jammin Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 Well, they rejected the bail out plan today. Something that I honestly wasn't expecting to happen. Thoughts? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fire_storm Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 Well, they rejected the bail out plan today. Something that I honestly wasn't expecting to happen. Thoughts? Not a surprise to me eather. This must be really hurting Mccain in the polls. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_bowtie Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 Sure.... my thoughts.... 1) Where are they going to get the money....? where is it coming from...? 2) who pays for this when it happens....? 3) who exactly is it going to help if it does go....? the way i see it.... 1)tax payers 2) again tax payers...suposedly raising property taxes 2500.00 per person or home or something to this effect... 3) the greedy banks who made the mess to begin with....why? I agree with the earlier poster...let the crap hit the fan and let it all go....let them go out of business and lose it all....why not people lost homes...all they are going to lose is a job....get another one...simple fix I am one of these people right now in this mess...I can tell you first hand they dont care...My mortgage guy told me flat out in these words...."We'd rather take a loss than to drop your interest rate to make your payment lower...we do it every day...we take losses we dont care" This is when I knew they were serious with what they say....sell it "Short Sale" sell it even for less than half of what you owe and we cut you a little money on the sale and we "Forgive" the rest... More so meaning they dont take as big a hit as you think....doesnt matter to me one way or the other...especially when it comes to corporate greed...let them all drowned in the debt they breed.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammin Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 Not a surprise to me eather (sic). Misinterpretation? I was surprised. From what I understand (which is limited considering the complexity) is that the taxpayer will end up paying eventually anyway, be it directly or indirectly. It seems sensible (to me at least) to pay now if it costs less than the alternative in the long run. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
My_Inner_Fred Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 Putting into consideration the US is also still in debt to other countrys.... The US government has been in debt with several nations and has always failed to pay them back fully The interest in the loans other nations give to the US it increasing every year... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchuwato Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 It seems sensible (to me at least) to pay now if it costs less than the alternative in the long run. Although it'll hit hard in the short term (today's Asian markets ), it'll bring stability back sooner. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kash Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 Well, they rejected the bail out plan today. Something that I honestly wasn't expecting to happen. Thoughts? You can thank Speaker Pelosi for that as a good chunk of Republicans were turned off by her heavily partisan speech last night. There is certainly a ploy at hand, whether Pelosi wants the Republicans to look bad or whether they simply want the companies to crumble and make more Americans dependent upon Democrats when it comes time for supporting Obama's entitlement programs. Either way, Pelosi is not a stupid woman, and thus this speech was reckless and irresponsible. :angry2: What I find most angering is the contempt Barney Franks (D-MA) had for Republicans when they voted against the measure, essentially calling them wimps. It's not the name calling I'm concerned with but rather the audacity of the one who's doing the insulting. This is the man who got us INTO this mess by pushing for Fannie and Freddie to give loans to everyone, regardless of whether or not they were qualified. He's also the man responsible for holding up proposed rule changes in committee all the way back in 2003 when this problem was first noticed and could have been easily prevented. Barney Franks needs to be lynched. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamikaze_Badger Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 I've got feathers if you can find some tar. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angry_Games Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 here's my take: the country needs to melt down. It's the only way we'll learn a lesson that GREED is BAD, and that sometimes government regulation is NECESSARY (especially in capitalism). Here's something interesting as well: (This letter was sent to Congress on Wed Sept 24 2008 regarding the Treasury plan as outlined on that date. It does not reflect all signatories views on subesquent plans or modifications of the bill) To the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate: As economists, we want to express to Congress our great concern for the plan proposed by Treasury Secretary Paulson to deal with the financial crisis. We are well aware of the difficulty of the current financial situation and we agree with the need for bold action to ensure that the financial system continues to function. We see three fatal pitfalls in the currently proposed plan: 1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syngensmyth Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 (edited) Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer’s Role the Fannie Mae Failure Right out of the Marxist playbook. Create a problem then make a lot of noise and look like the savior. (blaming the opposition of course) Edited September 30, 2008 by Syngensmyth Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kash Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 here's my take: the country needs to melt down. It's the only way we'll learn a lesson that GREED is BAD, and that sometimes government regulation is NECESSARY (especially in capitalism). Here's something interesting as well: Wow, that's a lot of economists. More than the entire government has, and I'd wager that most of them could give two crap about politics (trust me, math nerds care more about numbers and figures and such than which political party is going to steal/screw the people). More than that, I refuse to go along with any bull crap "bailout" unless it proscribes fines/jail time for criminal CEO's, it negates and voids any CEO contract that is slated to get millions (or hundreds of millions) in severance packages, and I want some goddamn oversight as to where this "bailout" money is going and how it is to be spent. George W Hitler Bush, is not giving his palsy-walsies on Wall Street a blank .ing check to hose the rest of the economy. I think everyone needs to write to their congressman/senator and let them know that to bail out these dummies now only reinforces the idea that government will step in and save you, especially those of you who don't need saving (like rich CEO's and other upper executives who did everything they could in a deregulated industry to fuel greed and probably criminal activity to pad bank accounts and pay for yachts etc). You guys fail to realize that it wasn't entirely the fault of the lending companies. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was designed to get lenders to increase the number of loans to poor communities. It had ONE economist back it up, nobody else wanted to touch it, yet Jimmy Carter signed it into law anyway. It was laxly enforced until 1995 when it got a major overhaul under Clinton's administration (it was updated and enforced by the Reagan, Bush I and Bush II administrations as well, so don't think blame falls solely on the Democrats). Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were essentially forced into securing loans for people who were considered high risk, people who had no verifiable source or income or any job prospects. No sane economist would go for such an idea, except the government assured them that it would bail them out if need be. So they continued with the subprime lending until it ended up in the crisis that we're in today. These companies need the bailout, otherwise the economy is going to be hurting for a long time. However, I do not approve of the bailout package that was put up for a vote yesterday. It did not include a repeal of the CRA and it did not include dissolving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We need to get rid of the government policies that got us into this mess before we spend a dime on acquiring the bad assets of the struggling companies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syngensmyth Posted September 30, 2008 Posted September 30, 2008 Commentary: Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now