# The mortgage bailout



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

very cool youtube video explaining how we got to the point we are with the subprime mortgage bailout






its very fast paced so you may need to pause it


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

the House has rejected the bailout....228-205. OK, not good for stability of the markets, but some of the elected officials are appearing to maybe "get it"........the easy, quick way out will doubtfully produce the long term effect they were hoping for.....this "emergency" bull**** is just that......under the auspices, Pelosi, Reid and the Fed were going to force feed us more bull**** to prop up this house of cards....not saying the next bill will be more equitable, but the taxpayer should not shoulder the next "roll of the dice" on Wall street.........


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

hunter:

It was recently estimated that foreign interests own 43% of the nation's debt. If the government will not bail out the lending industry or we find a domestic entity to buy in, even more of that debt will be owned by foreign interests.

This is not just an economic issue, it is a national security issue.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

yep, sure is......and all the while Bernake and his cronies and the SEC chairman Cox, sat on their nuts.......watching.......no hurry then, no hurry now.
let 'er all go to hell and maybe people will finally run the whole damn bunch out of Washington! POT!


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

> yep, sure is......and all the while Bernake and his cronies and the SEC chairman Cox, sat on their nuts.......watching.......no hurry then, no hurry now.
> let 'er all go to hell and maybe people will finally run the whole damn bunch out of Washington! POT!


I disagree. Who holds the title to a vehicle or deed to a house until the loan is paid off? The bank, that's who. Now, if I don't pay my monthly morgage or don't pay my vehicle loan, who gets that property? The bank, because they own it, I don't.

Now, I'm no rocket scientist, but what if the bank that owns my loan is in another country?

Are you advocating doing nothing to bail out the lending industry because you want to teach the politicians a lesson, or are you not as concerned about foreign ownership of assets as I am? Just curious.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

the Saudis can buy anything they want here now.....they don't want anything we have, quite frankly, as does no one else here in the states. until things go down to pennies on the dollar, nothing is attractive here.
maybe you can tell me what banks are owned by foreign countries here in the states?


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

hunter9494 said:


> ...
> maybe you can tell me what banks are owned by foreign countries here in the states?


Not necessarily banks but lending institutions...

Do you make a Visa(R) payment? Guess where that is going? The "saudi's" did the largest 'buy out' when then gave Visa the money to keep going....


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The problem is that without liquididty the whole economy will grind to a halt.. and many businesses will fail.

This wil happen because
Vitually all small busineses have a line of credit against recieveables so that they can afford to pay payroll this Friday even if their customers don't pay them by Friday, same with inventory costs, and otehr fixed costs.

If the countries credit drys up because of this issue many many small businesses and the large ones that don't have the capital reserves will fail.

This thing is a big deal I'm not saying I understand it all but what I do understand makes me hope the figure out a way to get it back on track.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It will not get back on track if someone doesn't sew Pelosi's mouth shut.


----------



## fishless (Aug 2, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> It will not get back on track if someone doesn't sew Pelosi's mouth shut.


Roger


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> It will not get back on track if someone doesn't sew Pelosi's mouth shut.


Minority Leader Boehner couldn't get his troops to fall in line after he stuck his neck out yesterday, rather embarrasing. Pelosi my ***.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

yeah Pelosi, YOUR ***! the hag opened her mouth once again today, chastising the republicans before the vote was even taken.....she "reached across the isle and bit the bipartisan hand" that could have passed this bill.......she is a wretched b$%#h who can't do anything with the minority party...she is divisive and unproductive and deceitful as hell! uke: Global Stealth Bank Run a Real Possibility

Monday, September 29, 2008 3:44 PM

By: Hans Parisis Article Font Size

It is a fact that we have to face the real risk of a full systemic meltdown.

The current financial crisis is becoming more severe by the hour. The reason: The U.S. Treasury's enormous $700 billion rescue plan is failing to restore confidence at the moment of this writing. It has been rejected by the U.S. lower house and might well be dead and done for.

Interbank spreads continue to widen (TED spread, swap spreads, and Libor-OIS spread). They are at their highest level ever. Credit spreads like the junk-bond yield spreads over the Treasurys are at never-before-seen peaks. Short-term Treasury yields are back to near-zero interest yields as funds are flying to safety where interest compensation is requested at this moment.

CDS spreads for financial institutions are rising to unseen levels and, unfortunately, also thanks in part to the newly installed ban on shorting of financial stocks so that the pressures on financial firms now change course to the CDS markets.

For now, stock markets around the world are reacting very negatively to the U.S. rescue package at this very moment.

Yes, we could say that we are back "once again" to the real risk of a total systemic financial collapse.

It shouldn't come as a surprise when financial institutions in the United States and other advanced economies are going bust. Last week, in the United States we had Washington Mutual, the largest of the savings & loans in the United States ,and now, Monday, we have Wachovia, which is the sixth-largest bank in the United States.

In the U.K. we had Northern Rock and HBOS, which were acquired by Lloyds TSB. This weekend in the U.K. we had also the bust and rescue of Bradford & Bingley.

In Belgium, also this weekend, Fortis went bust and was rescued by the National Banks of Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxemburg. In Germany, Hypo Real Estate, a major financial institution, is also near bust and in urgent need of a government-orchestrated rescue.

As you can see, this financial crisis is not limited to the United States but rather is a global, developing financial crisis hammering all financial institutions in all of the "advanced economies."

The stress in the short-term interbank markets is becoming more and more severe in spite of the fact that the Federal Reserve and other central banks are injecting unprecedented amounts of liquidity in the financial system.

There is no more room for denial. We all have to admit that we are in a full-blown solvency and credit crisis where no one trusts anybody anymore. Hoarding liquidity that is injected by central banks has become the only game in town.

In plain English, this means that all this central bank liquidity is going practically exclusively to banks and major broker dealers. The rest of the so-called "shadow banking system" is freezing to death as the credit transmission mechanism is blocked.

It seems now that investors have abandoned their trust most of the financial institutions - even Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs aren't spared.

When an unprecedented $700 billion rescue plan isn't able to rally or even calm stock markets worldwide, then you should know we have a serious global crisis of confidence in the financial system on our hands.

As an investor you should take your precautions as soon as possible.

And if all that bad news wasn't enough, the actual situation is the mother of all nightmare bank runs because it is a silent, cross-border bank run that is now under way. Foreign banks are worried about the solvency of U.S. banks and therefore are reducing their exposure.

I don't want to sound pessimistic. I only want to be realistic, but if this stealth ("stealth," that is, for Main Street) bank run accelerates, a total meltdown of the U.S. financial system could occur.


----------



## Benelliman (Apr 4, 2005)

Robert A. Langager said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > It will not get back on track if someone doesn't sew Pelosi's mouth shut.
> ...


Interesting that 66% of House Republicans voted down the measure.

Looks like it is the Republicans holding it up guys.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Benelliman said:


> Robert A. Langager said:
> 
> 
> > Plainsman said:
> ...


Pelosi said they had 50% and the republicans had about 50%. I don't know, but then I watched her speech and the republicans interviewed afterwards nine of them said they changed their mind watching her speech. I heard that there were 15 republicans that changed their vote at the last minute. If this was a bipartisan effort and it looked like it was a go both sides should have just shut their mouth and voted. If they had the vote comments were not a smart thing, especially if they were divisive comments.

Robert as I understand Minority Leader Boehner did have the votes yesterday, that's why it was foolish of Pelosi to start flapping her gums today. If the votes were there, just keep quiet and vote. Not a good move no matter if your liberal or conservative. This was the stupidity of an individual.

There is plenty of blame to go around, both democrat and republican. When Pelosi tried to blame the current failures on the republicans she poisoned the bill. Good bill, bad, I don't know, but I am sure it would have passed if she had kept her mouth shut.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I was just looking at an interesting poll. It was: who do you blame for the economic mess.
56% congress
17% people who barrowed
??? can't remember but it was bad companies I suppose it was 22%  
5% The Bush administration

It looks like Nancy blaming it on Bush didn't work this morning.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

What the Republicans in The House are holding up is the passage of a bill that needs improvement.

The Democrates in The House and Senate simply want to take action and do so with support of the Republicans so they are not left holding the bag on this when it proves to be a catastophic failure.

The Republicans (in The House) are forcing it to be a better crafted bill with a hopefully better prognosis.

The fact that they are holding it up and honing it to better form ... is a good thing ... not a bad thing.

Or so it seems to me


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Things about this vote are becoming more clear. Barney Franks blames the republicans for being 12 people short on the vote. Yet 95 democrats voted against the bill. As a matter of fact 12 democrats on Barney Franks committee voted against it.

I also see Nancy came right out and said the republicans were not patriotic. Isn't it the democrats that get angry when their patriotism is questioned? How about the patriotism of the 95 democrats that voted against it.

Well all that aside it looks like the American taxpayers swamped Washington with phone calls against the bill. Evidently the percentage was so strong against the bill that many changed their mind including democrats and republicans. So between the will of the taxpayer and Nancy the mouth the bill went down. I don't know if that was good or bad.

I wish they would make up their mind about having McCain there. First they complain because he isn't there, and then they complain when he comes. They can't have it both ways. I hope America is paying attention.



> ``The Republicans killed this,'' said House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. Republicans blamed Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.
> 
> Representative Adam Putnam of Florida, the No. 3 House Republican, said Pelosi's ``speech cost us votes'' because it set a ``partisan tone,'' a reference to her comment before the vote blaming Bush administration policies for the crisis.
> 
> Democrats voted 140 to 95 in favor of the legislation, while just 65 Republicans backed the bill and 133 opposed it.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> but I am sure it would have passed if she had kept her mouth shut.


I don't think that this is the case, but believe what you want. If that is the case then (as is so often said here) they better get some thicker skin.

The way I see it is this, nobody wants to vote for it, as many have voiced their opinion against it. It is uncharted territory and an election year. Many ducked for cover, it failed, and now they are going to scapegoat whatever they can to justify it. The liberal dems did not fall in line either, you know.

Try not to believe everything they say on Limbaugh, Newsmax, Coulter, etc, and I will do my best not to believe everything on the Huff, Kos, etc. The real story lies somewhere in the middle.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> I was just looking at an interesting poll. It was: who do you blame for the economic mess.
> 56% congress


I can't help but wonder if the likes of Charles Rangle and Barney Frank (to name two) will survive the election next month.

The best thing that might come from this is with all the challenging commentary those characters have spewed about there not being a problem with Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac and the lending practices they have pushed so hard for in the face of folks telling them it was pure insanity.

Their opposition will clearly have video and audio from the past several years to attack them with.

What was it Reverend Wright was saying? ... Maybe ... "Their Chickens will come home to roost!

Hopefully their constituency are not a stupid as they themselves are


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Try not to believe everything they say on Limbaugh, Newsmax, Coulter, etc, and I will do my best not to believe everything on the Huff, Kos, etc. The real story lies somewhere in the middle.


That's an excellent deal. I normally like to watch the videos on FOX news. Nothing beats watching it come right from the horses mouth. er, maybe it was the other end of the horse in Nancy's case. 

The reason it didn't pass is becoming more clear. I now think reason number one was all the taxpaying people calling Washington. Many up for re-election blinked.

Still I love to hate Nancy. Perhaps because it is so easy. Mostly because she refuses to accept responsibility. Democrats have been in control of congress and the president can't do anything they don't pass on to him for his signature. Then she blamed the Bush economy policy. I blame congress as 56% of the people. Only 5% blame Bush.



> In the face of thousands of phone calls and e-mails fiercely opposing the measure, many lawmakers were not willing to take the political risk of voting for it just five weeks before the elections.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

hunter9494 said:


> yeah Pelosi, YOUR a$$! the hag opened her mouth once again today, chastising the republicans before the vote was even taken.....she "reached across the isle and bit the bipartisan hand" that could have passed this bill.......she is a wretched b$%#h who can't do anything with the minority party...she is divisive and unproductive and deceitful as hell! uke:


Ok, so riddle me this, being that you are suddenly the champion of bipartisanship and cooperation. Are those of you who are SO upset at Pelosi for the bailout failure? Do you want the bailout? That must be the case, then otherwise you would be championing the sensitive group that suddenly voted against it, right?

So you must be for the bailout then, right? So you should be angry at those who voted against it then, right? But rather you are angry at Pelosi for making them mad, right? Pretty thin............


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> The reason it didn't pass is becoming more clear. I now think reason number one was all the taxpaying people calling Washington. Many up for re-election blinked.


I spent Saturday working with my friend and his father at the farm that they own and let me hunt (posting, putting up stands, clearing lanes, etc). Anyhow, he is very conservative, and a banker. My father-in-law is also very conservative, and a well known ag economist...........anyhow they are for the bailout. I think many people are. I think the vocal ones may be in the minority, and at the risk of sounding elitist, do not understand the ramifications.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Robert ... I can assure you of this ... Every single Representative in The House is up for re-election.

If you have read my previous posts you see where I sit ... at least in a general sense.

I'm not sure if I am for this bail out or not ... I'm so damned upset with our legislators that I don't know whether to $hit or go blind.

Some how they need to come to grips with the notion that all Americans are not equal and they can not legislate us to equality.

I sit here in my little 1600 Sq Ft. home I purchased in 1989 ... I pay my mortgage ... refinanced about twelve years ago so I could go into business for myself (been very sucessfull for a small owner/operator, one man show sort of thing). I'm at ZERO likelyhood of not being able to make the mortgage payment.

Then I look at these bastards in Congress trying to buy votes through legislation compelling lenders to make loans to folks who can barely be trusted as renters. Or ... making it possible for some schmuck like me to go buy a million dollar house ... even though at the first downturn in cash flow I would be in default.

Those dynamics create a boom in the housing market ... and it's a boom that predictibly will become a train wreck because everyone on the train knows they are using money that DOES NOT EXIST. To a person they want to believe they are riding the tide to ever increasing valuations of their property and increased wealth.

Well ... when cash flow ceases or slows for some and the market starts to adjust to the new influx of houses on the market ... guess what ... Those 100% loans are now at about NEGATIVE 70% equity. And these idiots who signed on the dotted line have no place to turn ... nor do the lenders who hold the paper.

This was legislated and had a predictable prognosis ... the folks in (particularly) The House of Representatives need their A$$E$ handed to them on a sharp stick.

This is truely an example of ... too bad these Representatives can not be criminally prosecuted for their actions on the floors of Congress.

or so it seems to me.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

Robert A. Langager said:


> hunter9494 said:
> 
> 
> > yeah Pelosi, YOUR a$$! the hag opened her mouth once again today, chastising the republicans before the vote was even taken.....she "reached across the isle and bit the bipartisan hand" that could have passed this bill.......she is a wretched b$%#h who can't do anything with the minority party...she is divisive and unproductive and deceitful as hell! uke:
> ...


you are obviously not following the story Bob, it goes just a bit deeper than that......how did the vote go today, from the democratic side?
i will help you with that...140 for, 95 against.......95.......*95 dems voted AGAINST the bailout! *the vote failed by 23 votes......hell the dems didn't even need the repub support, they could have passed it themselves!

why didn't they? i can help you with that answer as well.......because the phones lit up today with angry taxpayers, just like us, who screamed bloody murder over the package concocted by Paulson, an ex CEO for Goldman-Saks, to bail out the rich bastards and their investment houses and saddle the taxpayer with toxic paper! this was a return to a voter revolt over the way congress and the big money boys were about to put the weenie to the little guy......again!

*"Despite days of negotiating, this is still the same bailout bill, written by a Wall Street guy with a Wall Street solution to a problem created on Wall Street," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich. "This bill was still a blank check to Henry Paulson."*

people aren't against putting liquidity back in the market and supporting the economic return to solvency, they are just against "giving away the farm, AGAIN". you know it's the same old **** here..."trust me"......"well, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me".

also, it is an election year and there are some dems that are a little concerned with how their "yes" vote would appear.....their constituents are on them like "white on rice"...........


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

No **** sherlock, I know why it failed. I just asked you a simple question, are you for the bailout? You have yet to answer.

Your rant about Pelosi being at fault was what I was curious about. If you are against the bailout, which appears to be the case, then you should be thanking her for making the House Repubs so mad that they changed their vote, right?

....................or were you just seizing on another opportunity to spew some more of your crapola?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

wow.....you are missing so much here...oh well......considering the consensus of ****** off taxpayers was 3-1 against the bailout, in it's present form, the answer would be yes.....it is a **** bill. there are far better ways to deal with this than giving Paulson a goddamn blank check and hanging out the people of this country for 700 billion, or do you buy in to the fact that this is "the only" way to deal with the crisis? surely you are not that naive? anyway, 2/3 of America, plus 12 of the 37 members of Paulson's own committee didn't think so either......fundamentally flawed.


----------



## Rick Fode (Sep 26, 2004)

Amen 9494, I called the big three knuckleheads (Conrad, Dorgan, and Pomeroy) to voice my opinion on this BS bailout, I guess I need to call Pomeroy back (of course he voted yes) and let him know that I and everyone that I have talked to will not be voting for him, we need to send a message and send him packing in Nov. This bailout is no better than giving our tax dollars to every non english speaking bum that comes here with their hand out. Why should we reward bad behavior and poor decision making with 700 billlion? What's in it for those of us that didn't get a home loan that we couldn't afford, drive an older car that is paid for, worked hard and saved every last dime, those who don't owe a frickin penny to anyone and bust our butts day in and day out for a measley 1.something dividend rate from a bank that is squandering our money to get rich. Cash could be king again, wouldn't that be beautiful?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I heard a interesting thing on the radio the other day I am not these numbers are correct but there is something like 13 trillion dollars in capital trapped overseas due to our very high corporate tax rate.

The comment was that this is a liquidity problem and if the feds suspended the corporate tax for one year this year that most of that capital would flow back here immediately.

Problem solved the banks would be flush with cash.

The guy also said the Dems would not do it because their base would be so angry about the corporations getting this tax break.

Its this political crap that is destroying this nation and on this particular issue about 90% of the blame rests on the dems


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

yep, that 13 trillion will seem small, once No-bama institutes more corporate taxes and runs off some major companies who will relocate overseas to escape his huge tax increase.......that tax burden will just shift to consumers, once NO-bama in acts a huge increase on gas, electricity and natural gas consumption, plus RV taxes....yep, we haven't seen **** yet...... :eyeroll:


----------



## crna (Nov 7, 2002)

the people who burned the turkey at thanksgiving are now going to host christmas dinner if the bailout goes through as the dems want. this is socialism at its best. the dems bailout plan gives bad mortages up to the discretion of bankrupcy judges who can decide that a person who has principal balance of $400,000 on a home loan but can't pay it back based on their income, the judge can rule that they now owe only $200,000. if thats the case, what is the incentive to pay your mortage. stupid, stupid, stupid!!!!


----------



## cbas (Apr 3, 2007)

I listened to the speech she made. She makes some good points. With that said the Republicans voted the written bill down after having a verbal deal. One speech by a Democrat swayed the vote of the house Republicans? What a bunch of bull.

Everyone was very surprised by the results of this vote. How do I know? Look at the markets. Once a verbal deal was reached the markets began to start moving up again and recover. The sun was finally starting to come out again.

Pelosi my a$$.

My suspicions are on the following:

Somebody enjoyed shorting the market yesterday and made a freaking killing over this - once again at the expense of the American people and its companies.

Follow the money. I bet some of those who voted against this bill made a killing on the options market yesterday.

This vote was not supposed to go this way... but it did... gee I wonder why...

1) One speech by some Democrat shrew? OR

2) Chance to make however millions in just 15 minutes?

Hmmmm


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

3) a lot of ****** off constituents were calling and emailing their representatives......it is an election year for some.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

cbas, maybe it was a space alien conspiracy.


----------



## Csquared (Sep 5, 2006)

> I spent Saturday working with my friend and his father at the farm that they own and let me hunt (posting, putting up stands, clearing lanes, etc). Anyhow, he is very conservative, and a banker. My father-in-law is also very conservative, and a well known ag economist...........


On a lighter note, Robert...I gotta ask if they let you handle any sharp tools ????????? :lol:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

cbas said:


> I listened to the speech she made. She makes some good points. With that said the Republicans voted the written bill down after having a verbal deal. One speech by a Democrat swayed the vote of the house Republicans? What a bunch of bull.
> 
> Everyone was very surprised by the results of this vote. How do I know? Look at the markets. Once a verbal deal was reached the markets began to start moving up again and recover. The sun was finally starting to come out again.
> 
> ...


I believe short selling of these financial stocks has been suspended for the time being...

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2...n-move-to-ban-short-sales-of-financial-firms/


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Csquared said:


> On a lighter note, Robert...I gotta ask if they let you handle any sharp tools ????????? :lol:


Actually, prior to returning to school to get my engineering degree, I spent about 8 years working as a remodeling/finish carpenter. So, yes, I am the on who handles most of the tools. I'm not too bad with a chainsaw either.
:beer:


----------



## wiskodie1 (Sep 11, 2006)

Hey plainsman
Maybe I missed something here, but what is it that you meant by your last statement? You don't strike me as a guy who would believe in aliens?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

He is a alien, so am I. We are watching you guys.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

John McCain says that the bailout plan failed because the American people were not convinced that this is a "rescue effort." He says, "We haven't convinced people that this is a rescue effort not just for Wall Street but for Main Street America."

So this is how this works? You change a word and suddenly everything is OK? Several years ago government spending became "investing." The politicians would tell us that they aren't really spending money, they're investing it. Oh! That's different! Investing is good, right? So you folks go ahead and invest our taxpayer money ... that's just fine with us!

It's looking like McCain is going to head to Washington today so that he can vote on the "rescue" bill. When McCain casts that vote Obama will cheer. In fact, the entire Obama camp will cheer, for it will be over. It will be time for Obama, and the person who will sit to his right in the firmament of Washington, to start putting their transition teams together.

The people have spoken, and they do not want to bail out these financial institutions that went brain-dead for so many years .. and they don't care if you call it a rescue or not. *Trust of government is at a pathetic - though justified - low.* We have a congress with an approval rating lower than MRSA that is going to use government as an instrument of plunder to bail out people who made stupid decisions - people who richly deserve to fail. As some bright person said, we're in the process of privatizing profit and nationalizing losses in the financial community.

Now why do I feel that the so-called "credit crunch" is being a bit overstated? Well, to listen to the rescuers you would think that there is no money available to lend out there. Not so. If you have a good credit history; if you have job stability; and if you're not trying to borrow 100% of the price of a car or a new home, there are people out there ready to loan you money today. If you have no income, no job stability, haven't paid your bills on time, and you want to borrow too much - no loan for you. That is the way it is supposed to be folks!

How does McCain take the advantage here? How about siding with the taxpayers and against Wall Street. How about telling the people that in a McCain Administration we would reward success, not failure.

I don't pretend to be an expert on all matters financial ... but it doesn't take much imagination to see that this will just be the firs of many such bailouts. Financial institutions today, our auto industry tomorrow. Then who? And why not a break for people having a tough time paying back student loans? Oh .. and then there's the credit card industry. Much bad debt there. When do we bail them out?

We have heard the outcry from constituents who do not want a bailout to happen. As I said, this is a revolution ... and it is about time. But where are the voices of the people who whole-heartedly support a bailout? Do these people realize the power that it gives to our federal government at the expense of the taxpayers? And this is a plan proposed by the Bush administration!

Why not fall back and try a few things first. Increase the FDIC insured limit, end mark-to-market accounting rules, repeal Sarbanes Oxley, eliminate capital gains taxes for a specified period. Give them a try before you socialize America' financial institutions.

FYI

John McCain says that the Bush administration has the ability to bypass Congress in order to begin dealing with this financial crisis. The Treasury has a trillion dollars that the Bush administration could use, without congressional authority, in order to buy mortgages and begin to stabilize the situation.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... eback.aspx

read this


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bob, I was unsure how I felt about the bailout. It was all happening so fast, and so many from both sides supported it. Perhaps that was their plan, slip it through before anyone knows what is going on. Reading all the posts on here you have been much more convincing. The opposition simply falls back to conservatives don't have the capacity to understand. Sorry, that's not convincing.

I have struggled with every aspect of this from rescue, to ending capitalism in favor of more socialism, to where will it end, and is this just a politician plan to bleed the pubic for profit and payback through lobbyists. It would appear to have a short term good affect, but a long long term bad affect.

My wife put $12,000 into her retirement this year, and went backwards about $16,000. Still I am realistic enough to know we could loose more through taxes in the years ahead. I also think the insurance companies need to fail. Their management is terrible. My long term care insurance went up 20% a year for the last three years in a row and still they fail. They need someone besides idiots to run these places.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

FOX news reported that the senate passed the bill about one minute ago. It's a heck of a lot better than the first one the democrats tried to shove down our throat.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> FOX news reported that the senate passed the bill about one minute ago. It's a heck of a lot better than the first one the democrats tried to shove down our throat.


What is better about it? Did not the Republican administration, Senators, and House leadership try to shove too?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well ACORN will not get anything like they would in the house bill. There are some tax breaks, but I forget what all they are. Also deposits are insured for $25,000 now. As I understand it the government will less involved and not socializing our lending. I don't know the particulars, but they say it protects capitalism. 
The vote was 74/25.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I heard on the radio, I think cause it was so early this AM. Conrad yes. Dorgan no.
Kind of interesting.......... :eyeroll:


----------

