Who here is against the Bail out plan

[Kangaroo]

I know I am against bailing out the investment companies. I think we need to let them go under and take it on the chin.

I do not see how spending 700billion of our tax money is going to solve the issue and how it is going to prevent the economy from going in the tank to get 700 billion they have to raise taxes when we are already over taxed so therefore people will still lose jobs not spend money and we wasted 700billion.

Instead we should be trying like hell to bringing all the upper management of these companies up on RICO charges on maybe even a RICO class action lawsuit.

[adamc91115]

I'm against a free bailout for these people. Loans, maybe.

I don't see how giving these people a free pass is going to help teach anyone a lesson. "Oh, I made a mistake. I bought a bunch of stuff I can't afford. No worries, the government will save my ***."

[Royal Laegotti]

I'm against a free bailout for these people. Loans, maybe.

I don't see how giving these people a free pass is going to help teach anyone a lesson. "Oh, I made a mistake. I bought a bunch of stuff I can't afford. No worries, the government will save my ***."

Yep I agree. Not to mention I think this 700 billion give away will cause hyper inflation. I wonder how much utilities, gas and groceries will be when this gets done.:(

[Danny White]

I know I am against bailing out the investment companies. I think we need to let them go under and take it on the chin.

I do not see how spending 700billion of our tax money is going to solve the issue and how it is going to prevent the economy from going in the tank to get 700 billion they have to raise taxes when we are already over taxed so therefore people will still lose jobs not spend money and we wasted 700billion.

Instead we should be trying like hell to bringing all the upper management of these companies up on RICO charges on maybe even a RICO class action lawsuit.

Honestly, I'm still struggling to understand the whole situation.

Something needs to be done to prevent a financial collapse, but this whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't like the idea of nationalizing all this debt.

[Royal Laegotti]

Honestly, I'm still struggling to understand the whole situation.

Something needs to be done to prevent a financial collapse, but this whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't like the idea of nationalizing all this debt.

I wonder if the bailout will cause a finacial collapse instead of prevent one? To me there's something fishy about all this, they want to get it done quickly and I just don't trust the government in general.

[Hostile]

I'm not at all crazy about it. If it works and the economy rebounds I will change my mind. I think things could get worse. Here's a thought. Give every citizen in the country who is a fine upstanding person an equal share of that $700 billion pie and I'd be a hell of a lot happier.

[adamc91115]

I'm not at all crazy about it. If it works and the economy rebounds I will change my mind. I think things could get worse. Here's a thought. Give every citizen in the country who is a fine upstanding person an equal share of that $700 billion pie and I'd be a hell of a lot happier.

Yeah that really doesn't seem right does it?

Take money from the person who is a responsible tax payer and always pays his bills... And give it to the irresponsible person who is full of debt from buying things they knew they couldn't afford.

That seems fair :rolleyes:.

[Hostile]

Yeah that really doesn't seem right does it?

Take money from the person who is a responsible tax payer and always pays his bills... And give it to the irresponsible person who is full of debt from buying things they knew they couldn't afford.

That seems fair :rolleyes:.What is our population? 350 million?

A million apiece is still a lot cheaper than $700 billion. If we're going to finance a handout, hand it out to the people who are hurting.

[jrumann59]

I am against all the bailouts, except AIG and I am sort of on the fence on that one just because of their industry and how they are involved in multiple sectors of the market.

[Eric_Boyer]

I'm against it.

capitalism without risk is like Christianity without hell.

[Cajuncowboy]

I'm against the bailout without recourse.

There needs to be guarantees that this money will be paid back. We should force them to take insurance on the money as well and the money go back into the treasury and in essence, the tax payers pockets eventually.

But a free hand out is not the answer. Something NEEDS to be done but it's not as it is written.

[jrumann59]

What is our population? 350 million?

A million apiece is still a lot cheaper than $700 billion. If we're going to finance a handout, hand it out to the people who are hurting.

Actually I am in favor of both falling on their faces for being incredibly stupid. I am sorry but anyone that knows basic addition and subtraction knows whether they can afford a $3,000 mortgage in 2 years. It like this, Hostile I will use you as an example, lets say you are buying a car. You come to me and I "crunch" the numbers you can afford a caddy cts no problem, but I could put you behind the wheel of a Ferrari. Right now you are drooling over the Ferrari and I tell you that the 1st 2 years we will let you own the Ferrari for $300 a month then in year 3 it goes up to 1500 a month, you don't care and say, "I am going own a Ferrari." Well year 3 hits and you realize you can't afford a Ferrari on your 2K a month job and the car gets repoed. Unfortunately bailing both parties out will prolong the inevitable, the housing bubble has to burst completely and the housing market has to plunge before it can fully right itself and recover.

[masomenos]

Unfortunately, I think that the bailout is something that has to be done. You can chalk me up in the support column, but it is a begrudging support.

[WoodysGirl]

Obama, McCain give measured support for bailout

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer
39 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain on Sunday gingerly embraced a newly negotiated congressional deal for a $700 billion bailout of the hobbled financial industry.

ADVERTISEMENT

"This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with. The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option," McCain said. Obama said he was inclined to back it "because I think Main Street is now at stake."

True to form after a week of posturing, both campaigns sought to take at least partial credit for the outcome. Obama said McCain did not deserve any pats on the back.

"Here are the facts: For two weeks I was on the phone everyday with (Treasury) Secretary (Henry) Paulson and the congressional leaders making sure that the principles that have been ultimately adopted were incorporated in the bill," Obama said in an interview on "Face the Nation" on CBS.

McCain said the latest version of the plan meets his insistence of an oversight body to monitor the treasury secretary and limits the compensation of executives of financial institutions applying for loans.

"Let's get this deal done, signed by the president, and get moving, because the real effect of this is going to restore some confidence, and get some credit out there, and get the economic system moving again, which is basically in gridlock today," McCain told "This Week" on ABC.

The measure would allow the government to buy defaulted mortgages and other distressed housing-related assets, many of them held by Wall Street banks, in an effort to keep the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression from spreading throughout the entire economy.

Obama predicted quick passage of the measure, which he said contained important consumer-friendly provisions he had supported. "Today, thanks to the hard work of Democrats and Republicans, it looks like we have a rescue plan that includes these taxpayer protections," Obama said in remarks prepared for a Detroit rally. "And it looks like we will pass that plan very soon."

McCain made a show on Wednesday of "suspending" his campaign to return to Washington to help negotiate terms of a bailout agreement. He initially suggested that Friday's presidential debate be postponed if no deal was struck. But his campaign ads continued to air and McCain attended the debate even though there was no deal.

While McCain is not on a Senate committee involved with the financial crisis, he said Sunday he rushed back to Washington because he was not going to "phone in" his advice.

"I'm a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. I've got to get in the arena when America needs it," McCain said.

Republicans generally have said his participation helped prod the agreement. Democrats countered that his presence had little effect on the outcome and may have even delayed a deal.

"Whether I helped or hurt, I'll be glad to accept the judgment of history," McCain said.

McCain said he planned to return to full-time campaigning Monday.

He also said he probably would have voted for legislation to keep the government running even though it contained thousands of the type of pork barrel projects he strongly opposes.

The $634 billion measure passed the Senate on Saturday. It also includes $25 billion in taxpayer-subsidized loans for automakers.

Like McCain, Obama spent parts of several days in Washington because of the bailout talks. But he has returned to the trail and on Sunday he and running mate Joe Biden planned to attend a rally in Detroit, the home of the nation's auto industry. Michigan is a key battleground in the November.

Obama said in his television interview that he was inclined to support the bailout because it includes increased oversight, relief for homeowners facing foreclosure and limits on executive compensation for chief executives of firms that receive government help.

"None of those were in the president's provisions. They are identical to the things I called for the day that Secretary Paulson released his package," Obama said. "That I think is an indication of the degree to which when it comes to protecting taxpayers, I was pushing very hard and involved in shaping those provisions."

The safeguards were supported by many in Congress, including Democrats and Republicans.

Congressional leaders continued to work through the weekend on the bailout package and hoped to have a vote on the measure Monday in the House, with a vote in the Senate coming later.

The Republican vice presidential candidate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, credited McCain with helping to ensure that the bailout plan protected taxpayers. Reporters were kept at a distance when she made a campaign stop in Philadelphia, although Palin took one question about the $700 bailout agreement.

"I'm thankful that John McCain is able to have some of those provisions implemented in that Paulson proposal," she said. "I'm glad that John McCain's voice was heard."

___

Associated Press writers Stephen Ohlemacher and David Espo in Washington and Patrick Walters in Philadelphia contributed to this report.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_el_pr/meltdown_candidates;_ylt=AmdpXEaOK3aFdjtDYD_dOFxg. 3QA

[Danny White]

I'm against the bailout without recourse.

There needs to be guarantees that this money will be paid back. We should force them to take insurance on the money as well and the money go back into the treasury and in essence, the tax payers pockets eventually.

But a free hand out is not the answer. Something NEEDS to be done but it's not as it is written.

How exactly does the insurance work?

How does one go about getting insurance for $700 billion?

[WoodysGirl]

Lawmakers, White House agree on $700B bailout

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer
4 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Congressional leaders and the White House agreed Sunday to a $700 billion rescue of the ailing financial industry after lawmakers insisted on sharing spending controls with the Bush administration. The biggest U.S. bailout in history won the tentative support of both presidential candidates and goes to the House for a vote Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The plan, bollixed up for days by election-year politics, would give the administration broad power to use billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars to purchase devalued mortgage-related assets held by cash-starved financial firms.

President Bush called the vote a difficult one for lawmakers but said he is confident Congress will pass it. "Without this rescue plan, the costs to the American economy could be disastrous," Bush said in a written statement released by the White House. He was to speak publicly about the plan early Monday morning, before U.S. markets open.

Flexing its political muscle, Congress insisted on a stronger hand in controlling the money than the White House had wanted. Lawmakers had to navigate between angry voters with little regard for Wall Street and administration officials who warned that inaction would cause the economy to seize up and spiral into recession.

A deal in hand, Capitol Hill leaders scrambled to sell it to colleagues in both parties and acknowledged they were not certain it would pass. "Now we have to get the votes," said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the majority leader.

Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the House minority leader, said he was urging "every member whose conscience will allow them to support this" to back it, but officials in both parties expected the vote to be a nail-biter.

The final legislation was released Sunday evening, and Republicans and Democrats huddled for hours in private meetings to learn its details and voice their concerns.

Many said they left undecided, and leaders were scrambling to put the most positive face on a deeply unpopular plan.

"This isn't about a bailout of Wall Street, it's a buy-in, so that we can turn our economy around," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

The largest government intervention in financial markets since the Great Depression casts Washington's long shadow over Wall Street. The government would take over huge amounts of devalued assets from beleaguered financial companies in hopes of unlocking frozen credit.

"I don't know of anyone here who wants the center of the economic universe to be Washington," said a top negotiator, Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. But, he added, "The center of gravity is here temporarily. ... God forbid it's here any longer than it takes to get credit moving again."

The plan would let Congress block half the money and force the president to jump through some hoops before using it all. The government could get at $250 billion immediately, $100 billion more if the president certified it was necessary, and the last $350 billion with a separate certification — and subject to a congressional resolution of disapproval.

Still, the resolution could be vetoed by the president, meaning it would take extra-large congressional majorities to stop it.

As Bush's team stepped up its efforts to corral reluctant Republicans, the White House released a letter from his budget chief, Jim Nussle, to Boehner saying the measure would cost taxpayers "considerably less" than its eye-popping $700 billion total.

Lawmakers in both parties were poring over the 110-page bill. Democratic leaders have made it clear they will not support the rescue unless a substantial number of Republicans join them.

"It will take two to make this work," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill.

But it was a tough sell for lawmakers in both parties.

Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, an opponent, estimated that half of the House's 199 Republicans are "truly undecided."

Lawmakers who struck a post-midnight deal on the plan with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson predicted final congressional action might not come until Wednesday.

The proposal is designed to end a vicious downward spiral that has battered all levels of the economy. Hundreds of billions of dollars in investments based on mortgages have soured and cramped banks' willingness to lend.

"If we do not do this, the trauma, the chaos and the disruption to everyday Americans' lives will be overwhelming, and that's a price we can't afford to risk paying," Sen. Judd Gregg, the chief Senate Republican in the talks, told The Associated Press.

Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the House Financial Services Committee chairman, predicted the measure would pass, though not by a large majority.

"It's not a bill that any one of us would have written. It's a much better bill than we got. It's not as good as it should be," he said.

A breakthrough came Saturday night, with the addition of a requirement sought by centrist Democrats and Republicans to ensure that the government be paid back by companies that got help. The president would have to tell Congress after five years how he planned to recoup the losses.

Another key bargain — this time to draw Republican support — allows, but doesn't require, government to insure some bad home loans rather than buy them. That's designed to limit the amount of federal money used in the rescue.

"This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with," said Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

His Democratic rival Barack Obama sought credit for taxpayer safeguards added to the initial proposal from the Bush administration. Later, at a rally in Detroit, Obama said, "it looks like we will pass that plan very soon."

The rescue would only be open to companies who deny their executives "golden parachutes" and limit their pay packages. Firms that got the most help through the program — $300 million or more — would face steep taxes on any compensation for their top people over $500,000.

The government would receive stock warrants in return for the bailout relief, giving taxpayers a chance to share in recipients' future profits.

To help struggling homeowners, the plan would require the government to try renegotiating the bad mortgages it acquires with the aim of lowering borrowers' monthly payments so they can keep their homes.

But Democrats surrendered other cherished goals: letting judges rewrite bankrupt homeowners' mortgages and steering any profits gained toward an affordable housing fund.

It was Obama who first signaled Democrats were willing to give up some of their favorite proposals. He told reporters Wednesday that the bankruptcy measure was a priority, but that it "probably something that we shouldn't try to do in this piece of legislation."

Frank negotiated much of the compromise in a marathon series of up-and-down meetings and phone calls with Paulson, Dodd, D-Conn., and key Republicans including Gregg and Blunt.

Pelosi shepherded the discussions at key points, and cut a central deal Saturday night — on companies paying back taxpayers for any losses — that gave momentum to the final accord.

An extraordinary week of talks unfolded after Paulson and Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, went to Congress 10 days ago with ominous warnings about a full-blown economic meltdown if lawmakers did not act quickly to infuse huge amounts of government money into a financial sector buckling under the weight of toxic debt.

The negotiations were shaped by the political pressures of an intense campaign season in which voters' economic concerns figure prominently. They brought McCain and Obama to Washington for a White House meeting that yielded more discord and behind-the-scenes theatrics than progress, but increased the pressure on both sides to strike a bargain.

Lawmakers in both parties who are facing re-election are loath to embrace a costly plan proposed by a deeply unpopular president that would benefit perhaps the most publicly detested of all: companies that got rich off bad bets that have caused economic pain for ordinary people.

But many of them say the plan is vital to ensure their constituents don't pay for Wall Street's mistakes, in the form of unaffordable credit and major hits to investments they count on, like their pensions.

___

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

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

[Cajuncowboy]

How exactly does the insurance work?

How does one go about getting insurance for $700 billion?

Not sure of the mechanics of it but the entities involved would in addition to making the payments back to the government would buy insurance from a company that specializes in such loans. They are extremely high interest from my understanding and they are a guarantee against the debt.

I was talking to a federal banking agent about it on Thursday and admittedly, most of it went over my head with respect to how, who and what this whole thing involves regarding the insurance.

[masomenos]

Just a quick note: If you measure the bailout against the GDP of other countries in the world then 700 billion dollars is a large enough number to be the 17th largest economy on the planet.

[jrumann59]

Just a quick note: If you measure the bailout against the GDP of other countries in the world then 700 billion dollars is a large enough number to be the 17th largest economy on the planet.

But you have to consider that we have 4 states and DC that have higher GDPs then this bailout.

Here is a map I found that breaks down each states GDP and what country it most closely is equal to.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/gdpmap.jpg

[masomenos]

But you have to consider that we have 4 states and DC that have higher GDPs then this bailout.

Here is a map I found that breaks down each states GDP and what country it most closely is equal to.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/gdpmap.jpg

That's a very cool map actually. All I meant to do in my post though was put into perspective how much money 700 billion is. It's certainly a burden we can take on, but it's a LOT of money lol.

[Eric_Boyer]

Our unhealthy worship of GDP is a big part of the problem.

We need to stop defining economic strength based on consumption and government spending.

GDP = consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports)

Our massive consumption is based on a gigantic housing bubble and fake wealth based on artificial equity and our government spending is based on going deeply in debt. Furthermore, we use ridiculous calculations to come up with inflation figures to make GDP seem stronger then it actually is.

[Royal Laegotti]

But you have to consider that we have 4 states and DC that have higher GDPs then this bailout.

Here is a map I found that breaks down each states GDP and what country it most closely is equal to.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/gdpmap.jpg


Dang Man!!! That's a creepy looking map, might be similar to the future.

[masomenos]

Dang Man!!! That's a creepy looking map, might be similar to the future.

The election just had a dramatic shift, it is now...

The politician of Thailand and the leader of Belarus

vs.

The ambassador from Denmark and the statesman from the Netherlands

----

I really think you have to take the second ticket on this one lol.

[Royal Laegotti]

The election just had a dramatic shift, it is now...

The politician of Thailand and the leader of Belarus

vs.

The ambassador from Denmark and the statesman from the Netherlands

----

I really think you have to take the second ticket on this one lol.
You mean we're allowed to vote!:laugh2:

[masomenos]

You mean we're allowed to vote!:laugh2:

ummmm, well...I don't know honestly :D

[Sasquatch]

Five Alternative Bailout Plans

The Bush administration is pushing its bailout plan by claiming the only way to save the economy is by having the federal government buy $700 billion worth of bad paper from big financial firms that screwed up. Conservatives should hate this because it is a massive federal intervention in the market. Liberals should hate this because it’s a handout to the richest people and companies in America. But the Bush administration and Wall Street are insisting it's the end of the world and this is the only choice. Well, is it this or nothing? Many on Capitol Hill—especially Democrats—are buying the general premise of the White House plan but insisting on lipstick-on-a-pig modifications involving CEO compensation, taxpayer protection, and oversight and transparency. But are there other approaches to the problem besides putting the Treasury in charge of a $700 billion fire sale? Yup. Here's a quick roundup.

(1) The Planners: The Republican Study Committee, a group of some of the most conservative Republicans in Congress. The Plan: Two-year suspension of the capital gains and dividend taxes to "encourag[e] corporations to sell unwanted assets." The Problem: It won't work. Over at Time, Justin Fox says the RSC plan "seems to be a joke," and explains that it would just make matters worse by actually discouraging banks from unloading bad mortgage-backed securities.

(2) The Planners: Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and some House Republicans. The Plan: Instead of having the Treasury buy mortgage-backed securities outright, insure them and charge premiums, paid to the government. The Problem: It almost certainly won't work. Marc Ambinder has a great explanation of why, but a commenter at Time sums most of it up in a sentence: "Writing insurance requires either a long history of past events or, at a minimum, knowledge of present market prices." There is neither a long history of past events nor a knowledge of present market prices in this case. In fact, as Ambinder points out, there's not even a market for the products that would be insured. That's the fundamental problem, and insuring them wouldn't fix it.

(3) The Planner: Our own James K. Galbraith, an economist. The Plan: Prop up the FDIC. Eliminate the "pointless" $100,000 cap on deposit insurance, put a half-trillion dollars in the FDIC fund, give it extra funding for more employees, and keep another $200 billion in reserve. (There's more in Jamie's article, but the FDIC part is the heart of the plan.) The Problem: It may good policy, but so far, there are few takers in Washington. And there's no major political constituency advocating for it in the way that Wall Street is calling for a buy-me-out bailout.

(4) The Planner: Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Ver.). The Plan: Make the rich pay for the bailout. Impose a temporary surtax on incomes over $1 million. Pass an economic recovery package that puts people back to work. Then re-regulate and break up any companies that are "too big to fail." The Problem: See #3.

(5) The Planner: Hedge Fund Gazillionaire John Paulson. The Plan: Buy Wall Street. No, seriously: Paulson thinks taxpayers (or, more specifically, the Treasury) should buy huge amounts of senior preferred stock in banks. Kevin has more on this, which he points out essentially means nationalizing troubled banks. The Problem: This plan essentially means nationalizing troubled banks. Conservatives will be queasy about it; even Kevin Drum, a liberal, is queasy about it.

MotherJones (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9955_five_alternative_different_bailout_plans.html )

[Heisenberg]

I don't know whether to be or not. I know that the banks need the cash at the moment so they can start lending again. Right now, things are pretty frozen from what I gather.

All it would take is a small scare that causes a run on the banks and then we're in a heap of trouble.

[ScipioCowboy]

I tentatively oppose the bailout, and I do so on grounds set forth by Ron Paul: In the long run, the bailout only facilitates and encourages irresponsible financial behavior.

[Doomsday101]

I have to say I'm opposed to this bailout and hope the Rep house members reject it this afternoon when it goes up for a vote

[BrAinPaiNt]

I am against the bailout because it is not fiscally responsible and is nothing more than letting bad business practices and government get away with it.

HOWEVER it needed to be done or we probably would be in the crapper.

I do however have problems with it because I don't think it addresses the broader problems but only the short term right now problems. I don't think this is over with and we will be wondering how we screwed it up in the future when we face similar problems in other areas.

No way in Hades do I think we should give a check for $700 billion (which seems to be a number some economists pulled out their backside with nothing more than a guess of a big number) and give it to the president or this government without strict guidelines in how it is to be used.

Seems to me they make up a number and say, here do what you want with it.

But I am no economic guru by any stretch so maybe I am wrong.

[punchnjudy]

(3) The Planner: Our own James K. Galbraith, an economist. The Plan: Prop up the FDIC. Eliminate the "pointless" $100,000 cap on deposit insurance, put a half-trillion dollars in the FDIC fund, give it extra funding for more employees, and keep another $200 billion in reserve. (There's more in Jamie's article, but the FDIC part is the heart of the plan.) The Problem: It may good policy, but so far, there are few takers in Washington. And there's no major political constituency advocating for it in the way that Wall Street is calling for a buy-me-out bailout.


Marc Faber also endorsed a similar plan.

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=9893531

[Doomsday101]

I am against the bailout because it is not fiscally responsible and is nothing more than letting bad business practices and government get away with it.

HOWEVER it needed to be done or we probably would be in the crapper.

I do however have problems with it because I don't think it addresses the broader problems but only the short term right now problems. I don't think this is over with and we will be wondering how we screwed it up in the future when we face similar problems in other areas.

No way in Hades do I think we should give a check for $700 billion (which seems to be a number some economists pulled out their backside with nothing more than a guess of a big number) and give it to the president or this government without strict guidelines in how it is to be used.

Seems to me they make up a number and say, here do what you want with it.

But I am no economic guru by any stretch so maybe I am wrong.

I agree something needs to be done but passing a bad bill which this is makes no sense. There are options out there according to many top economist and the fact is you can do more harm trying to rush this legislation than taking more time and getting it right.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Five Alternative Bailout Plans

The Bush administration is pushing its bailout plan by claiming the only way to save the economy is by having the federal government buy $700 billion worth of bad paper from big financial firms that screwed up. Conservatives should hate this because it is a massive federal intervention in the market. Liberals should hate this because it’s a handout to the richest people and companies in America. But the Bush administration and Wall Street are insisting it's the end of the world and this is the only choice. Well, is it this or nothing? Many on Capitol Hill—especially Democrats—are buying the general premise of the White House plan but insisting on lipstick-on-a-pig modifications involving CEO compensation, taxpayer protection, and oversight and transparency. But are there other approaches to the problem besides putting the Treasury in charge of a $700 billion fire sale? Yup. Here's a quick roundup.

(1) The Planners: The Republican Study Committee, a group of some of the most conservative Republicans in Congress. The Plan: Two-year suspension of the capital gains and dividend taxes to "encourag[e] corporations to sell unwanted assets." The Problem: It won't work. Over at Time, Justin Fox says the RSC plan "seems to be a joke," and explains that it would just make matters worse by actually discouraging banks from unloading bad mortgage-backed securities.

(2) The Planners: Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and some House Republicans. The Plan: Instead of having the Treasury buy mortgage-backed securities outright, insure them and charge premiums, paid to the government. The Problem: It almost certainly won't work. Marc Ambinder has a great explanation of why, but a commenter at Time sums most of it up in a sentence: "Writing insurance requires either a long history of past events or, at a minimum, knowledge of present market prices." There is neither a long history of past events nor a knowledge of present market prices in this case. In fact, as Ambinder points out, there's not even a market for the products that would be insured. That's the fundamental problem, and insuring them wouldn't fix it.

(3) The Planner: Our own James K. Galbraith, an economist. The Plan: Prop up the FDIC. Eliminate the "pointless" $100,000 cap on deposit insurance, put a half-trillion dollars in the FDIC fund, give it extra funding for more employees, and keep another $200 billion in reserve. (There's more in Jamie's article, but the FDIC part is the heart of the plan.) The Problem: It may good policy, but so far, there are few takers in Washington. And there's no major political constituency advocating for it in the way that Wall Street is calling for a buy-me-out bailout.

(4) The Planner: Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Ver.). The Plan: Make the rich pay for the bailout. Impose a temporary surtax on incomes over $1 million. Pass an economic recovery package that puts people back to work. Then re-regulate and break up any companies that are "too big to fail." The Problem: See #3.

(5) The Planner: Hedge Fund Gazillionaire John Paulson. The Plan: Buy Wall Street. No, seriously: Paulson thinks taxpayers (or, more specifically, the Treasury) should buy huge amounts of senior preferred stock in banks. Kevin has more on this, which he points out essentially means nationalizing troubled banks. The Problem: This plan essentially means nationalizing troubled banks. Conservatives will be queasy about it; even Kevin Drum, a liberal, is queasy about it.

MotherJones (http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/09/9955_five_alternative_different_bailout_plans.html )


This plan is not Bush's. This plan belongs to Barney and Dodds.

[ABQCOWBOY]

No, I am not for this bill. I will also say that all the money that is supposed to come back to the American Taxpayer will somehow find it's way into the hands of other affiliated hangers on. We will get screwed.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Yep I agree. Not to mention I think this 700 billion give away will cause hyper inflation. I wonder how much utilities, gas and groceries will be when this gets done.:(

You guys are crazy we have to do this!

Its not a giveaway. We get the mortgage backed securities in return, which are worth **** right now but will probably approach the $700 billion mark in value in a few years when the government can sell it off. Moreover the government gets warrants, so when these financial institutions get back on their feet the tax payers will be getting a return on their investment. The government could potentially get a profit from all of this.

And if we do nothing, that means hard to come by loans for small businesses and average citizens. Not to even mention the stock market will crash along with peoples retirements.

[Sasquatch]

It didn't pass in the House. Back to the drawing board.

John McCain, we need your leadership in these troubled times. ;)

[ABQCOWBOY]

It didn't pass in the House. Back to the drawing board.

John McCain, we need your leadership in these troubled times. ;)

You could not be more correct Sas.

;)

[ABQCOWBOY]

You guys are crazy we have to do this!

Its not a giveaway. We get the mortgage backed securities in return, which are worth **** right now but will probably approach the $700 billion mark in value in a few years when the government can sell it off. Moreover the government gets warrants, so when these financial institutions get back on their feet the tax payers will be getting a return on their investment. The government could potentially get a profit from all of this.

And if we do nothing, that means hard to come by loans for small businesses and average citizens. Not to even mention the stock market will crash along with peoples retirements.


How exactly do YOU or I get these securities? I say let the market correct itself. Painful? Yeah but a lesson that needs to be learned IMO.

[MilesAustinforMVP]

How exactly do YOU or I get these securities? I say let the market correct itself. Painful? Yeah but a lesson that needs to be learned IMO.

How can you so cavalierly say something like that?! That is crazy. It will not just be painful... It will be extremely painful! deep recession painful. Moreover this is not the first time it has happened. Before the Glass-Steagal Act after the Great depression hit, we used to have these situations all the time and had a depression every 20 or 30 years. People don't learn; they are greedy, stupid, or both. And lo and behold after we repealed the Glass-Steagall act in '99 it happened again.

Point is it won't be hurting "tax payers" they will come out even when all is said and done, and you will have strong financial institutions that can lend you and other people money and small businesses money. It will also prevent your's and other people's retirements from being wiped out.

[Bach]

Here's the vote on the bill. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

Something needs to be done, but this bill needed to fail.

[yeahyeah]

What is our population? 350 million?

A million apiece is still a lot cheaper than $700 billion. If we're going to finance a handout, hand it out to the people who are hurting.

That would be $350 trillion...

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Here's the vote on the bill. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

Something needs to be done, but this bill needed to fail.

Ok whats your plan?

[Doomsday101]

How can you so cavalierly say something like that?! That is crazy. It will not just be painful... It will be extremely painful! deep recession painful. Moreover this is not the first time it has happened. Before the Glass-Steagal Act after the Great depression hit, we used to have these situations all the time and had a depression every 20 or 30 years. People don't learn; they are greedy, stupid, or both. And lo and behold after we repealed the Glass-Steagall act in '99 it happened again.

Point is it won't be hurting "tax payers" they will come out even when all is said and done, and you will have strong financial institutions that can lend you and other people money and small businesses money. It will also prevent your's and other people's retirements from being wiped out.

Please, they can come up with a better plan than this. Throwing out scare tactics to push 700 billion is all that is going on right now. I agree that something needs to be done but there are other alternatives out there. If you are telling me there are only 2 options I think you just took the bait hook line and sinker.

[Sasquatch]

What would happen if the government nationalized the bad banks?

[Doomsday101]

What would happen if the government nationalized the bad banks?

Then the Government goes into the banking business and the tax payer is on the hook for bad assets. Government pushed for a lot of these high risk loans that we are paying for now. Anyone who plans on blaming Wall Street and Leading institution alone is kidding themselves the Government put a lot of Pressure on these institutions. Also many in the public are to blame for jumping into these loans that they could not afford. People in this country need to change their spending habit and put something aside for rainy days instead of charging to the hilt

[Sasquatch]

Then the Government goes into the banking business and the tax payer is on the hook for bad assets. Government pushed for a lot of these high risk loans that we are paying for now. Anyone who plans on blaming Wall Street and Leading institution alone is kidding themselves the Government put a lot of Pressure on these institutions. Also many in the public are to blame for jumping into these loans that they could not afford. People in this country need to change their spending habit and put something aside for rainy days instead of charging to the hilt

Would that be worse than buying 700 billion of bad assets? My understanding is that some of the banks that failed or were taken over (Wamu and Wachovia) had good commercial banking businesses but simply couldn't meet their short-term capital requirements for various reasons. Both banks were purchased for a mere 4 billion. Why can't the government buy them, provide them with the capital necessary to get through the crisis, write off the losses, and then privatize them once the market stabilizes for a profit or simply continue to operate them once they have a healthy balance sheet?

I don't know if this is realistic. It's just a question for those who have a deeper understanding of finances.

[ABQCOWBOY]

How can you so cavalierly say something like that?! That is crazy. It will not just be painful... It will be extremely painful! deep recession painful. Moreover this is not the first time it has happened. Before the Glass-Steagal Act after the Great depression hit, we used to have these situations all the time and had a depression every 20 or 30 years. People don't learn; they are greedy, stupid, or both. And lo and behold after we repealed the Glass-Steagall act in '99 it happened again.

Point is it won't be hurting "tax payers" they will come out even when all is said and done, and you will have strong financial institutions that can lend you and other people money and small businesses money. It will also prevent your's and other people's retirements from being wiped out.


My retirement is not based on Wall Street or the like. I have seen, all too often how these things work. I can live through a recession. I have lived through them before. If it comes to depression, so be it. I doubt it will but that's here nor there. I am not in favor of this. I see a lot of people making money off this and the Tax Payer getting the shaft.

Again, how do we get paid back?

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Then the Government goes into the banking business and the tax payer is on the hook for bad assets. Government pushed for a lot of these high risk loans that we are paying for now. Anyone who plans on blaming Wall Street and Leading institution alone is kidding themselves the Government put a lot of Pressure on these institutions. Also many in the public are to blame for jumping into these loans that they could not afford. People in this country need to change their spending habit and put something aside for rainy days instead of charging to the hilt

Yes its the Governement's fault that these financial institutions invested in all of these high risk mortgage backed securities and CDO's. (I roll my eyes)

And the Government didn't put pressure on the banks. Show me proof, or ****!

[BrAinPaiNt]

My retirement is not based on Wall Street or the like. I have seen, all too often how these things work. I can live through a recession. I have lived through them before. If it comes to depression, so be it. I doubt it will but that's here nor there. I am not in favor of this. I see a lot of people making money off this and the Tax Payer getting the shaft.

Again, how do we get paid back?

Think they will bring back the A&P stamps? ;)

[Doomsday101]

Would that be worse than buying 700 billion of bad assets? My understanding is that some of the banks that failed or were taken over (Wamu and Wachovia) had good commercial banking businesses but simply couldn't meet their short-term capital requirements for various reasons. Both banks were purchased for a mere 4 billion. Why can't the government buy them, provide them with the capital necessary to get through the crisis, write off the losses, and then privatize them once the market stabilizes for a profit or simply continue to operate them once they have a healthy balance sheet?

I don't know if this is realistic. It's just a question for those who have a deeper understanding of finances.

And I'm not for the bailout by the public. I think this bailout should be put on the private sector not the Government. I think there are rules that can be loosed up to allow private investors to come in and take the risk. I don't claim to be an economic guru but I have listened to enough to understand there is more than one way to deal with this. Right now we are being told we must except the 700 billion by the Government or the sky will fall and there are no other options. I don't buy that for a second

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Would that be worse than buying 700 billion of bad assets? My understanding is that some of the banks that failed or were taken over (Wamu and Wachovia) had good commercial banking businesses but simply couldn't meet their short-term capital requirements for various reasons. Both banks were purchased for a mere 4 billion. Why can't the government buy them, provide them with the capital necessary to get through the crisis, write off the losses, and then privatize them once the market stabilizes for a profit or simply continue to operate them once they have a healthy balance sheet?

I don't know if this is realistic. It's just a question for those who have a deeper understanding of finances.

It is perfectly realistic. We did something of the sort with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. but if you think the GOP hates this plan, the one you are proposing would be ten times worse by their standards. Much of their opposition is on ideological grounds. They don't want to admit that unfettered capitalism failed and the government has to come into the rescue to clean up the mess.

[ScipioCowboy]

Yes its the Governement's fault that these financial institutions invested in all of these high risk mortgage backed securities and CDO's. (I roll my eyes)

And the Government didn't put pressure on the banks. Show me proof, or ****!

In essence, the impetus for the crisis can be described as a cluster**** of epic proportion.

The bureaucracy regulating these financial institutions is much larger now than it was even during the Depression era. Unfortunately, the regulation seems to be exacerbating the underlying problem rather than correcting it.

Obviously, the government is not the only party at fault here, but it does share a substantial measure of the blame, which is explained in the following articles:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=307149667289804

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/23/paul.bailout/index.html

[Doomsday101]

Yes its the Governement's fault that these financial institutions invested in all of these high risk mortgage backed securities and CDO's. (I roll my eyes)

And the Government didn't put pressure on the banks. Show me proof, or ****!

But the public is guilt free? Please what rock did you crawl from? People have been going credit crazy for years and living well beyond what they could afford. The lending institution share blame for failure to oversee many of these loans to high risk and lastly yes the Government put pressure with legislation that on many of these high risk minority loans to people who there was no way they could ever pay it. My mom is a VP and Bank of American and was telling me this back in the 90's that this was going to come back and bite us and it sure the hell did. You want to bury your head in the sand be my guest but I do know better.

[Doomsday101]

It is perfectly realistic. We did something of the sort with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. but if you think the GOP hates this plan, the one you are proposing would be ten times worse by their standards. Much of their opposition is on ideological grounds. They don't want to admit that unfettered capitalism failed and the government has to come into the rescue to clean up the mess.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is part of the problem and you are going use them as an example? :lmao:

[MilesAustinforMVP]

But the public is guilt free? Please what rock did you crawl from? People have been going credit crazy for years and living well beyond what they could afford. The lending institution share blame for failure to oversee many of these loans to high risk and lastly yes the Government put pressure with legislation that on many of these high risk minority loans to people who there was no way they could ever pay it. My mom is a VP and Bank of American and was telling me this back in the 90's that this was going to come back and bite us and it sure the hell did. You want to bury your head in the sand be my guest but I do know better.

yes I knew it. You are talking about the Community Reinvestment Act. Well guess what? Most of the people defaulting on their loans ARE NOT MINORITIES! Moreover, MOST FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT REGULATED BY THE CRA! It is a B.S. argument that conservatives use to obfuscate the real problems.

And like I said it wasn't the Government who forced investors to invest in these high risk mortgage back securities.

And you think you know better, but it is quite apparent that you don't.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Think they will bring back the A&P stamps? ;)


Probably. Yellow shops every Monday and Thrusday, Green shops every Tuesday and Friday, White shops every Wednesday and Saturday.

On Sunday, all the poor Mortgage Politicians sit back, laugh at us regular folks while counting there money.

:laugh2:

[MilesAustinforMVP]

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is part of the problem and you are going use them as an example? :lmao:

Yes I'll admit, the Dems are partly responsible for that mess by deregulating, something that conservatives do. But the Phil Gramm is responsible in part also by slipping in an act into a huge omnibus spending bill in 2000 that made it easier for institutions like Freddie and Fannie to invest in these risky mortgage backed securities and CDO's.

But that is ONE financial insitution, and we cleaned up that mess already. What Congress is dealing with now is a much bigger cluster **** that the conservative philosophy is responsible for.

[Sasquatch]

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is part of the problem and you are going use them as an example? :lmao:

I heard on NPR today that they actually have pretty limited exposure to the subprime market. The economist on the radio traced the problem to 2001 when the Fed lowered interest rates too long to stimulate the economy after 9/11. Cheap credit made risk less daunting and led to speculation in the housing market.

[Doomsday101]

yes I knew it. You are talking about the Community Redevelopment Act. Well guess what? Most of the people defaulting on their loans ARE NOT MINORITIES! Moreover, MOST FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT REGULATED BY THE CRA! It is a B.S. argument that conservatives use to obfuscate the real problems.

And like I said it wasn't the Government who forced investors to invest in these high risk mortgage back securities.

And you think you know better, but it is quite apparent that you don't.

It is apparent you don't know what you are talking about. Evidently you need the Government to hold your hand and do for you because you can't do for yourself. Same old liberal BS

[ConcordCowboy]

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/gdpmap.jpg

That's a nice map.

I always love to see things like this to put things into perspective.

And amazing, when you see one state equaling a whole country.

[BrAinPaiNt]

That's a nice map.

I always love to see things like this to put things into perspective.

And amazing, when you see one state equaling a whole country.

The Texas guys on the board must be really P offed to be Canada. :laugh2:

[ConcordCowboy]

It didn't pass in the House. Back to the drawing board.

John McCain, we need your leadership in these troubled times. ;)

:laugh2:

[ABQCOWBOY]

yes I knew it. You are talking about the Community Redevelopment Act. Well guess what? Most of the people defaulting on their loans ARE NOT MINORITIES! Moreover, MOST FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT REGULATED BY THE CRA! It is a B.S. argument that conservatives use to obfuscate the real problems.

And like I said it wasn't the Government who forced investors to invest in these high risk mortgage back securities.

And you think you know better, but it is quite apparent that you don't.

I don't know how you could possibly know what race or creed is failing more or less but who cares? It's about bad risk and poor investment choices. I don't care what ethnic backround. This should not be the average Tax Payers mess to clean up. This was a Government regulated thing, forced by bad policy, inabled by poor decision making on behalf of our elected officials and continued by unscrupulous individuals, with the aid of the government in an attempt to get rich quick.

I don't hold the browers liable for this because I expect them to be what they are. I hold my government responsible because there pay check is paid by me, for me, to help me, supposidly.

No, buy into it if you wish but not me.

Find another way.

[ScipioCowboy]

yes I knew it. You are talking about the Community Redevelopment Act. Well guess what? Most of the people defaulting on their loans ARE NOT MINORITIES! Moreover, MOST FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT REGULATED BY THE CRA! It is a B.S. argument that conservatives use to obfuscate the real problems.

And like I said it wasn't the Government who forced investors to invest in these high risk mortgage back securities.

And you think you know better, but it is quite apparent that you don't.

Although the CRA was passed with the intention of helping minorities, it is not solely directed at minorities; it can benefit anyone living in certain lower income neighborhoods.

Furthermore, the number of financial institutions regulated by the CRA is largely irrelevant. Only the larger players in the mortgage industry need to be affected in order for problems to arise.

[ScipioCowboy]

I heard on NPR today that they actually have pretty limited exposure to the subprime market. The economist on the radio traced the problem to 2001 when the Fed lowered interest rates too long to stimulate the economy after 9/11. Cheap credit made risk less daunting and led to speculation in the housing market.

NPR.

Mother Jones.

The Guardian.

And, the Huffington Post.

I'm noticing a trend.:D

[masomenos]

NPR.

Mother Jones.

The Guardian.

And, the Huffington Post.

I'm noticing a trend.:D

Hey, don't knock NPR, they have my favorite radio show!

[ScipioCowboy]

Hey, don't knock NPR, they have my favorite radio show!

As I no longer listen to talk radio, I'm in no position to judge.:p:

[masomenos]

As I no longer listen to talk radio, I'm in no position to judge.:p:

It's called This American Life,here, give it a listen.

http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/364.mp3

It's an hour long with three different "acts". They report on the extraordinary stories of ordinary American's. Really, give it a shot.

[Sasquatch]

It's called This American Life,here, give it a listen.

http://podcast.thisamericanlife.org/podcast/364.mp3

It's an hour long with three different "acts". They report on the extraordinary stories of ordinary American's. Really, give it a shot.

There was a really excellent story this weekend on Parent College (or something to that effect) in Harlem. It was very moving.

[masomenos]

There was a really excellent story this weekend on Parent College (or something to that effect) in Harlem. It was very moving.

Yeah, it was a very touching story. The results at the end were staggering too, it really goes a long way towards showing that sometimes people just need a real chance in order to succeed. Parents are so important to the development of children, it's fantastic that there are programs out there that help parents "break the cycle" so to speak.

Did you ever hear the episode about the prison production of Hamlet?

[Sasquatch]

Yeah, it was a very touching story. The results at the end were staggering too, it really goes a long way towards showing that sometimes people just need a real chance in order to succeed. Parents are so important to the development of children, it's fantastic that there are programs out there that help parents "break the cycle" so to speak.

Did you ever hear the episode about the prison production of Hamlet?

No, I only catch snippets when I'm driving, and happened to take a longer drive out to the mountains this weekend. Good show, though. And Wait, Wait was hilarious this weekend with McGovern as the guest.

[Sasquatch]

NPR.

Mother Jones.

The Guardian.

And, the Huffington Post.

I'm noticing a trend.:D

I suppose you'd prefer that my political opinions be derived from 2000-year old wisdom literature written by folks who believed in magic, witchcraft, and other absurdities? :p:

[ScipioCowboy]

I suppose you'd prefer that my political opinions be derived from 2000-year old wisdom literature written by folks who believed in magic, witchcraft, and other absurdities? :p:

In terms of the book I read and the programs to which I listen, I strive towards balance.

I read the Bible, but I also read Richard Dawkins.

I've been exposed to philosophers of all walks and dispositions. I've read a number of atheist existentialists, such as Nietzsche, and number of Christian ones, such as Kierkegaard. I try to understand the nuances of both evolution and Intelligent Design. As you know, I have some academic ground postmodernism, which rarely includes people who can be described as "religious."

I watch both Fox News and MSNBC.:D

[Sasquatch]

I strive towards balance.

Your posts attest to that. :rolleyes:

;)

[Doomsday101]

Here is who voted for or aginst the bailout

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/09/29/bailout.rollcall.0929.pdf

[jrumann59]

yes I knew it. You are talking about the Community Reinvestment Act. Well guess what? Most of the people defaulting on their loans ARE NOT MINORITIES! Moreover, MOST FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE NOT REGULATED BY THE CRA! It is a B.S. argument that conservatives use to obfuscate the real problems.

And like I said it wasn't the Government who forced investors to invest in these high risk mortgage back securities.

And you think you know better, but it is quite apparent that you don't.

Hey BoBo the Leftist Clown do you know that less then a year ago anyone with any amount of income and a credit score of 510 could by a house. Those are the type of people that the Community Reinvestment Act targetted, while it is true that many middle class families were living beyond their means many of the foreclosures are McDonald employees living in 300K houses. Wrong again it was people in gov't making money hand over fist like Dodd, Schumer, Franks, and Paulsen that was pushing this along.

[MetalHead]

Here is who voted for or aginst the bailout

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/images/09/29/bailout.rollcall.0929.pdf

Like I said in another thread:
To hell with the bail out.
Let's get some indictments.

Too many crooks on both sides belong in interrogation rooms,under oath.

[ConcordCowboy]

The Texas guys on the board must be really P offed to be Canada. :laugh2:

:laugh2:

[MetalHead]

Hey BoBo the Leftist Clown do you know that less then a year ago anyone with any amount of income and a credit score of 510 could by a house. Those are the type of people that the Community Reinvestment Act targetted, while it is true that many middle class families were living beyond their means many of the foreclosures are McDonald employees living in 300K houses. Wrong again it was people in gov't making money hand over fist like Dodd, Schumer, Franks, and Paulsen that was pushing this along.

True.
I once was turned down for a car loan because then I had a 36% debt ratio.

Did you know that there were loans approved for people who had up to 65% debt ratio under that CRA?
65%!!!

[Doomsday101]

What I find funny in all of this is the finger pointing by the Dems as if this Bill did not pass because of the Republican yet many of their own members did not vote for this bill and why? Because it is not a good bill.

Passing something just to do something is not the answer to any problem. There are other alternatives out there that need to be looked at and debated if the Dem leadership would actually allow any debate to take place but they are not allowing that to take place.

I believe many are to blame for the situation we are in on both sides but as house leader Pelosi can open this up to debate and allow other alternatives to be talked about yet she refuses to do it and leaves member with a take or leave bill that they can't pass because they damn well know this is not going to solve anything

[ninja]

If it were a really good bill and good for the country, the vote would have been 435-0. It isn't. The idiots on Wall Street screwed up. Let the free market deal with it.

[BrAinPaiNt]

If it were a really good bill and good for the country, the vote would have been 435-0. It isn't. The idiots on Wall Street screwed up. Let the free market deal with it.

Although I agree with your first and second sentence. There is no way that last sentence is going to happen.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Although I agree with your first and second sentence. There is no way that last sentence is going to happen.

I agree with this Brain. If every Represenative and Senator in Congress were on fire and vote was put to the floor as to wheather they should or should not put out the collective flames, you would still have 20% with the opinion that the Fire Hose Measure was still not in the best interests of the Country. That's just the nature of it all.

However, if it were a good bill, it would have passed with a strong vote. The fact that most on this board are not in contention with this bill not passing is a sign that it pretty much sucks IMO. We may be different in our views but all of us understand the meaning of "Don't Piss Down My Back", so to speak.

[joseephuss]

I agree with this Brain. If every Represenative and Senator in Congress were on fire and vote was put to the floor as to wheather they should or should not put out the collective flames, you would still have 20% with the opinion that the Fire Hose Measure was still not in the best interests of the Country. That's just the nature of it all.

However, if it were a good bill, it would have passed with a strong vote. The fact that most on this board are not in contention with this bill not passing is a sign that it pretty much sucks IMO. We may be different in our views but all of us understand the meaning of "Don't Piss Down My Back", so to speak.

What is amazing is that the bill that just failed was actually better than what was first proposed by the presidential administration. Now they can try to fix some of the weaker points of the bill. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Heck, it could become a worse bill.

It sucks that it has come to this. Ideally, I am against a bail out. I would prefer that this just got fixed on it own. I just don't think that will happen. I guess I understand what is supposed to get accomplished by the bail out if I don't fully agree with it.


Got this forwarded to me this morning:

If you had purchased $1,000.00 of Delta Air Lines stock one year ago you would have $49.00 left.

With Enron, you would have $16.50 left of the original $1,000.00.

With WorldCom, you would have less than $5.00 left.

But, if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of beer one year ago, drank all of the beer, then turned in the cans for the aluminum recycling refund, you would have $214.00 cash.

Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle.

It's called the 401-Keg.

A recent study found the average American walks about 900 miles a year.

Another study found Americans drink, on the average, 22 gallons of alcohol a year. That means, on average, Americans get about 41 miles to the gallon.

Makes You Proud To Be An American!

[ABQCOWBOY]

What is amazing is that the bill that just failed was actually better than what was first proposed by the presidential administration. Now they can try to fix some of the weaker points of the bill. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Heck, it could become a worse bill.

It sucks that it has come to this. Ideally, I am against a bail out. I would prefer that this just got fixed on it own. I just don't think that will happen. I guess I understand what is supposed to get accomplished by the bail out if I don't fully agree with it.


Got this forwarded to me this morning:

If you had purchased $1,000.00 of Delta Air Lines stock one year ago you would have $49.00 left.

With Enron, you would have $16.50 left of the original $1,000.00.

With WorldCom, you would have less than $5.00 left.

But, if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of beer one year ago, drank all of the beer, then turned in the cans for the aluminum recycling refund, you would have $214.00 cash.

Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle.

It's called the 401-Keg.

A recent study found the average American walks about 900 miles a year.

Another study found Americans drink, on the average, 22 gallons of alcohol a year. That means, on average, Americans get about 41 miles to the gallon.

Makes You Proud To Be An American!


:lmao2:

The best piece of reporting I've seen come out of this whole CLUSTER since it's inception.

[BrAinPaiNt]

What is amazing is that the bill that just failed was actually better than what was first proposed by the presidential administration. Now they can try to fix some of the weaker points of the bill. Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Heck, it could become a worse bill.

It sucks that it has come to this. Ideally, I am against a bail out. I would prefer that this just got fixed on it own. I just don't think that will happen. I guess I understand what is supposed to get accomplished by the bail out if I don't fully agree with it.


Got this forwarded to me this morning:

If you had purchased $1,000.00 of Delta Air Lines stock one year ago you would have $49.00 left.

With Enron, you would have $16.50 left of the original $1,000.00.

With WorldCom, you would have less than $5.00 left.

But, if you had purchased $1,000.00 worth of beer one year ago, drank all of the beer, then turned in the cans for the aluminum recycling refund, you would have $214.00 cash.

Based on the above, the best current investment advice is to drink heavily and recycle.

It's called the 401-Keg.

A recent study found the average American walks about 900 miles a year.

Another study found Americans drink, on the average, 22 gallons of alcohol a year. That means, on average, Americans get about 41 miles to the gallon.

Makes You Proud To Be An American!

:laugh2: :laugh2:

Sometimes a little humor is just what is needed.