I called my Senators and Representative and told then I was adamantly opposed to this $700 billion dollar package. This is the largest appropriation bill in the history of the world and there are no scheduled hearings, no expert testimony (and over 100 prominent economists say the bailout is not needed) and no clarity of what it really involves. We have no assurances that Congress understands the problem and no way to know that this financial bailout will work. Congress is acting like this is a term paper being written the night before it is due. This is twenty times bigger than the Enron scandal, where people went to jail. I want to know why the rush to judgment? Let the financial sharks eat other financial sharks and use their own money. Then lock up any CEOs and anyone else that may have conspired to give out mortgages to folks with no income, no job and no assets. My grandchildren may have to pay for this Wall Street socialism. At least fifty percent of the taxpayers surveyed are opposed to the bailout and that number may grow. All the best...
Gil

You make some good points Gil. It's mind boggling to think about. I don't no enough about the pros or cons of it to give a opinion so I guess I just have to hope they no what there doin and that my kids don't have to pick up the tab.
Joe

Note, though, that this is not a handout, it's buying up the assets that will later be re-sold. From the late 80's to the mid 90's the Resolution Trust Corp (RTC) made about $100Billion profit for the government. That cash flow was a big part of Clinton's "budget surplus", in that about 1992-93 the cash outflow became a net INFLOW.

Given that, if the genesis of the sub-prime fiasco is not rectified, we're going to go through this a gain just a few years up the road.

This problem started in 1977 and was turbo-charged in 1995. It all worked fine until the market started to skid (unless you consider wildly inflating the cost of homes "fine"). The Fed pumping over $ one trillion into the real estate market kept things afloat for a while, but the day of reckoning HAD to come eventually.

Some economists have been warning about the present collapse for eight to ten years. I've just read one article from early 2000 that was amazingly prescient.

SS,

You are absolutely correct. If this is run properly, we should be able to make most of the money back. The major uncertainty is that it still has to go through both branches of congress, with all of their pork-barrel amendments. However, I do believe that banks should be held accountable for giving loans with 0% down, with no means for paying the loan back. I never could understand why people with a $50,000 house capability were given loans for $250,000. This is the same bunch of bankers that require a farmer to put up collateral equal to the value of 110 percent of a farm loan. I know a young couple that was given a home loan that would require 75 percent of their entire income to make. They are going to eventually lose their home. I also know of a couple that has already lost their $250,000 home. The wife is a waitress; the husband does odd jobs around town. They made one payment only, then after a few months the bank took it back. In my opinion, the banker should be held accountable for this loan, and the couple should suffer the consequences of losing their home.

Face it. The world will always have poor people. And no, they should not be treated (when it comes to giving out loans) equally. There has to be accountability for a stable economy.

When I was young and just getting started, I lived in a trailer house, leased farm land and borrowed tractors and equipment to start my farm, and I was proud to have what I had. Eventually, through hard work (18+ hour days, sometimes), I finally could afford to buy land and build a house. It took lots of sacrifice. But, through wise decisions and perseverance I held on to what I have. I didn’t expect a handout. It seems to me that people nowadays believe that the government, society, and the world owe them something. This attitude will eventually bring down this country.

Cary

Cary and SS are correct on this.
It stinks, but it had to be done.

Either the bailout or we have a depression.

What makes me madder yet is how both parties played Presidential Politics with this, along with McCain and Obama.

Eric

IMO, yes to a bail out for the economy, but not one for Wall St.

First about the sweet irony:
Wall St preaches unbridled capitalism, the wisdom of the hidden hand, entrepreneurship in an unregulated corporate and financial environment, trickle down economics, yada yada .... until they screw up and then run to big daddy for a $700 billion government handout.

These are the Wall St SOBs who helped their manufacturing buddies shift factory production to low wage Asia to improve their profit margins. US factories shut down everywhere, guys and gals out of work, whole towns wiped out. Wall St and corporate America did not give a shyte for American workers and their families, and now American taxpayers are to bail them out?

Does the bail out absolutely need to be done the way the politicians and Wall St propose???

I've heard suggestions that the rescue money might be better spent rebuilding or improving infrastructure like highways, bridges, rapid transit, schools. Think of all the steel, concrete, copper and jobs that $700,000,000,000 would buy....

If this $700 billion goes to purchase lowsy paper debt (ABCPs) instead of paying for steel and concrete and wages, how does that help the average American?

OntheLasGallinas wrote:

However, I do believe that banks should be held accountable for giving loans with 0% down, with no means for paying the loan back.

This came after years of whining that the banks were keeping the average American from obtaing the "American Dream" of owning their own home

OntheLasGallinas wrote:

This is the same bunch of bankers that require a farmer to put up collateral equal to the value of 110 percent of a farm loan.

Not true, residential lending and Ag lending operate under separate rules

OntheLasGallinas wrote:

I know a young couple that was given a home loan that would require 75 percent of their entire income to make. They are going to eventually lose their home. I also know of a couple that has already lost their $250,000 home. The wife is a waitress; the husband does odd jobs around town. They made one payment only, then after a few months the bank took it back. In my opinion, the banker should be held accountable for this loan, and the couple should suffer the consequences of losing their home.

IF they signed up for more home than they can afford, they alone should be held responsible. I know, this is what started this debate in the first place, but I still fail to see how the lender should lose because the borrower can't pay

OntheLasGallinas wrote:

Face it. The world will always have poor people. And no, they should not be treated (when it comes to giving out loans) equally. There has to be accountability for a stable economy.

I agree wholeheartedly.....

Just like some people are un-employable, some people are un-lendable, and they need to recognize it themselves......

HJ,

The lender should suffer the wrath of the stock holders for making loans that are doomed to fail. They are both responsible to certain degrees.

Residential lending and Ag lending do operate under separate rules, but the principle is the same. (in my most humble opinion)

Cary

Well, I really do not know how to think about it, If we do not bail them out the fat cats get there big bonuses and the average man losses his job and losses everything he owns. If we do bail them out, the fat cats keep there bonuses and the average American keeps his job but pays for someone to be a thief, and with the hidden writing in the bill a lot of politicians get there money as well? its a joke in any way you look at it and its time the average American speaks up, Obama got his cut of the bill as well, just read it.

I am torn on this issue... I've tried to study both sides and IMO, its about like throwing darts when trying to decide what we should do.

I DETEST the idea of the bailout personally... but it was pointed out to me we will be paying for it either way. As banks fail the Government has to cover the FDIC insurance claims. The point of the bailout was to try and keep banks from failing and thereby causing the Government from paying out many times the bailout amount in FDIC claims.

On the flip side, we cannot bail out everyone... Wacovia is next in line looking for a bailout? Followed by Ford and General Motors? Gotta draw the line somewhere.

Its a mess no doubt and it will get worse before it gets better. Anyone notice that all the talk is about the "sub prime" loans, or loans for people that cant qualify for normal "prime" loans.

So heres the thing, in the Type A Prime loans, one of the best loans out there for people supposedly with rock solid salarys and equity, 16% of those mortagage holders have now missed 2 payments... 16% of Type A Prime!!!!

Scary!


-DallanC

You said it Dallan it's scary times for sure.
Joe

I hate this bailout ,too ; I think this has to be done . This is almost the same as what happened in 1929 .

I feel for you guys...it is certainly a bad thing...and who knows where it will lead. As Whittling says...1929 !!!

It's also affecting us over here too. Because of the significant downturn in the US economy and the lending market, our stock market has started shivering too. I lost nearly $5,000 on a $35,000 investment this last financial year...not good.

The biggest losers over here are the Superannuation Funds. They have most of their investments in stocks. When the Superannuation Funds lose I'll give you three guesses who are the real losers. The big Companies aren't losing...their members are the ones paying!!! and Superannuation is mandatory over here.

Cheers, Vince

Well, today, the markets adjusted down big time as a result of the bailout not making it out of Congress. I don't even want to know how much I lost today.

It is all very scary yet exhilarating.

We may be on the cusp of a big societal change, in terms of the assumptions upon which Western societies reward those who make/provide products and services. Likely that globalization as we have come to know it will change.

In the long run, for the sake of healthy capitalism, this is all probably a good thing, imho.

twofifty wrote:

We may be on the cusp of a big societal change, in terms of the assumptions upon which Western societies reward those who make/provide products and services. Likely that globalization as we have come to know it will change. In the long run, for the sake of healthy capitalism, this is all probably a good thing, imho.

If Congress does not come to the realization that government REGULATION (the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977) caused this (which they will NEVER accept, the prospects for capitalism are going to go down the tubes.

QUIZ:

After the Dow Jones peaked in 1929, when did it return to it's previous level of 291?
A) 1940
B) 1942
C) 1945
D) 1949
E) 1954

Question #2
Adjusted for inflation, when did it return to it's previous high?
A) 1944
B) 1949
C) 1954
D) 1957
E) 1962

A stock market investment is a LONG TERM process except for speculators (Been there (speculator), Done that!).