will smell better someday.

This bailout is not an outright gift. It is an "investment", where we, the taxpayers, buy crappy securities and hope that they will smell better someday.

And lets be honost with ourselves. We'll never see a return on this "investment". So its an "investment" in name only. In practice, its a fucking gift.

I expect the cynic in you to agree.

Whatever helps you sleep at night kiddo. Isnt one of McCains top guys high up on the Fmae chain?

Well he did support oversight if that is what you mean. Look up Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190. In fact, he was one of the cosponsors.

Now looky here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

Not even two years in Congress and Obama is already #2 in receiving money from FMae and FMack. More than six times the amount that McCain received in a 20-year period. Now Obama, in the debate, said he saw this coming. Where is his bill? Hello?

But hey, I am sure Raines and Johnson, both Obama financial advisors, told Obama exactly what kind of mess they left behind right?

Only in Fantasy Land.

See above.

Well he did support oversight if that is what you mean. Look up Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190. In fact, he was one of the cosponsors.

Now looky here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/09/update-fannie-mae-and-freddie.html

Not even two years in Congress and Obama is already #2 in receiving money from FMae and FMack. More than six times the amount that McCain received in a 20-year period. Now Obama, in the debate, said he saw this coming. Where is his bill? Hello?

But hey, I am sure Raines and Johnson, both Obama financial advisors, told Obama exactly what kind of mess they left behind right?

This proves what exactly?

The part that pisses me off the most is that no one is held accountable for their actions anymore. And we are paying for their mistakes. Not in an outright gift, but in an "investment".

I'm more and more convinced that the smelly securities need to be bought up to clear the balance sheets. If that doesn't happen, the big investment banks just won't have the money to lend. That will hurt more than we can imagine.

They're faking it. The government isn't offering to do anything they can't do themselves. They just don't want to. They don't want long-term investments. They don't want to wait for the housing market to recover. They want to dump their long-term investments on the taxpayer and get back into the business of making fast money. Why? Because they don't want to be part of the economy. They want to play the economy like it's some sort of game.

And lets be honost with ourselves. We'll never see a return on this "investment". So its an "investment" in name only. In practice, its a fucking gift.

I expect the cynic in you to agree.
I wouldn't have used scare quotes if I thought the investment was real.

The only smart thing to do is actually own a piece of the company. When the bank is relieved of its bad debts, it _will_ become more profitable, it's stock will appreciate, and we, the taxpayers, could see a return on the bad investment that we made. If this wasn't part of the bailout, then it was proper to reject it.

I wouldn't have used scare quotes if I thought the investment was real.

The only smart thing to do is actually own a piece of the company. When the bank is relieved of its bad debts, it _will_ become more profitable, it's stock will appreciate, and we, the taxpayers, could see a return on the bad investment that we made. If this wasn't part of the bailout, then it was proper to reject it.

Isn't that nationalizing? Not totally, but in a small scale.

This proves what exactly?

That the Democrats hands are all over this mess. I have posted other sources to Gorelick, Raines, Johnson, and the fact that Clinton altered FMae and FMack to allow them to take their low rate loans and place them in higher rate investments (like Phillip Morris).

Now you can continue to drink the Obama kool-aid and say the evil GOP is behind this but this is mostly a Democrat mess and that cannot be denied. They created it and they benefited from it greatly over the years.

So while Bush and McCain were attempting to get oversight over a rogue group of lenders who were dragging down the system Dodd and Frank were calling them racists for trying to keep minorities out of houses.

But I forget where I am and who my audience is: Down with the GOP! Bailout good!

They're faking it. The government isn't offering to do anything they can't do themselves. They just don't want to. They don't want long-term investments. They don't want to wait for the housing market to recover. They want to dump their long-term investments on the taxpayer and get back into the business of making fast money. Why? Because they don't want to be part of the economy. They want to play the economy like it's some sort of game.
A major bank like Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, or AIG failing, and Goldman-Sachs and Morgan Stanley teetering on the brink of failure are once-in-a-lifetime events. The fact that four such events happened in 96 hours was just a once-in-a-lifetime coincidence.

Not hardly.

They want to play the economy like it's some sort of game.
Well, in the end of the day, it is, and economists and traders merely its players. The entire notion of finance is based on a fantasy that money matters. It just so happens to be a fantasy that everyone in the civilised world relies on for their well-being.

We're not chastising people for playing games. We just want better game mechanics.

A major bank like Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, or AIG failing, and Goldman-Sachs and Morgan Stanley teetering on the brink of failure are once-in-a-lifetime events. The fact that four such events happened in 96 hours was just a once-in-a-lifetime coincidence.

Not hardly.

Nobody is jumping out of windows on Wall Street yet. I'm not convinced. :tongue:

Isn't that nationalizing? Not totally, but in a small scale.
I consider equity stakes to be a more firm embrace of free market capitalism than to just give the money to the beleaguered banks.

Here are a few comments of mine.

My first one is a question. Were any of the circuit breakers used on Monday, or not? I can imagine the possibility that the market would have fallen even further had there been a free for all.

Secondly, there will be a rebound in the Dow Jones at some stage this week; all the major crashes (October 1929, October 1987, October 1997) had a couple of days of fall, and then a major rebound as bargain hunters climb in. Certainly, I am getting more and more tempted to climb into the Stock Market in New Zealand, as our companies' stocks get pummelled.

Furthermore, I am of the view that this could result in America turning into some sort of latter day Japan. I don't think there will be another Depression; we got fiat currency these days, and I don't think that a protectionist attitude will prevail like it did in the 1930s.

New Zealand has yet to open, but I will be interested in seeing how much we fall. Our #1 stock, which is also on the NYSE, fell by about 10% in overnight trade; and given its dominance of the index, we could be talking about a 300 point fall in New Zealand.

Nobody is jumping out of windows on Wall Street yet. I'm not convinced. :tongue:

they don't want to be fined for littering. they gotta watch what's left of their money after all. :p

Edit: also, the new wall street buildings don't have windows that open nor access to the ledges from the rooftops.

A major bank like Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, or AIG failing, and Goldman-Sachs and Morgan Stanley teetering on the brink of failure are once-in-a-lifetime events. The fact that four such events happened in 96 hours was just a once-in-a-lifetime coincidence.

Not hardly.

That being said, the credit freeze is solely an industry created problem. There isn't an external stimulus that is forcing them not to lend to one another; it's due entirely to their own fear of their own market.

And the bailout is an "investment". It's a losing investment, but still an investment. We aren't just signing a $700 billion check and kissing it good bye. There will be return on the money. It may not be a GOOD return, and it will likely be a net loss, but it's not like we're flushing money down the toilet.

they don't want to be fined for littering. they gotta watch what's left of their money after all. :p

Edit: also, the new wall street buildings don't have windows that open nor access to the ledges from the rooftops.

I wonder why not. :p

That being said, the credit freeze is solely an industry created problem. There isn't an external stimulus that is forcing them not to lend to one another; it's due entirely to their own fear of their own market.

And the bailout is an "investment". It's a losing investment, but still an investment. We aren't just signing a $700 billion check and kissing it good bye. There will be return on the money. It may not be a GOOD return, and it will likely be a net loss, but it's not like we're flushing money down the toilet.

No, we're just loaning it to the richest men in America.

A major bank like Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, or AIG failing, and Goldman-Sachs and Morgan Stanley teetering on the brink of failure are once-in-a-lifetime events. The fact that four such events happened in 96 hours was just a once-in-a-lifetime coincidence.

Not hardly.

Banks tend to be intertwined, also the public tends to panic and pull its money out prematurely(investments more so then deposits). So you have one major bank fail you normal have several other big ones fail as well.

I wonder why not. :p

The Streetcleaners have one mighty powerful union. :D

No, we're just loaning it to the richest men in America.

I demand intrest be applied... compounded monthly!

If this wasn't part of the bailout, then it was proper to reject it.

I haven't read the actual legislation, because I'm lazy and like to spout off on things I'm not informed about, but considering the 79.9% stake the Fed took out of AIG's ass in their bailout, I would naturally assume there was some sort of provision in the bailout to allow the Fed to take up a stake in any company that participated in the bailout.

Banks tend to be intertwined, also the public tends to panic and pull its money out prematurely(investments more so then deposits). So you have one major bank fail you normal have several other big ones fail as well.
I don't recall that domino effect when that big British bank ... Barings failed.

No, we're just loaning it to the richest men in America.

It's not a loan. We're buying their bad debt. Eventually, housing prices will recover and will be higher than they are now. They won't (god-willing) approach the bubble prices, but they will see an increase in value over time. In a few years, give or take, there will be buyers for those securities. The Fed can then sell the debt back to investors and recoup some of the $700 billion.

We're certainly not going to see every dime back from that $700 billion. But we also certainly will see some of the dimes. Even if we recoup a fraction of the bailout money, we'll be better off than if we keep the $700 billion and the market loses $4 trillion in capitalization.

No, we're just loaning it to the richest men in America.
It's called "lulling them into a false sense of security". Mwahaha.

I haven't read the actual legislation, because I'm lazy and like to spout off on things I'm not informed about, but considering the 79.9% stake the Fed took out of AIG's ass in their bailout, I would naturally assume there was some sort of provision in the bailout to allow the Fed to take up a stake in any company that participated in the bailout.
So maybe it was Nancy Pelosi that poisoned the deal all by herself? She certainly could use a few lessons in tact.

For those of you who are wondering why this "bipartisan" bill failed, take a look at Pelosi's pre-vote speech.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html

Does this sound non-partisan to you? Is this the right way to go if you don't wish politics to enter the picture?

Pelosi is a train-wreck. Nice job.

I demand intrest be applied... compounded monthly!

What was really interesting was that when equity stakes and executive payouts were first brought up, Paulson gave some sort of song and dance about not making the bailout deal too punitive on the companies participating because they might not participate if they do. Doesn't that nicely demonstrate just how vital this bailout is? They might not participate. Sometimes I wonder if they even listen to themselves when they speak. :p

It's not a loan. We're buying their bad debt. Eventually, housing prices will recover and will be higher than they are now. They won't (god-willing) approach the bubble prices, but they will see an increase in value over time. In a few years, give or take, there will be buyers for those securities. The Fed can then sell the debt back to investors and recoup some of the $700 billion.

We're certainly not going to see every dime back from that $700 billion. But we also certainly will see some of the dimes. Even if we recoup a fraction of the bailout money, we'll be better off than if we keep the $700 billion and the market loses $4 trillion in capitalization.

So if we don't put a band-aid on their boo-boo, they'll take their ball and go home?

So maybe it was Nancy Pelosi that poisoned the deal all by herself? She certainly could use a few lessons in tact.

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say she poisoned it. She certainly didn't help matters by being endlessly partisan about the whole thing, like usual, but the onus to the Republican votes doesn't really fall on her. Boehner did an absolutely miserable job lining up Republican votes for legislation proposed by their president and endorsed by their leadership.

For those of you who are wondering why this "bipartisan" bill failed, take a look at Pelosi's pre-vote speech.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html

Does this sound non-partisan to you? Is this the right way to go if you don't wish politics to enter the picture?

Pelosi is a train-wreck. Nice job.

So they voted it down just to spite Pelosi? ANd somehow that's Pelosi's fault thay they'd vote it down just to spite her?

What was really interesting was that when equity stakes and executive payouts were first brought up, Paulson gave some sort of song and dance about not making the bailout deal too punitive on the companies participating because they might not participate if they do. Doesn't that nicely demonstrate just how vital this bailout is? They might not participate. Sometimes I wonder if they even listen to themselves when they speak. :p

wasn't it Pelosi who questioned why there was no oversight? and now all the articles are saying how dissappointed she was that it didn't pass?

so no, they're not listening to themselves.

For those of you who are wondering why this "bipartisan" bill failed, take a look at Pelosi's pre-vote speech.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html

Does this sound non-partisan to you? Is this the right way to go if you don't wish politics to enter the picture?

Pelosi is a train-wreck. Nice job.

so your claim is that republican senators didn't vote for the plan, not because they didn't like the details, but because someone was rude to them?

What fucking children.

Pelosi is a train-wreck. Nice job.

Unfortunately, I have to agree. She certainly did a good job not reaching across party lines for something that is supposed to be a bi-partisan effort.

What was really interesting was that when equity stakes and executive payouts were first brought up, Paulson gave some sort of song and dance about not making the bailout deal too punitive on the companies participating because they might not participate if they do. Doesn't that nicely demonstrate just how vital this bailout is? They might not participate. Sometimes I wonder if they even listen to themselves when they speak. :p

Paulson's plan was shitty garbage. The amended plan that was put to a vote was significantly different. I have little doubt in my mind that Paulson is a stooge, and that Bernake isn't even being allowed to speak in these meetings.

How many of you have tax dollars at stake?

FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!

I'm still half-asleep, get on the internet, and...the Dow is all red-like. NASDAQ is down...9%? WTF?

And then I see it. That's going to hurt, guys. Really, really badly. The Fed might also become a victim, its balance sheet is going to expand massively as it has no choice now but to print money. And don't forget the FDIC - Congress didn't like the idea of spending $700 billion, now the FDIC will probably need something approaching that to make sure people don't lose their deposits.

I've been saying for a while that politicians suck, but I'm not sure it's ever been as real to me as it is right now. These guys are completely detached from reality. Yes, there were some sucky parts in the legislation, that bit (http://www.informationarbitrage.com/2008/09/what-is-hank-th.html) for example. But even so it's a lot better than no legislation.

Well, I suppose it's time to buy gold now and hold on.

So if we don't put a band-aid on their boo-boo, they'll take their ball and go home?

Yes, essentially. And if they take their ball and go home, then they stop extending credit lines to companies. And if companies don't get those credit lines, then they stop having the liquidity to meet payroll and vendor costs while they wait for their accounts receivable to settle. And if they can't meet payroll, then people stop getting paid. Etc., etc. We can sit and discuss the relative merits and demerits of the plan, and we'd probably agree on a whole lot. But if nothing is done, things will just continue to deteriorate.

Frankly, I think the bailout should be even more punitive than it already is.

How many of you have tax dollars at stake?

What kind of question is this? Anyone who lives in the United States has a stake in this.

How many of you have tax dollars at stake?


I'm guessing very few, if any of you.

so your claim is that republican senators didn't vote for the plan, not because they didn't like the details, but because someone was rude to them?

What fucking children.
I don't know why your post inspired me to this, but how's this for a solution to everyone's problems:

Sell your government.

Heck, it's not like it could get any worse, right?

What kind of question is this? Anyone who lives in the United States has a stake in this.
CORRECTION: Anyone who pays taxes in the United States has a stake in this.

I'm guessing very few, if any of you.
May I just point out that if the bank you keep your dollars in goes bust, you have more than just your taxes at stake?

so your claim is that republican senators didn't vote for the plan, not because they didn't like the details, but because someone was rude to them?

What fucking children.

Point of order: Representatives, not senators. That is all.

:)

CORRECTION: Anyone who pays taxes in the United States has a stake in this.

Congratulations to you. You've successfully pointed out that anyone who pays taxes in the United States has a stake in a taxpayer funded bailout. Care to point out the wetness of water for us?

CORRECTION: Anyone who pays taxes in the United States has a stake in this.

Yep, because this won't affect the future at all. Or other markets. Everything resets to 0 in 2009. :p

yep, because this won't affect the future at all. Or other markets. Everything resets to 0 in 2009. :p

edit: Goddamnit it all. Jolt can lick my balls. Y2K9.

May I just point out that if the bank you keep your dollars in goes bust, you have more than just your taxes at stake?

Only if I was dumb enough to trust my money to a bank.

Only if I was dumb enough to trust my money to a bank.

*sets your mattress on fire*

Point of order: Representatives, not senators. That is all.

:)

god damn it.

Civics 101......

EDIT: Well, if anyone's going to catch me in an error, I'm glad it was a fellow Bostonian.

FUUUUUUUUUUUUCK!
The Fed might also become a victim


Don't talk about the SOOPER SEKRIT!!!!

*sets your mattress on fire*

Just to be safe...

*releases a hoard of ground termites in surrounding area.*

Only if I was dumb enough to trust my money to a bank.
Well, maybe you should run into the woods with a big wheelbarrow full of gold bars. Then you'd probably get out of this okay, provided a bear doesn't eat you.

But seriously, anyone who moans about the money coming from taxpayers has completely failed to grasp the seriousness of the situation. This is Great Depression type stuff (worse actually, in 1929 the markets didn't fall as much as they did now), and so far lawmakers have proven all my predictions wrong, we had learned something from back then.

The FDIC will be shovelling money into collapsing banks, first mid-tier then bigger. It could well be that Citi took on Wachovia with the conviction that this deal was going to be made - none of the banks is safe to come out the other end. Even if the FDIC doesn't go bust in the process, the taxpayer will anyways: now that Congress has put the Treasury off limits for a big rescue, it will continue to be the Fed that has to try and keep the system on life support. And the Fed can't make rules or borrow money, it can only print it.

This is not about "Wall Street fatcats". It never was. This is about the conduits of that feed the oxygen into the economy, and which are now seized up. The US is suffocating, and this deal was supposed to open the tubes back up. Now it didn't happen, and the place has turned blue some time ago.

Congratulations to you. You've successfully pointed out that anyone who pays taxes in the United States has a stake in a taxpayer funded bailout. Care to point out the wetness of water for us?
Sorry! I didn't know you were mentally challenged.

Only if I was dumb enough to trust my money to a bank.

Silly bunny. Where do you think all the employers keep their money?

If I lose my paycheck, it's shit, and it's not nice, but I'd probably survive. If my employer loses the paycheck, that's a yearlong budget going tits-up, and a lot of people without a lot of paychecks.

Sorry! I didn't know you were mentally challenged.

Yeah, I am, actually. So good job on the flame.

Silly bunny. Where do you think all the employers keep their money?

If I lose my paycheck, it's shit, and it's not nice, but I'd probably survive. If my employer loses the paycheck, that's a yearlong budget going tits-up, and a lot of people without a lot of paychecks.

obviously the companies should keep their money in gold bars, sheep, and other barterable commodities.

Silly bunny. Where do you think all the employers keep their money?

If I lose my paycheck, it's shit, and it's not nice, but I'd probably survive. If my employer loses the paycheck, that's a yearlong budget going tits-up, and a lot of people without a lot of paychecks.

Loan me $1000.00, will ya? I promise I'll pay you back!

Loan me $1000.00, will ya? I promise I'll pay you back!

I'm fairly certain you're on drugs right now..

obviously the companies should keep their money in gold bars, sheep, and other barterable commodities.

My clients could pay me in tacos! :)

My clients could pay me in tacos! :)

hah, like any of us will be able to afford beef in a few months.

hah, like any of us will be able to afford beef in a few months.

You know, there are people out there who eat their tacos with black beans.

*Harumph*

hah, like any of us will be able to afford beef in a few months.

Fortunately, the number of former Wall Street bankers looking for work will increase. Nobody will miss em. ;)

You know, there are people out there who eat their tacos with black beans.

*Harumph*

What is with you Hindus and beef? Everybody likes beef. It's UNAMERICAN to not eat meat. But if we point out your strange archaic ways, suddenly WE are the bad guys. Apparently all your silly ways are immune from criticism, like some sort of "sacred cow" or something.

What a stupid expression by the way, whoever came up with that?

they could find new work as soylent green

Loan me $1000.00, will ya? I promise I'll pay you back!

In other words, you bring nothing to the table?

obviously the companies should keep their money in gold bars, sheep, and other barterable commodities.

I assume that most people in America that work, probably have some need for banks somewhere in the foodchain - even if you don't like them.

I'm trying to work out how someone could be so disconnected from what seems - to me - to be a fairly obvious fact.

they could find new work as soylent green

http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/mmm_soylent_green.wav

EDIT: Well, if anyone's going to catch me in an error, I'm glad it was a fellow Bostonian.

I should point out that I don't technically live in Boston, I just put that there because it's easily recognizable.

I should point out that I don't technically live in Boston, I just put that there because it's easily recognizable.

you're in Allston aren't you? It's ok, Brookline, Allston, Brighton, it's all "Boston". It's a big tent city.

Except for those dirty dirty people in Cambridge.

Fuck those people.

For those of you who are wondering why this "bipartisan" bill failed, take a look at Pelosi's pre-vote speech.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html

Does this sound non-partisan to you? Is this the right way to go if you don't wish politics to enter the picture?

Pelosi is a train-wreck. Nice job.

Yeeeeeah dont think thats why it failed. And if it being partisan is the reason, we could get into a whole "who did it first" which you would lose, but I have better things to do with my time.

I'm guessing very few, if any of you.

So you assume we are all forgeiners or tax dodgers?

you're in Allston aren't you? It's ok, Brookline, Allston, Brighton, it's all "Boston". It's a big tent city.

Except for those dirty dirty people in Cambridge.

Fuck those people.

No, I used to live in Brighton, but not anymore. Now I'm out west.

Fortunately, the number of former Wall Street bankers looking for work will increase. Nobody will miss em. ;)

but their stress level from these past few days will affect their value... you do know that right?

you're in Allston aren't you? It's ok, Brookline, Allston, Brighton, it's all "Boston". It's a big tent city.

Except for those dirty dirty people in Cambridge.

Fuck those people.
... my mother lives in Cambridge ...

hah, like any of us will be able to afford beef in a few months.

Ah, but we have over 500 head of cattle on our farm and just might be willing to barter. Well...that is if you're willing to trade for something we might...um..."enjoy." *hands LG and NA each a g-string* :tongue:

... my mother lives in Cambridge ...

So you were raised Communist?

There is a silver lining. The last depression toughened everyone up. And just in time too. I am thinking that will be useful this time also.

So you were raised Communist?
Fuck no. I was RAISED in Queens, NYC, by the kinds of people who hated the government and all forms of official authority and taught me that the policeman was my friend as long as he didn't mouth off and step above his station, in which case the lawyer was my even better friend. So...not communist. Not really anarchist. More like aristocracy (you know, like the name of the borough). :D

There is a silver lining. The last depression toughened everyone up. And just in time too. I am thinking that will be useful this time also.
I'm curious as to whether you were alive during the last depression.

Fuck no. I was RAISED in Queens, NYC, by the kinds of people who hated the government and all forms of official authority and taught me that the policeman was my friend as long as he didn't mouth off and step above his station, in which case the lawyer was my even better friend. So...not communist. Not really anarchist. More like aristocracy (you know, like the name of the borough). :D

Right, comrade. Why did someone like your mother choose to move to the PRC, then?

Right, comrade. Why did someone like your mother choose to move to the PRC, then?
She likes the quaint brick sidewalks, and she enjoys watching all the nouveau snobs acting like they're superior to something. ;)

In any event, the opinions of her neighbors don't matter a whit because people like us don't talk to the peasants next door. :tongue:

The president is a Kunt:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9MTZEgukPLY&refer=home


He sidestepped Congresses official decision NOT to put money into the problem by setting a way for 630 billion to be pumped into it:

Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.

The Fed increased its existing currency swaps with foreign central banks by $330 billion to $620 billion to make more dollars available worldwide. The Term Auction Facility, the Fed's emergency loan program, will expand by $300 billion to $450 billion. The European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan are among the participating authorities.

The Fed's expansion of liquidity, the biggest since credit markets seized up last year, came hours before the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry. The crisis is reverberating through the global economy, causing stocks to plunge and forcing European governments to rescue four banks over the past two days alone.

``Today's blast of term liquidity will settle the funding markets down, and allow trust to slowly be restored between borrowers and lenders,'' said Chris Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York. On the other hand, ``the Fed's balance sheet is about to explode.''

The MSCI World Index of stocks in 23 developed markets sank 6 percent, the most since its creation in 1970. Credit markets deteriorated further as authorities tried to save more financial institutions from collapse.

European Rescue

European governments have rescued four banks in two days and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. said today it helped Citigroup Inc. buy the banking operations of Wachovia Corp. after its shares collapsed. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index fell 3.8 percent and the cost of borrowing dollars for three months rose to the highest since January. The rate for euros hit a record.

``If people think the authorities may give in to fears, they are wrong,'' Financial Stability Forum Chairman Mario Draghi said today in Amsterdam, where the international group of regulators and finance officials is meeting. ``There is willingness and determination on winning the battle to restore confidence and stability.''

Banks and brokers have slowed lending as they struggle to restore their capital after $586 billion in credit losses and writedowns since the mortgage crisis began a year ago. The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. also sparked fears among banks they wouldn't be repaid by counterparties, driving up the cost of short-term loans between banks.

Funding Risk

``By committing to provide a very large quantity of term funding, the Federal Reserve actions should reassure financial market participants that financing will be available against good collateral, lessening concerns about funding and rollover risk,'' the central bank said.

The Bank of England and the ECB will each double the size of their dollar swap facilities with the Fed to as much as $80 billion and $240 billion, respectively. The Swiss National Bank and the Bank of Japan will also double their dollar swap lines, while the central banks in Australia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Canada tripled theirs.

All the banks extended their facilities until the end of April 2009.

The Fed is also increasing the size of its three 84-day TAF sales to $75 billion apiece, from $25 billion. That means the Fed will make a total of $225 billion available in 84-day loans. The central bank will keep the sales of 28-day credit at $75 billion.

Special Sales

In addition, the Fed will hold two special TAF sales in November totaling $150 billion so banks can have funding available for one or two weeks over year-end. The exact timing and terms will be determined later, the Fed said. The TAF program began in December, totaling $40 billion.

The bank-rescue plan being debated by Congress today would give the Fed more power over short-term interest rates by providing authority as of Oct. 1 to pay interest on reserves held at the central bank by financial institutions. That would make it easier for the Fed to pump funds into the banking system.

Paying interest on reserves puts a ``floor'' under the traded overnight rate, which would allow a central bank ``to provide liquidity during times of stress'' without affecting the rate, New York Fed economists said in a paper last month.

Oh bloody hell. I already accidentally posted two threads on this topic without realizing it was already up.:headbang: I'm behind the times, and I'm annoyed as hell. I saw this thread by I assumed from the length and the title that it was an old thread discussing the issue of the bailout, not weather it had passed.:$

The president is a Kunt:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a9MTZEgukPLY&refer=home


He sidestepped Congresses official decision NOT to put money into the problem by setting a way for 630 billion to be pumped into it:

yep.. because the DJI dropping 800 points is a good thing. :rolleyes:

I'm quite calm on the subject. Whatever happens, happens, and there's nothing I can do about it - so i'll just enjoy myself while I still can.

yep.. because the DJI dropping 800 points is a good thing. :rolleyes:

Congress decided on it. He did what he has continued to do for 8 years; going around Congress to get what he wants.

Besides, starting fresh is not bad. Everything in life is cyclical. We are bound to have depression and dooms days over and over again. It helps sort the system out, and in the end Humanity continues to live on.

not that i understand this fed thing but

The Fed's expansion of liquidity, the biggest since credit markets seized up last year, came hours before the U.S. House of Representatives rejected a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry.

indicates to me that it was supposed to somehow suppliment the bailout package not do an end-run around it.

not that i understand this fed thing but



indicates to me that it was supposed to somehow suppliment the bailout package not do an end-run around it.

That's what I get for skimming articles.:$

yep, everything moves in a cycle, yet peopld do want to keep the downside as short as possible.

And its best to get this thing started and over as quickly as possible, instead of waiting a few more months or years, and let people get comfortable only to have them lose everything in a future date and time.

The $630 billion was a currency swap with other world banks and was going to happen whether or not Congress approved the $700 billion bailout, has nothing to do with the $700 billion bailout, and is entirely within the right of the Treasury to do. It also has next to nothing to do with Bush.

And its best to get this thing started and over as quickly as possible, instead of waiting a few more months or years, and let people get comfortable only to have them lose everything in a future date and time.

and how do you propose to start things over?

*Eats bill* Mmm... tastes like paper.

and how do you propose to start things over?

apparently there is a reset button
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2008/09/wall_street_presses_the_reset.html

*Eats bill* Mmm... tastes like paper.

That could have cocaine and/or stripper residue on it. *nod*