Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » Is the700 billion dollar bailout really needed? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Is the700 billion dollar bailout really needed?
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just watched an interesting character from Carnegie Mellon make some strong arguments against it...
he actually made sense...

his basic argument is that we shouldn't buy the mortgages since nobody else wants to either...

he said that people will (eventually) buy them and they'll pay alot less than we will be paying.

so? are we getting ripped off? and if so by who exactly?

[ September 23, 2008, 20:33: Message edited by: glassman ]

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Propertymanager
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Propertymanager     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
YES, WE'RE BEING RIPPED OFF!!! By these big investment banks and their good friends Bernanke and Paulson. Golman Sachs and the others are BUSINESSES and should not be bailed out. They made foolish investments and they MUST pay the price!

I think Mark Haines on CNBC had an EXCELLENT suggestion. If we're going to bail out anyone (I say no), then bypass the Wall Street Stooges and use the bailout money to provide liquidity for business loans to "main street", which I interpreted to mean businesses that can meet normal underwriting guidelines. At any rate, these Wall Street firms should be allowed to fail!

Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ok, 700 billion$...
i'm figuring the average home loan is about 250,000$...

that's 2.8 million loans they are buying, if they pay 100%....

7.5 million people — almost 15 percent of American homeowners with a mortgage — who are spending half of their income or more on housing costs, according to 2007 data released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau. That is up from nearly 7.1 million the year before.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4j_nTWGqFRwX4TkhkBe0tmSKQNgD93CIGFG0

this money isn't going to be enough...

they'll be back in three months asking for the same amount or more again


Traditionally, the government and most lenders consider a homeowner spending 30 percent or more of their income on housing costs to be financially burdened. But that definition now covers almost 38 percent of American homeowners with a mortgage — 19 million of them.

More than 4 million homeowners were at least one month behind on their loans at the end of June, and almost 500,000 had started the foreclosure process, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association.


--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Golman Sachs and the others are BUSINESSES and should not be bailed out. They made foolish investments and they MUST pay the price!

Ok PM, i don't think too many people disagree about that...

here's the problem...

my (and your) grocery store uses a line of credit to keep the shelves stocked..

they prolly get it from one of the banks being bailed out..

what happens if they can no longer keep food on the shelves?

should we dump all the losers and make a new Govt bank for them to go to directly? and if so? how is that different?

that is (more or less) how China works...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
this is a crime...

and these people should be BKRPT:

And yet, the deal will not help Dolly Hanna, 51, and her husband, who bought five homes in the San Francisco area over the past 20 years, and were enjoying life during the housing boom by renting them out.

But her husband's overtime at his mechanic's job was cut, and the Hannas now find themselves overextended at a loss of $15,000 per month and trying two sell two of the homes.

With four children, Hanna had been a stay-at-home mom, but Monday she started a job in real estate. They are seeking a renter for two upstairs bedrooms in their primary residence for $1,200.

Getting a loan during the boom was easy, Hanna knows. Too easy.

"All you had to was massage the information enough to fit it into their round hole, and they gave us a mortgage," Hanna said.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h4j_nTWGqFRwX4TkhkBe0tmSKQNgD93CIGFG0

they lied and they admit it...

how on earth did they think they were going to make this work...

and why are they suddenly losing money? this is just stupid.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Machiavelli
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Machiavelli     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yah, it don't make sense. If it's the primary residence then I can see how they can't make mortgage payments but they are rentals. How difficult is it to find tenants?

--------------------
Let the world change you... And you can change the world.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna

Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Machiavelli
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Machiavelli     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Propertymanager:
YES, WE'RE BEING RIPPED OFF!!! By these big investment banks and their good friends Bernanke and Paulson. Golman Sachs and the others are BUSINESSES and should not be bailed out. They made foolish investments and they MUST pay the price!

I think Mark Haines on CNBC had an EXCELLENT suggestion. If we're going to bail out anyone (I say no), then bypass the Wall Street Stooges and use the bailout money to provide liquidity for business loans to "main street", which I interpreted to mean businesses that can meet normal underwriting guidelines. At any rate, these Wall Street firms should be allowed to fail!

I hate agreeing with him... [Were Down]

--------------------
Let the world change you... And you can change the world.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna

Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
a surfer
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for a surfer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Machiavelli:
Yah, it don't make sense. If it's the primary residence then I can see how they can't make mortgage payments but they are rentals. How difficult is it to find tenants?

There are rental signs all over the place here.

The rents have dropped along with home prices too.

In a market like San Fran that was most likely 50% overpriced they have to be struggling.

BUT it was their decision to buy all these rentals so they have to pay the price...

Just like the banks that loaned them the money should.

Only primary residences should remedied by assistance IMO.

Posts: 6409 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Only primary residences should remedied by assistance IMO.

and that should be done so that the profits are not subsidized...

i cannot beleive how many people are at 50% of their income...

1/3 of take home has been a standard for decades...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Happy Valley
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for Happy Valley     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anderson Cooper getting ready to do a piece on it...

FBI probing firms at heart of meltdown

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/fbi-probing-firms-heart-financial/story.as px?guid=%7BD8614DC5%2D8659%2D4306%2DBCDF%2D9B0682462A3C%7D&siteid=yhoof

Posts: 2383 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Newshour put up the transcripts from the show...
the guy i was talking about is:

Allan Meltzer is a professor of political economy and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

the interview is here:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/business/july-dec08/bailouttalk_09-23.html

it's set up as a debate...


here's his opening:


JEFFREY BROWN: Allan Meltzer, same question. Â Is this a good idea?

ALLAN MELTZER, Carnegie Mellon University: It's a terrible idea. It's undemocratic. It's bad economic policy, and it's bad social policy. And it has a very little chance of solving the problem in a meaningful way.

JEFFREY BROWN: Well, flesh that out a bit. Is it that we are not in a crisis? Or is it that government intervention of this kind is not the right answer?

ALLAN MELTZER: Well, I've listened to governments tell me for 40 years that there was a crisis and the world was going to fall apart if we didn't do this or that. But there have been a few cases where they weren't able to do that.

One was the commercial paper crisis in 1970. There have been several others. The world did not fall apart. Last week, we had Lehman Brothers went into bankruptcy. Within three days, most of the assets were sold.

We had AIG turn down three offers to buy the company because they thought they would get a better deal from the government. It turned out they didn't get the better deal from the government. Now the stockholders suddenly woke up and said -- the major stockholders said, "We'd like to buy the company."

Well, that's what I think we need to do. We need to get the government's hand out of this, and let's see whether we can't get a market solution.

The market people caused this problem. They ought to be the ones that pay the cost of having it cleaned up.

--------------
ALLAN MELTZER: Yes. I don't want to join a debate about different ways of picking the public's pocket. I think, if they're going to do something -- and I don't think that we really need to do anything. I've heard these stories over and over for 40 years. You know, maybe there will be a crisis.

But despite all the talk, Main Street is not doing so badly. And the fact is that they've been predicting disaster since January. It hasn't happened.

And if they're going to do something, then what they ought to do is make loans, which the financial institutions have to repay with interest. And if you think -- that's an idea which the Chileans have used in a bigger crisis than this for them in 1982, and it worked for them.

People paid back the loans. They weren't allowed to pay dividends until they repaid the loans. They weren't allowed to take bonuses until they repaid the loans. I think that's the way -- if we're going to do this, then that's the way we should do it.


--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
a surfer
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for a surfer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
Only primary residences should remedied by assistance IMO.

and that should be done so that the profits are not subsidized...

i cannot beleive how many people are at 50% of their income...

1/3 of take home has been a standard for decades...

Problem is Glass that the bailout money won't discern which is investment and which is primary.

Each bank should be converting some employees to be case managers to handle so many per person.

This has to be dealt with in an individualistic way to reach main street.

Posts: 6409 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Propertymanager
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Propertymanager     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would let businesses and homeowners all fail. If people paid too much for a house and can't afford it, then they should be foreclosed on. THEY made the choice to be reckless with their money and it's not my responsibility to bail them out.

As I understand it, the problem is liquidity to keep business moving and people employed. The key to succeeding with this bailout is to provide liquidity for normal business operations (for profitable, responsible businesses) and to let all the overleveraged, bad apples go out of business. BTW, I know that business loans haven't completely dried up, because National City called me last night in an effort to loan me money. I asked the guy if he was CRAZY. Who wants to borrow more money in the middle of a DEPRESSION?

I strongly recommend that everyone on this forum contact your congressman again today. I contacted my senators and my congressional delegation yesterday and am doing it again today. The squeaky wheel gets oiled and the citizens of this country need to squeak LOUD and CLEAR (and often), unless we want these big Wall Street firms bailed out.

Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don'tknow that the "bail out" will do any good. That bothers me.

What bothers me even more is that the same bunch that insisted we couldn't hesitate granting absolute power to dubya to quell an al qaeda stronghold, stocked with many many WMDs already aimed and waiting to be launched at our shores, that never existed (neither the al qaeda or the WMDs in Iraq).

Then, it was that same bunch that claimed an over whelming need to pass, without appropriate time for consideration, the Patriot Act, which turns out to have been nothing but our equivalent to the German legislature granting near absolute power to the fascist in 1932.

The Constitution can be restored and saved only so many times!

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Propertymanager
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Propertymanager     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I don'tknow that the "bail out" will do any good. That bothers me.
Yes, it will do some good. Goldman Sachs and all the other rich fat cats will get a lot of our money to maintain their lifestyles. Will it help you or me? NO! All it will do is punish us with higher inflation and more debt. JUST SAY NO TO THE BAILOUTS FOR THE WALL STREET CROWD!
Posts: 1577 | From: Ohio | Registered: Oct 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bond006
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for bond006     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course the bail out will do no good for most of us. It will not help our home values,It will not increase our tax base on real estate it will not save our retirement funds. And many other thigs that I can't see or think of'

What it can do is take the boys that caused all the problems and instead of giving them a jail cell we will put them in a new special club the 700 billion dollar club.Plus more at a moments notice

As we post the FBI is in the beginings of a wall street investigation on some of these folks for fraud I say we wait until any one of them get any money from public funds.

And then if we fund, we call the shots on how it will be used. Our our accounts are insured we can hold out , there is a market for loans even now some one is loaning money to qualifed folks.

I wonder if old King George is going to use his system of lights every day to scare us remember the old green ,amber,and red lights we got to see every day on T.V. so simpleton George II could inform his dim witted cult followers on the safety of the day. Look foward to being amused again my friends.

Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As we post the FBI is in the beginings of a wall street investigation on some of these folks for fraud I say we wait until any one of them get any money from public funds.

unfortunately? my perception of this investigation is that they'll find a few sacrificial lambs to offer up and the majority of the people responsible will walk...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
a surfer
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for a surfer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2008/0923b.html
Posts: 6409 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i think he's full of it surf...

he's got some good points, but they lack deep understanding of the motives behind keeping interest rates low...

one of the biggest reasons interest rates have been kept low is to protect Wall St.

if interest rates get high? people take the less risk avenue and buy them...

that takes money from Wall St, lowers market Caps and opens co's up to leveraged buy-outs... (see the '80's)


the other huge reason to keep them low is that Bush needed them low to finance his deficit spending ...

To now say we should add more regulation, or in any way give more control to the government over market pricing, is asking for more of what got us into this mess. Re-read the above, and understand that the government's control over CPI, gave them control over interest rates, which gave them control over whether individuals and bankers would mutually abuse debt for housing.

this does not argue that regulation was the problem...

it argues that LYING was is the problem..

that said? did you see where he's from?

Shelby Moore, III Davao City, Mindanao, Philippines

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OK, re-reading, good article, even tho i said he's full of it..

here's his flawed assertion IMO

This undeniable manipulation of reality (i.e. propoganda) caused institutional money managers to buy government bonds at lower interest rates, because such fund managers are required in their prospectus to invest their clients' money in bonds as long as the CPI is lower than the bonds' interest rate.

i absolutely agree that CPI has been manipulated..

but i see the reasons as very different as stated above..

there's other reason for them to do it too..

COLA- cost of living allownces go up in govt/military pay...

people in the private sector ask for bigger raises...
higher pay does balance out the cost side of infaltion equation, allowing infaltion to go up...

the main reason that "official" inflation has been relatively low is that they lie about the CPI and pay doesn't go up..

i just don't see the motive as being to force people to buy bonds..

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
a surfer
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for a surfer     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just another perspective glass.

I like hearing them all.

Posts: 6409 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
like i said, i mispoke on saying he's full of it..

he's not wrong, he's just looking at it from his personal specialty..

i get mad when i see infaltion numbers lower than we know they are...

sheesh. my grocery bills have tripled since '00...

gasoline, propane(5X) too.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We all wonder about what the effects or the effectiveness of a bail out might be (except a few that already knew what opinion to have a decade back and are sticking to their absolute free market dogma....they don't think, just react and regurgitate).

For the most part, we normal people are provided only with what the various tv news crews provide us about it. Have any of you considered whether or not that information may be biased because influential news reporters have marriage or other family ties to some of the principles in the system?

Personally, I wonder, were I married to Allen Greenspan, would I be neutral? COULD I be neutral? Would I slant what I said about things? And, just as important, would I know it if I did?

I don't think there is provision to recuse tv reporters with personal ties to news makers. Maybe there should be?

Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T e x
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for T e x     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Buffet took a $5 billion position in Goldman...

--------------------
Nashoba Holba Chepulechi
Adventures in microcapitalism...

Posts: 21062 | From: Fort Worth | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bdgee
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for bdgee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by T e x:
Buffet took a $5 billion position in Goldman...

Though I doubt it, that $5 billion position may be just a move to get his mouth onto some of that federal teat they are planning to hand out. Let's not forget that $5 billion to him is about like $5 to you and me.
Posts: 11304 | From: Fort Worth, Texas | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bond006
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for bond006     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Close Window
Bush may give speech to nation on economic woes
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
WASHINGTON - President Bush is thinking of giving a speech to the nation on the ailing financial markets, the White House said Wednesday, amid persistent criticism of a $700 billion bailout plan and the Federal Reserve chairman's warning that economic growth depends on it.

Ben Bernanke, the Fed chief, told Congress' Joint Economic Committee that the Federal Reserve will "act as needed" to minimize disruptions to business life. His appearance came a day after he and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson heard withering criticism of the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout plan and not long after Bush said he was confident an agreement would be reached soon on a "robust" plan to relieve the stress.

Second-guessing of the bailout plan continued on Capitol Hill. And on Wall Street, the financial markets remained tense, with stocks fluctuating, following investor Warren Buffett's decision to invest $5 billion in Goldman Sachs Group Inc. The credit markets showed added strain as investors await news about the government's plan to rescue banks from crippling debt.

Meanwhile, Bush's chief spokeswoman, Dana Perino, revealed that the president is considering a formal speech to the nation - his first such talk in over a year - and said the country is at risk of a "calamity" without bold action to calm down the markets and soothe nervous Americans.

Amid a raft of statements of anger and doubt about the bailout plan, Sen. Lindsey Graham said Wednesday that "it's not my job to just echo people being mad. I'm going to choose the bad choice over the catastrophic choice."

Speaking to South Carolina reporters, the Republican said, "We don't have the luxury of kicking this can down the road like we did with immigration or social security and dealing with it another day hoping somebody braver than us will come along and have courage that we can't muster to deal with immigration or social security. This is on our watch."

Reflecting the urgency of the situation, White House officials revealed that Bush had taken Air Force One back to Washington from a meeting of the U.N. General Assembly in New York and said he was canceling a planned fundraising trip to Florida to help the Republican Party. Bush had canceled a similar trip last week.

Perino said Bush has been trying to address the public's many questions and concerns and was weighing whether, when and where to have such a speech.

Pleading for Congress to act quickly, Bernanke said: "Choking up of credit is like taking the lifeblood away from the economy."

Asked whether the country would plunge into a depression if lawmakers do not enact a bill, Bernanke said he didn't want to make such a comparison. But he also said there would be "certainly very negative implications," including likely losses on retirement funds and other investments held by millions of ordinary Americans.

Bernanke and Paulson made the case for the plan in a closed-door meeting with House Republicans Wednesday morning, where lawmakers voiced new doubts about the bailout and said their constituents were overwhelmingly opposed to it.

"The American people are furious about the fact that Congress is being asked to put up some $700 billion to help stem off this economic crisis," said Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio, the GOP leader. Still, he said "Congress has a responsibility to act," and added that he hoped to strike a bipartisan deal that could pass within days.

Bush has an uphill battle in selling the rescue, however, even to members of his own party.

Asked during their session with Paulson how many of them backed the plan, just four Republican hands went up, said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III, R-Va.

"It's a tough sell to most of our members," Davis said. "It's a terrible plan, but I haven't heard anything better."

Republicans and Democrats both say Bush has lost credibility on Capitol Hill, particularly in cases where he argues there will be dire consequences if Congress doesn't act.

"They sold the war, they sold the stimulus package and some other things. It's the 'wolf at the door' " argument, Davis said.

"It's hard being trusting" of Bush's bailout plan, said Democratic Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez, D-Ill, who said the administration's full-court press to sell it reminded him of the one the White House mounted before the Iraq war.

"You feel like you're always getting hoodwinked, because they say the consequences if you don't do it is a complete demise and collapse of the system," he said.

Executives whose companies get a piece of the assistance would have their pay packages strictly limited under proposals that broadly supported by both Republicans and Democrats.

The administration was resisting that move as it scrambled to overcome widespread misgivings and swiftly push through its plan to rescue tottering financial firms by buying up their rotten assets.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has proposed adding substantial congressional oversight over the bailout and a requirement that the government make an effort to renegotiate as many of the mortgages it purchases in the rescue as possible to help strapped borrowers stay in their homes. Paulson was said to be willing to accept those revisions.

Frank also has been pushing to allow the government to buy equity - rather than just bad debt - in companies it helps so taxpayers can benefit from future profits. That idea is also gaining bipartisan support, but Paulson argues it would hamstring the very companies the government is trying to help.

He also is strongly opposed to another key Democratic priority: letting judges rewrite mortgages to lower bankrupt homeowners' monthly payments. Democrats view that measure as the heaviest lift and the most likely to be dropped as part of a final deal.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
bond006
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for bond006     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bush should take his tinker toys and go back home.

Tell himself he did a good job of looting public funds forget about his last great attempt and go home.

Posts: 6008 | From: phoenix az | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T e x
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for T e x     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
While in the city with his running mate, Sarah Palin, Republican presidential nominee John McCain said that he wants to delay Friday's presidential debate with Barack Obama to focus on the economic crisis.

In a statement, McCain said that he will stop campaigning after addressing former President Bill Clinton's Global Initiative session tomorrow, and return to Washington, D.C.

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/86211/mccain-proposes-delaying-debate--wa nts-to-focus-on-economy/Default.aspx

--------------------
Nashoba Holba Chepulechi
Adventures in microcapitalism...

Posts: 21062 | From: Fort Worth | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lockman
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lockman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bush is out of this one, he can make all the speeches he wants. This bailout is on the Dumocrat congress and from what I've seen their lookin to exit stage left.

Actually the Republican congressional members aren't looking very smart either.

--------------------
Let's Go METS!!!

Posts: 3316 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lockman:
Bush is out of this one, he can make all the speeches he wants. This bailout is on the Dumocrat congress and from what I've seen their lookin to exit stage left.

Actually the Republican congressional members aren't looking very smart either.

actaully? the bailout is Bush and Paulson...

IF the Dems rubber stamp it? then shame on them too...

my BET is that Delay and Lott and Frist would have rubber stamped it buti can't say for sure..

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by T e x:
quote:
While in the city with his running mate, Sarah Palin, Republican presidential nominee John McCain said that he wants to delay Friday's presidential debate with Barack Obama to focus on the economic crisis.

In a statement, McCain said that he will stop campaigning after addressing former President Bill Clinton's Global Initiative session tomorrow, and return to Washington, D.C.

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/86211/mccain-proposes-delaying-debate--wa nts-to-focus-on-economy/Default.aspx
and CNBC was reporting Obama suggested it first...

this is beginning to look like another circling of the wagons to me...

why don't we just cancel the election until the crisis is over? in 2040? [Wall Bang]

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lockman
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lockman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
quote:
Originally posted by Lockman:
Bush is out of this one, he can make all the speeches he wants. This bailout is on the Dumocrat congress and from what I've seen their lookin to exit stage left.

Actually the Republican congressional members aren't looking very smart either.

actaully? the bailout is Bush and Paulson...

IF the Dems rubber stamp it? then shame on them too...

my BET is that Delay and Lott and Frist would have rubber stamped it buti can't say for sure..

Well Bush shouldn't matter, it seems every elected offical is running from him.
Maybe their gonna vote for this crap and if it goes sour blame Bush , goes good they'll all take a pay raise.

--------------------
Let's Go METS!!!

Posts: 3316 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lockman
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Lockman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
quote:
Originally posted by T e x:
quote:
While in the city with his running mate, Sarah Palin, Republican presidential nominee John McCain said that he wants to delay Friday's presidential debate with Barack Obama to focus on the economic crisis.

In a statement, McCain said that he will stop campaigning after addressing former President Bill Clinton's Global Initiative session tomorrow, and return to Washington, D.C.

http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/86211/mccain-proposes-delaying-debate--wa nts-to-focus-on-economy/Default.aspx
and CNBC was reporting Obama suggested it first...

this is beginning to look like another circling of the wagons to me...

why don't we just cancel the election until the crisis is over? in 2040? [Wall Bang]

Same old games! Make it look like they give a dam.

I guess where never gonna find out what these clowns think. We'll just vote on good looks.

--------------------
Let's Go METS!!!

Posts: 3316 | From: CT | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
is Obama going to go along with the campaign suspension? or is he going to call Mccain a quitter?

this is totally insane.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
thinkmoney
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for thinkmoney     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What I know is that the Bush club, etc that get us in the mess will not be able or qualified to get us out. To paraphrase Einstein, the mind that creates the problems is unable to solve them.
I do think there are alternatives and a way out.

At the core is JOBS for Americans. I think we should not bailout. Let them feel the pain. However, jobs will help homeowners not foreclose, etc...

Use the money for infrastructure and solar energy research and development. Only let firms have tax breaks that employ americans---
I would help homeowners re-ngotiate the ARMS - that is it - Use money to build america and make economy strong - with a strong economy this issue will lessen and let those *******s get jail time and re-payment to the american public - let the fbi probe continue -

I think we are not looking outside the box - Pumping 1 trillion will not solve the mess - but a strong economy and criminal charges for those responsible will - with a strong economy other firms will be there to lend , etc....and a lesson learned for the greedy looters -

There may be other alternatives but that is where we should focus - the mind that created this mess will only make the hole deeper at the demise of USA--

Posts: 864 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2018 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share