political update
For anyone who hasn’t taken a position on the bailout lemme try to convince you that you should oppose it. The assets they are proposing to buy with our money are worth a lot less than we’re being told. These assets are headed by the same people who led us to the current dilemma. Bankruptcy by contrast would force a change in leadership. This is a case where the market really should be allowed to do its thing. I hope everyone sees the irony in this; those who praised the free hand of the market loudly and persistently for since Gringrich’s Republican revolution are now on bended knee, asking us, the taxpayers for approx 1 trillion dollars, i.e. increasing the national debt by 25 %. For years we’ve been told we didn’t have the money for education, because taxes reduce the creation of wealth. The same people who now ask us permission to borrow, together as a nation, an amount greater than the net worth of greater south asia, used to brag about their prowess in cutting programs for education, infant mortality, nutrition, scientific research, infrastructure…… you get the idea:
UNMITIGATED GAUL!
Let wall street crash and burn, or sink into the mire, whatever your metaphor. I’m so disappointed in the democrats. They are so afraid of being blamed for the destruction of the existing financial paradigm, when in fact they should be celebrating their participation in the system’s demise. Our overheated economy has stalled, now is the perfect time to re-evaluate the whole thing, from the ground up. Now is not the time to try to reinflate ideas that have proven themselves incorrect with a short sighted Trillion Dollar Hail Mary. How are the democrats letting themselves get railroaded into this thing?
One more bit. The scarcity of credit that they propose will occurr in the wake of a financial collapse is just a bogeyman. With or without a scarcity of credit, the economy is going to go through a re-adjustment. A lot of houses are going to change hands. A lot of people are going to be forced into abject poverty. This is the reality that no one wants to face. The bailout will have the immediate effect of massive inflation, something on the scale of 10 - 15 percent within the first year is my wild guess. They tell us they can avoid inflation because of the fancy financial instruments they have, but its the same voodoo that led them to believe risk no longer existed in home mortgages, houses can not go down in value, and the stock market is a more stable investment for social security than treasure bonds. Inflation is inevitable. I can’t believe no one is talking about it yet.
oppose oppose oppose the bailout
You are scratching the surface. Another “foolish” point. Any profit derived from said bailout (as if) will NOT, I repeat NOT, be returned to the taxpayers but rather provided to special interest groups who will create further problems. I heard a good analogy on the radio today. If you pay a contractor to build you a house and he left out nails and studs and the house falls, you are not going to hire him to build you another one.
heh heh..I said Analogy
I’ve had too many crap leaders in my life. Having a disposition to problem solving and being analytical I’m quick to point out others mistakes, and tell people how to correct situations. Often, exactly the thing I’ve warned them about happens, and some leaders I’ve laughed at for being stupid and not listening, and others I’ve felt sorry for and tried to help out when it all becomes a mess.
I’ve found the leaders that you don’t help… because they are really are crap… get worse under the pressures, if you don’t help them. The other people around them start to back off as well, the more you point out there mistakes and put your case forward that they are indeed crap and should receive no support. Eventually everything falls apart, and it’s messy for everyone. You see even crap leaders can keep things together as long as people are working together.
Yes they should be replaced. Yes they should never have been there in the first place. Yes it sucks to support them, when their own stupidity caused problems for everyone else. But you wait and see what happens when you let them fall… It’s bad for everyone. You’ll learn that even filthy crap seems to have its place in the running of society after all. As bad as that feels.
Be careful what you wish for… That ugly stick your pulling on, just might be the only thing that’s holding up your foundation.
[img:1tul23m9]http://images.cafepress.com/product/14387583v1_350x350_Front.jpg[/img:1tul23m9]
$700billion bailout voted into law, 263-171.
I’m a little mystified how the original bill was voted out, yet the second bill, which is very similar but with an additional $100billion in earmarks, passed. Doesn’t make much sense.
Even more surprising was seeing the markets take a dive as soon as the bill was passed. Perhaps a case of the ‘buy on rumor, sell on news’ effect.
Shortly after it was passed, ’experts’ started saying it’s not enough.
hmm.
My prediction… even though it will help in the short term… it’s all going to go pear shaped… and now that the government is involved in it all… it will slide with it… eventually.
The government will slide? No great loss there, especially if the alternative is Obama’s socialist republic of amerika.
700 bil was automatically dismissed just as soon as it was announced. For those who listen to talk radio, the more “real” figure was upwards around 2 trillion dollars with an accurate prediction that as soon as the bill was passed, that within days, a new “magical number” would be announced needed for the bailout. I’m getting into the mindset that I shall just sit back and watch the apocalypse on TV,
And now the floodgates open…
California are already asking for a $7billion bailout or they’ll go bankrupt (seriously, who cares?), Illinois another $2billion just to cover their next 3 months.. just watch as all these pricks start lining up for their handouts.. this is NOT what this bill was meant for, neither was it meant for $100billion of earmarks.
I was actually pro the bailout originally as it was intended, as it was just a reallocation of debt AND NOTHING MORE - there were no earmarks, and there was even a possibility the taxpayer may gain from it, but now.. forget it, it’s turned into a politician’s free-for-all every-man-for-himself scam, and the entire population of working-class America is being taken for a ride. Socialism is running rampant through the streets and half of the dim-witted Americans are waving their flags for it..
Obama’s Amerika. We’re so screwed.
The government will slide? No great loss there, especially if the alternative is Obama’s socialist republic of amerika.[/quote:3nytun01]
I’m not American, so I don’t care about obama or mccain… although, I do follow what is happening daily just out of interests sake.
My point was simply this… when a government gets involved in bailing out the economy, it commits to failing will it, no matter whose in government. It was not a political point… I was just saying if you try and hold onto something that is sliding… if it goes… your going with it, in an economic sense.
Yeah I understand :)
Funny thing, Pelosi came marching out afterwards and made this big claim that, “we democrats believe in the free market”.. how utterly clueless is that? She just finished pushing through a bill that flies in the face of what a free market is supposed to do and then says that!! ..and half the bloody country swallows it!! Must be something in the water..
Pelosi. Her name alone makes me grimace.
trying to watch FOX News and I keep seeing news about pirates becoming more aggressive.
I blame Auto
[url:3viil9nh]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DIc8jdra0o#[/url:3viil9nh]
Sad but true!
[url:1ogam43l]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHcxzBwjYHg[/url:1ogam43l]
Not true and yet, not unlikely
Yes, go move to Canada, enjoy their universal health care (just pray you don’t get sick). It’s amazing how scared Palin has made the left.. heck, she’s going for #2, I’d be far more concerned about Obama being #1 if I were you..
I switched off after they started making accusations of bookburning.. the video is sad, that much is true.
If you want to see something truly alarming, check out the following videos from Obama’s Hitler Youth movement.. if this doesn’t scare the bejesus out of you, then nothing will.. this is a true socialist-dictatorship in the making.
[url:32ppcnc6]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUEQz5dltmI[/url:32ppcnc6]
[url:32ppcnc6]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTb5EFZmgbs[/url:32ppcnc6]
be afraid, be VERY afraid.
[url:1rj3c1pn]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHcxzBwjYHg[/url:1rj3c1pn]
Not true and yet, not unlikely[/quote:1rj3c1pn]
damn, that is awesome. expect it.
trying to watch FOX News and I keep seeing news about pirates becoming more aggressive.
I blame Auto[/quote:2h46dk13]
*snicker
It’s amazing how scared Palin has made the left.. heck, she’s going for #2, I’d be far more concerned about Obama being #1 if I were you..
[/quote:3mp5uec6]
Got to look at the whole picture. #1 and #2 for this country. Since I have
a feeling that if Obama becomes Pres, then some KKK red-neck will try and
kill him. Then it will be Binden as #2.
And from a great quote from SNL… Palin is a heart beat away to become #1.
I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind on who to vote for. Since most
ppl have made up their mind, and only 15% actually ever change it.
15% is an optimistic estimate.
Btw, California going bankrupt is a rather big deal, they produce a very large portion of the nation’s gross domestic product.
Illinois also produces quite a bit, and both of these states have huge population centers.
So yea, if your goal is to prevent as much hardship as possible, these states should not go bankrupt.
They’re going bankrupt because they can’t control their spending.. and if those states in particular produce so much relative to others, then their spending must [i:16zbhuwz]really[/i:16zbhuwz] be out of control.. Gee, aren’t all three of those states democrat states? What a coincidence! Spend spend spend, much like the $105billion in earmarks added to this bailout, and much like Obama wants to do - spend money we don’t have, at the expense of responsible taxpayers. Lovely.
California in particular need to suck it in.
So yeah I hate the bailout, I really hate it. Something needed to happen, but I disagree with this bailout. Though the AMT tax reduction will be nice come tax time in April 2009.
Weasel, California has a Republican Governor.
Also Weasel, President Bush a Republican president for the last 8 years, created the bailout plan, got on TV and asked congress to pass it, and Republican president George Bush signed it into law.
So is Bush a socialist then too? Cause he signed the bailout into law.
A bailout that is more money than the national budget of the Netherlands.
The Republican Bush presidency took office in 2000 with $5.7 trillion of national debt. Today that stands at $10.2 trillion on his watch. Its the single greatest increase under any president in US history.
Yet not a peep from you about any of that. Though im sure if Bush was a Democrat you would rant endlessly about this stuff too.
The banking industry was deregulated which caused wall-street to run free. Deregulation while nice, does not always work in all cases.
Sometimes you need to regulate. As we can live and see right now, deregulation doesnt always work.
They deregulated utilites here in Maryland. My electric and gas bill went up 70% that very year and another 8% this year. Baltimore Gas and Electric(constellation energy) to no suprise started to post record profits each quarter to boost its stock price. So between that and the wall street crap, I pretty much hate deregulation at this point. Do I want Socialism? No. Some thought out regulation when needed? Yes.
Google and look up what a Credit Default Swap is, and how it got out of control. Its a main reason right now why the banks are all messed up, and are going to get even worse. The banks are not lending money because they dont know what is going on from one bank to another. Because CDS’s are not regulated, when they are bought nothing needs to be disclosed. So no one in the bank world knows who actually has what.
Below is the definition of a CDS to start to help you get more educated.
From Wikipedia,
“A credit default swap (CDS) is a contract in which a buyer pays a series of payments to a seller, and in exchange receives the right to a payoff if a credit instrument goes into default or on the occurence of a specified credit event (such as bankruptcy or restructuring). The associated instrument does not need to be associated with the buyer or the seller of this contract.[1]
Originally used as a form of insurance against bad debts, these instruments became a tool for financial speculation when the US Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 specifically barred regulation of these trades.”
Also CDS’s started to get oversold and out of control in 2003. There are about 5 trillion dollars worth of equity backed by 40 trillion dollars worth of bogus CDS’s. So if everyone gets to hedge their bets there is a 35 trillion dollar shortage. Thats a big financial time bomb headed our way. The more things that fail like Lehman Brothers, the more these CDS’s get claimed, and the bigger and badder this financial mess will fall like dominos. The bulk of the reason AIG Insurance failed was they had backed a ton of these CDS’s and didnt have the equity to pay for it.
Its a real and serious financial mess out there. Good luck.
[img:1yhg79dp]http://www.crabwalk.com/pix/rodent.jpg[/img:1yhg79dp]
Exactly Jezer :)
Arnold got voted in because he’s Arnold, not because he’s Republican. The state itself boasts the biggest concentration of the most extreme liberals in the country.
The rest is BDS, but you seem to forget it’s Congress that makes the calls - and Congress (and the House) is a Democrat majority. Bush can either sign or veto, but he’s not a law unto himself as so many want to think when it comes to assigning blame, so don’t try putting this all on Bush’s lap, it doesn’t wash. I’m not trying to defend Bush as such, but get kind of sick of Democrats blaming Bush for everything.. the same Democrats who’ve achieved next to nothing in Congress, and have the lowest approval ratings in history.
Credit swaps (and mark-to-market, which is also a big factor imho) is a different issue, but thanks for the Wikipedia quote.. I was talking about government spending though.
After doing some reading, I see that california is asking for a loan, not a handout, to mitigate short-term damage caused by investors calling in municipal debts to cover their losses from the credit CF.
So in fact, this request is not a result of excessive spending.
Well in that case, there is no bailout, because they’re doing the same as AIG has done, and what many other corporates will be doing. Sorry, but you can’t accuse Bush and Republicans of giving bailouts to Wall Street with taxpayer money, then say California is just getting a loan when one of the senators involved specifically said “we wanted to be treated exactly like the investment banks are”. This is just the sort of cr@p I see in the MSM all the time - one spin is used to discredit Bush (and McCain by proxy), and another to make it look good for the democrats when the actual situation is no different. You really think California will pay it back? Many corporates have a far better chance than the State of California does. The corporates are victims of mark-to-market in many cases, and when those physical assets are realized they may be in pretty good shape, if allowed to survive in the meantime. California however is a victim of overspending and non-recoverable promises, such as insane pension packages for city/state employees - that alone has caused at least one city in Califonia to go bankrupt already.
Sorry for the rant, but these double standards REALLY piss me off.
The difference is that the California thing really is a loan, they are selling California’s future tax revenues.
The bailout thing is purchasing “troubled assets” with zero guidelines restricting price, and very little control over the actions of the Secretary of the Treasury. In fact, he doesn’t even need to tell anyone what his plans are until well after he’s completed them.
(but then he has to tell virtually all of washington)
I think the bailout plan is ill-conceived and dangerous, but it has nothing to do with California’s loan request.
I don’t know why you think I’m making this a double standard, I have not made any partisan statements.
Ok. AIG is being called a bailout by pretty much everyone, yet it is a $85billion loan, with a very high 11% interest rate on it. Somehow I doubt California expect to pay interest like that, but that’s beside the point. There are also short term loans available to businesses (new program announced today), yet that is also being termed as a bailout throughout the MSM. Call a spade a spade - either they’re loans or they’re bailouts, as long as you’re consistent.
The actual ‘bailout’ portion of The Bill is not really a bailout strictly speaking - the government will effectively buy loans (or credit card debt etc etc) from banks etc, but pay maybe 30cents on the dollar (that will vary depending on risk, but still a hard pill to swallow for the businesses concerned) - this is where current mark-to-market rate comes in on unrealized assets, which is pretty harsh with the economy as it is - a consequence of SOX laws. If the businesses concerned had enough liquidity to sit out the current downturn in the economy, they’d be much better off in the long run, however they’ve overextended themselves, much like California has. The government will sit on those loans for several years and wait for the economy to improve, and then sell them back to the market when it is more liquid, making a substantial profit in the process.
Now if you believe that the government will not be able to make a profit (and possibly double their money in some cases), then that means you do not believe the economy will improve. If you believe the economy will not improve, then California will not be receiving sufficient tax revenues to repay their $7billion [i:1sgeksy9]bailout[/i:1sgeksy9] (or loan, whatever), especially if they don’t have enough tax revenue to meet their blown-out budget right now. Had California been operating within their budget, they would not require this ’loan’ in the first place, so what makes you think they will suddenly change their habits and not only operate within their budget but below it in order to repay the ’loan’, particularly as the economy worsens. It doesn’t make sense. Both the ‘Wall St bailout’ and State bailouts depend on the same thing - an improving economy in the future. If you believe in one, then you must believe in the other.
Do you get what I mean by double standard? Actually I don’t think you said one way or the other if you think the (so called) Wall St bailout is a good idea or not… My comment re double standards is not really aimed at you personally, but at many people in general who seem to think in contradictory terms… if you follow..
Sorry if this is a little disjointed.. coming down with some nasty bug at the moment and am feeling sick as a dog, shaky and feverish but chilled to the bone at the same time… not much fun.
It is really funny to me that Republicans say that its both parties fault, and Democrats say that it is GW Bush’s fault. So here is my question. Did GW Bush force banks to make sub prime loans? Did GW Bush force lenders to make 120% loans on properties? If the answer is no then why would all the blame fall on him. There is a reason this country has checks and balances. We are not a dictatorship(yet). If the Democrats want to sit on their hands and play the blame game all day that is fine were used to it. Meanwhile I hope you don’t have any money in the stock market, that evil GW Bush is out to take it all.
Ok. AIG is being called a bailout by pretty much everyone, yet it is a $85billion loan, w[b:34ex69yu]ith a very high 11% interest rate on it. Somehow I doubt California expect to pay interest like that[/b:34ex69yu], but that’s beside the point. There are also short term loans available to businesses (new program announced today), yet that is also being termed as a bailout throughout the MSM. Call a spade a spade - either they’re loans or they’re bailouts, as long as you’re consistent.
The actual ‘bailout’ portion of The Bill is not really a bailout strictly speaking - the government will effectively buy loans (or credit card debt etc etc) from banks etc, but pay maybe 30cents on the dollar (that will vary depending on risk, but still a hard pill to swallow for the businesses concerned) - this is where current mark-to-market rate comes in on unrealized assets, which is pretty harsh with the economy as it is - a consequence of SOX laws. If the businesses concerned had enough liquidity to sit out the current downturn in the economy, they’d be much better off in the long run, however they’ve overextended themselves, much like California has. The government will sit on those loans for several years and wait for the economy to improve, and then sell them back to the market when it is more liquid, making a substantial profit in the process.
Now if you believe that the government will not be able to make a profit (and possibly double their money in some cases), then that means you do not believe the economy will improve. If you believe the economy will not improve, then California will not be receiving sufficient tax revenues to repay their $7billion [i:34ex69yu]bailout[/i:34ex69yu] (or loan, whatever), especially if they don’t have enough tax revenue to meet their blown-out budget right now. Had California been operating within their budget, they would not require this ’loan’ in the first place, so what makes you think they will suddenly change their habits and not only operate within their budget but below it in order to repay the ’loan’, particularly as the economy worsens. It doesn’t make sense. Both the ‘Wall St bailout’ and State bailouts depend on the same thing - an improving economy in the future. If you believe in one, then you must believe in the other.
Do you get what I mean by double standard? Actually I don’t think you said one way or the other if you think the (so called) Wall St bailout is a good idea or not… My comment re double standards is not really aimed at you personally, but at many people in general who seem to think in contradictory terms… if you follow..
Sorry if this is a little disjointed.. coming down with some nasty bug at the moment and am feeling sick as a dog, shaky and feverish but chilled to the bone at the same time… not much fun.[/quote:34ex69yu]
If I had to pay 8.5% on an education loan from the Fed than I fully expect California to take one in the pooper.
According to the LA Times, “It’s customary for California to borrow billions of dollars at the start of the fiscal year to fill its coffers until the usual flood of sales tax receipts comes in after Christmas and income tax receipts arrive in the spring.”
Due to the credit crunch, CA is unable to do this.
Banks and insurers defaulted because they took huge risks. If what the LA Times says about CA’s expenditure behavior is true, then California is operating the way it always has, and this emergency is an aftereffect of the credit crunch triggered from the subprime mortgaging.
If CA were able to pay the banks back (since allegedly this is normal behavior), then they should be able to pay back the government (eventually). You use the term “economy” as if it applies the same way to California as it does to the huge failed corporations. They took huge risks. Their mark-to-market assets could not realistically have been achieved, because there was no way for homeowners (home investors) to meet their mortgages. The homeowners default, the housing bubble finally collapses, and all of the lenders and insurers CANNOT realize their mark-to-market.
Assuming that CA did not play this financial game and are just operating within normal procedure, then CA is just caught up in the aftershock of this disaster. Whether or not they should’ve accounted for that is another matter, but it is not comparable to the huge risks that AIG and Bear Stearns and Lehman and Fannie/Freddie took.
[quote:1ggm3svp]It is really funny to me that Republicans say that its both parties fault, and Democrats say that it is GW Bush’s fault.[/quote:1ggm3svp]
It’s no political parties fault. It’s humanity! Stupid twits filled by greed, they are both Republican and Democrat! This is not really a political issue… Rich people over extended themselves to try and get richer and it’s causing consequences for the economy… that’s not politics, that’s GREED.
You can say, oh, well that guy wears a blue hat… or that guy wears a red hats and try and say it’s a colored hat problem… but really it’s us… it’s you and me, how many of us here have big loans? Why did we get them? Unsatisfied with what we got? Wanted more before we could pay for it? It’s the dreams and aspirations of the common family that allowed this cheap unbaked credit market to arise to fulfill the needs of our gratification. Maybe we should take some responsibility instead of blaming whatever/whomever we don’t like. (Except if it’s weasel, then it’s ok)
But people have always been greedy.
Well… I think trying to make money from poorer people, with money you don’t REALLY have… has taken things to new heights… Not to mention the amount of people that “got on board” this train…
You know what they say about momentum… mass x acceleration… but don’t quote me on that… physics was my worst subject… :evil:
The problem is that the government constructed this train in the first place. They built the means to buy houses with no down payment, and people hopped on.
If people could not have bought houses like this, then obviously the housing bubble would not have happened, at least at this magnitude.
By the way, Force = mass x acceleration
momentum = mass x velocity
No! Don’t make this about government, then people ask which! Exactly what I am trying to swing against! Times change, People don’t! We are a greedy people, and we walked the plank for a better view, and now there is no more plank!
This is getting almost racist… Imagine if republicans and democrats were called whites and blacks. Because the attitudes on display here isn’t really too much different. There seems to be this perception that what party you back can make you a degenerate in someone else eyes. Some people really see some people as inferior because of there political view… this is sad. We are really just the same.
Reminds me of a bunch of movies I’ve seen about wars. How some people groups are persecuted and then things change around and hunter becomes the hunted. Even though the roles are reversed in the films… you see that people are still the same! Greed is greed! Poor or rich. It’s not really politics.
If you are suggesting that the fix is to change all of humanity, then, uh, yeah.
I blame the government. I blame the Demoblicans. Or is the Republicrats?
Maybe we should take some responsibility instead of blaming whatever/whomever we don’t like. (Except if it’s weasel, then it’s ok)[/quote:1ri3sskc]
:P
If you are suggesting that the fix is to change all of humanity, then, uh, yeah.
I blame the government. I blame the Demoblicans. Or is the Republicrats?[/quote:f23nwfp3]
I’m simply suggesting we stop attacking each other, because of politics. Small men blame someone else. :?
Anyone watch the McCain-Obama debate? What a snooze-fest.. boring as hell. McCain spoke as if he was telling fairy tales to a bunch of little kids and missed opportunity after opportunity to attack (I thought he said the gloves were off?), and Obama mostly managed to avoid answering questions, said the word ‘fundamentally’ about a kazillion times, and repeatedly broke the debate rules he had just agreed not to break.
They saved the worst for last though. Six million questions to choose from, and what question does Tom Brokaw choose? :
[b:274bwu1q] “What don’t you know and how will you learn it?â€[/b:274bwu1q]
Gratz Tom for picking the most stupid question of all time. You win the debate.
By the way, Force = mass x acceleration
momentum = mass x velocity[/quote:c3t3hj3o]
I sense teh massive greatness in this psto
Pelosi says $150B economic stimulus plan needed
By COLLEEN SLEVIN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
DENVER - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday that a $150 billion economic stimulus plan is needed now because of the faltering economy and she may call the House into session after the election to pass it.
Pelosi told reporters that the stock market meltdown, which has caused an estimated $2 trillion loss from pension funds, was a factor in her recommendation for a second stimulus bill. The first relief plan sent out $600-$1,200 tax rebate checks to most individuals and couples this year.
The House did pass a $61 billion economic aid proposal last month before lawmakers left Capitol Hill ahead of the Nov. 4 election. But a similar plan failed to pass the Senate. President Bush had promised a veto anyway.
If Democratic nominee Barack Obama wins the White House and if Capitol Hill Democrats make gains in the elections as well, it might be easier to pass a stimulus measure over dispirited Republicans, especially if the economy remains in big trouble.
The Senate is expected to be back at work after Election Day to complete a public lands bill and perhaps deal with other matters, such as a measure to extend unemployment benefits. The House also could return to consider a stimulus plan and additional issues in a lame-duck session before the newly elected Congress takes over in January.
“We may have to go back into session before the next Congress,” Pelosi said.
Pelosi said a stimulus package would create jobs by investing in public works, increasing food stamps benefits and extending unemployment insurance for the long-term jobless. She said lawmakers need to “hunker down” and look closely at the federal budget for possible savings, and reconsider whether the U.S. can afford to fight “a war without end” in Iraq.
“We have some very harsh decisions to make and some of them can’t wait until January,” said Pelosi, D-Calif.
“What we can’t wait for is a stimulus package,” Pelosi added. “We may have to go back into session before the next Congress.”