Well, except for our no bridges to somewhere. :lol:

 

You all booted her out before she could crack the nut!

As soon as the bill passes gas will go right back up probably to $4.00.

 

Another reason not to pass it!

You all booted her out before she could crack the nut!

 

 

And, I'm ok with that. I actually am not a huge proponet of the two new bridge plan. I support the east end bridge, but I don't feel one is necessary in Downtown.

I won't quote the entire post, but I agree with it at first blow. More or less, it is capitalist theory. But, with regards to the bailout plan, I think this part stands out the most:

 

That said, I do not really believe that anyone, including the most intrepid of financial leaders, really fully grasps all of the complexities of the market that we have here before us.

 

I think that succinctly states the situation, yet Washington is a flurry of solutions. The potential stabilization that any bailout would provide will be paid for down the road. The market corrects itself, harshly I might add, but corrects itself nonetheless. A bailout won't correct anything but to stave off what is most probably inevitable.

I won't quote the entire post, but I agree with it at first blow. More or less, it is capitalist theory. But, with regards to the bailout plan, I think this part stands out the most:

 

 

 

I think that succinctly states the situation, yet Washington is a flurry of solutions. The potential stabilization that any bailout would provide will be paid for down the road. The market corrects itself, harshly I might add, but corrects itself nonetheless. A bailout won't correct anything but to stave off what is most probably inevitable.

 

Right.

 

Now I need you to write that letter.

Great job Hearsay...very informative.

 

Being lazy, but what were some of the earmarks attached to this bill?

I have heard that there were some golden parachutes involved.

 

I agree entirely, about congressmen listening to their constituency. As you mentioned this was a bi-partisan shoot down. Many are fearful for their elective lives right now.

 

Pelosi is an idiot...how can she blame one party for this. They could have gotten this trough without Republican vote...but she couldn't persuade 11 Democrats to follow suit.

I agree Hearsay and like I said in the previous thread, I am really torn. My free market side says let these corporations that took on debt fail. Same for the homeowners. Those that took on mortgages that they can not afford should fail as well. It will be painful for a couple of years, but probably the best solution in the long run. Reminds me of the line in Full Metal Jacket. It is a big poop sandwich and we are all going to have to take a bite.

Hiiiiiiiiiiiii Jokerrrrrr!!!!

Great job Hearsay...very informative.

 

Being lazy, but what were some of the earmarks attached to this bill?

I have heard that there were some golden parachutes involved.

 

I agree entirely, about congressmen listening to their constituency. As you mentioned this was a bi-partisan shoot down. Many are fearful for their elective lives right now.

 

Pelosi is an idiot...how can she blame one party for this. They could have gotten this trough without Republican vote...but she couldn't persuade 11 Democrats to follow suit.

If I understand it correctly the golden parachutes were not limited. They were just going tax them at a high rate over a certain amount (if I understand it correctly). It was pretty much a snow job.

 

Here is the part I was talking about...

 

-EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION LIMITS: If the Treasury purchases at least $300 million in mortgage-based assets from a financial institution, that company would lose the ability to take a tax deduction on the amount of salaries that exceed $500,000 for its top five individuals. It also includes a 20% excise tax on golden parachutes payments triggered by events other than retirement

 

Maybe I misunderstood and someone smarter can explain it better.

Ugh. I hate this. I really have no idea on this one.

 

Arguing against the bailout, I have long been a supporter of congressional restraint when it comes to spending, and tacking on $700 billion to the Federal budget would bring that budget to right around 10 percent of the GDP for next year. No matter how you look at it, that's not good.

 

Also, despite the necessity to re-inject some capital into the banks, the government has never been very good with finance. Despite everything, the private financier is still a lot better at this than the average member of the House. The government will almost inevitably overpay in its efforts to buy up assets.

 

Furthermore, if this thing ever gets passed, it will inevitably contain many new regulations for those that benefit from it, while not requiring them to do so, such that in the end, banks won't actually request the necessary help until it's already too late.

 

On the other hand, if we have the capability to stave off an even worse crisis, shouldn't we do so? Things might be bad, but serious mortgage defaults are still lower than what they were during the last recession, and spending this much now could save the entire economy a great deal later.

 

It may also be true that the real cost to the taxpayer won't be anywhere near $700 billion. Many of the mortgages that the government would acquire would end up being repaid. But buying them may allow banks to retool their books, bring the prices on all those ugly mortgage-backed securities (that seem to be at the root of a lot of this) back to a normal level, raising capital all around and preventing the failure of many more major banks.

 

Still a greater threat is that the government takes no action on a bailout and the crisis worsens. Even if it doesn't get anywhere near as bad as a depression, the inevitable response as it winds down will be the vast, sweeping promulgation of countless new regulations for the banking and financial industries. As the Depression wore on, FDR was more than happy to come up with all sorts of new schemes to "help out," Congress was more than happy to sign the checks and the Court saw fit to allow the Federal government to take more power unto itself than anyone could have previously envisioned. If the crisis gets worse, the retributive backlash against the free market will be very damaging to say the least. The revolution in de-regulated finance over the last 30 years has resulted in the largest creation of wealth in the history of human civilization and, despite everything, every one of us has benefitted from that and hopefully it will take more than a few mortgage defaults to undo it.

 

In the end, I lean more toward approval of the bailout. The problem now is not consistent losses in the market but volatility. Investors who remain for the long haul will be rewarded but should more banks fail, capital will be hard to come by. The bailout may help prevent the maddening onslaught of regulation that may appear otherwise.

Ugh. I hate this. I really have no idea on this one.

 

Arguing against the bailout, I have long been a supporter of congressional restraint when it comes to spending, and tacking on $700 billion to the Federal budget would bring that budget to right around 10 percent of the GDP for next year. No matter how you look at it, that's not good.

 

Also, despite the necessity to re-inject some capital into the banks, the government has never been very good with finance. Despite everything, the private financier is still a lot better at this than the average member of the House. The government will almost inevitably overpay in its efforts to buy up assets.

 

Furthermore, if this thing ever gets passed, it will inevitably contain many new regulations for those that benefit from it, while not requiring them to do so, such that in the end, banks won't actually request the necessary help until it's already too late.

 

On the other hand, if we have the capability to stave off an even worse crisis, shouldn't we do so? Things might be bad, but serious mortgage defaults are still lower than what they were during the last recession, and spending this much now could save the entire economy a great deal later.

 

It may also be true that the real cost to the taxpayer won't be anywhere near $700 billion. Many of the mortgages that the government would acquire would end up being repaid. But buying them may allow banks to retool their books, bring the prices on all those ugly mortgage-backed securities (that seem to be at the root of a lot of this) back to a normal level, raising capital all around and preventing the failure of many more major banks.

 

Still a greater threat is that the government takes no action on a bailout and the crisis worsens. Even if it doesn't get anywhere near as bad as a depression, the inevitable response as it winds down will be the vast, sweeping promulgation of countless new regulations for the banking and financial industries. As the Depression wore on, FDR was more than happy to come up with all sorts of new schemes to "help out," Congress was more than happy to sign the checks and the Court saw fit to allow the Federal government to take more power unto itself than anyone could have previously envisioned. If the crisis gets worse, the retributive backlash against the free market will be very damaging to say the least. The revolution in de-regulated finance over the last 30 years has resulted in the largest creation of wealth in the history of human civilization and, despite everything, every one of us has benefitted from that and hopefully it will take more than a few mortgage defaults to undo it.

 

In the end, I lean more toward approval of the bailout. The problem now is not consistent losses in the market but volatility. Investors who remain for the long haul will be rewarded but should more banks fail, capital will be hard to come by. The bailout may help prevent the maddening onslaught of regulation that may appear otherwise.

 

The fear of future regulation and retribution (I have heard it phrased today as "worse socialism than what this bailout envisions") only becomes a self-perpetuating destructiveness. We fear cancer, so we swallow poison. No, we have to combat this now, and that later, and we need scalding in the meantime.

Without some type of government intervention easing the flow of money within the banking system, there will be a drastic effects on the global economy. I don't like it.............but something must be done or almost all of us will suffer from it.

 

Politics should play no role in this.

We fear cancer, so we swallow poison.

 

That brings to mind Book I of Livy's history of Rome: "...these days, in which we can tolerate neither our diseases, nor their cures."

 

We wait for things to get bad, and so they do. What do you think will be the answer if things get worse? If more banks fail, and the economy falls even more, then it will not be a gradual, free-market rebuild, but will ensure that the inmates get to run the asylum. How long are you willing to wait for things to come back around? The system falls apart and so regulation runs amok and the market has to wait 40 years again to be free of it so it can do its job. I'm not sure that letting things fall apart is the solution capitalism needs right now.

Without some type of government intervention easing the flow of money within the banking system, there will be a drastic effects on the global economy. I don't like it.............but something must be done or almost all of us will suffer from it.

 

Politics should play no role in this.

 

Government intervention is not the answer.

I have said all along we needed this.

 

Those who were stupid and got houses they couldn't really afford, and $50,000 cars are getting what they deserve.

 

People who saved and are on the verge of paying off houses they could afford, or those looking to buy a house in the next 3 years are going to come out for the better.

 

I think the smart middle class Americans will benefit greatly for this.