A potential 1+ TRILLION dollar Bailout....

Coldkilla

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2004
3,944
0
71
I'm watching CNN now, all the major heads of both parties have just finished a meeting late this evening about this huge economic problem we're having. They are all working together late into the night tonight and are currently awaiting something from the treasury department. They say it could be a MULTI-TRILLION dollar bailout.

Congress won't be getting their vacation, and nether will Bush apparently. Stay tuned, CNN says the announcement can be only a few hours away.

This is the article posted on CNN. The potential multi-trillion dollar reference was echoed over and over on the program tonight by many economic experts.

 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,994
1,681
126
Fighting the urge to say "One Trillion Dollars" and then put my pinky to the corner of my mouth.
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Bad link -- I'm guessing you mean this? (Edit: yes, you fixed it)

CNN - handout to bad banks to reward gambling
The federal government, in what may be its most comprehensive attempt yet to contain the financial crisis, is poised to establish a program to let banks get rid of mortgage-related assets that have been hard to value and harder to trade.
. . . and shift the bad debt to the government, i.e. taxpayers.

Of course the bank executives will not be required to return any of their huge salaries and massive bonuses "earned" from imaginary profits on bad loans.

Bipartisan-approved corporate welfare at its finest. They gambled, we lost.

In a better world this bailout would come attached to massive fines and/or prison terms for the executives involved, instead they'll probably get a new set of bonuses.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Gee, someone should come up with a list of all the senate/house committees that have oversite of these areas and list whom the chair of each is :D
 

Coldkilla

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2004
3,944
0
71
One commentator this evening said 1.3 trillion dollars and another said over 2 trillion...

<sarcasm> Oh yea... you know 1-2-3 trillion... their all the same!</sarcasm>

Man my head is spinning...China is having a field day purchasing up all of our businesses for pennies on the dollar... Its only a matter of time before we're working in assembly lines.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
64,688
19,091
136
This is such a complicated, intertwined problem with so much poor judgment on the part of so many folks; wouldn't it be easier to just blame it all on the Lutherans?
 

Coldkilla

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2004
3,944
0
71
Originally posted by: lupi
Gee, someone should come up with a list of all the senate/house committees that have oversight of these areas and list whom the chair of each is :D
That's kinda funny actually. Even though nether McCain or Obama hasn't been real specific on their economic polices (more on that tomorrow and Saturday), McCain said he would fire the guy at the top of the oversight committee, Obama said that they should throw everyone in that committee out because none of them were apparently doing their jobs ;) - This was before the whole trillion dollar bailout thing started.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,938
5
81
Originally posted by: lupi
Gee, someone should come up with a list of all the senate/house committees that have oversite :laugh: of these areas and list whom :laugh: the chair of each is
Always good for a partisan diversion. Are you going to list all the Minority Party members of the committees as well? You know, the ones who chaired those committees while these problems were building in the years before the last nineteen months?
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
This article was linked on a soccer site I frequent. I thought it made some very interesting, intuitive points that even an economic retard like myself could understand.
A Casualty of the Financial Crisis: Sports Sponsorships

Forget that portfolio of dodgy debt. Don't fret the lack of liquidity. If you really want to know who's in for a dusting amid the global downturn, check out the jerseys on show in English football's Premier League.


Related
Stories
Money Flowing into English Soccer
Consider the line up: local bank and Newcastle United sponsor Northern Rock had to be nationalized in February after it was caught short of cash when the money markets seized; on Sep. 12, Britain's third largest tour operator XL went bust leaving London club West Ham United without a shirt sponsor; and now insurance giant AIG, shirt sponsor at English and European club champions Manchester United, is teetering on the brink of collapse.

We've seen a version of this game before. Enron, PSINet, Trans World Airlines and WorldCom all paid out for naming rights at U.S. sporting arenas before going under earlier this decade. In fact, sponsors of major U.S. sports stadiums lost an average of 33% of their market value in 2002, roughly double the Dow's fall that year.

So what's the harm in a little sponsorship? The ambitions behind a firm's marketing may offer a clue. "A lot of companies interested in sponsorship would be companies targeting very high rates of growth," says Stefan Szymanski, a sports business economist at Cass Business School in London. "To target a very high rate of growth is often a high risk strategy. High-risk businesses, in recession, tend to go bust." (The reverse can also be true: the stock price of sponsors of U.S. sports stadiums actually outperformed the market in the more benign conditions of 2006.)

Then there's the fact that an executive's normally sound judgment can quickly cloud over when it comes to sports. "A lot of [sponsors] have been involved in football on the basis of someone's hobby," says Simon Chadwick, a professor of Sport Business Strategy and Marketing at Coventry Business School. When the boss of one leading British firm opted to back a poorly performing English cricket team in recent years, "people were asking 'Why?'" Chadwick says. "The fact was [the boss] was a big cricket fan. That was the only reason." At the least, such vanity can leave shareholders pondering how else a firm's profits are being deployed.

Still, sponsoring a sports team is unlikely to bring a company down on its own. Even in the case of AIG ? whose $112 million, four-year tie-up with United is the most expensive ever in English football ? "if you look at the overall marketing spend of the companies involved, the shirt sponsorship was tiny," points out Rob Mason, managing director of SBI, a British sponsorship consultancy. Any link between the deal and AIG's current woes, Mason says, is "coincidental."

Companies are actually a lot smarter about sponsoring things than they used to be, says Chadwick. Rather than treat a deal like a one-time transaction and stepping back as soon as a logo is sewn into a jersey, big firms ? not to mention big clubs ? are more likely to "carefully select a partner to build a strategic relationship with," he says. With more than half of Manchester United's estimated 75 million fans worldwide now based in Asia, the investment by AIG ? keen to build their business in the region ? made good business sense. When quizzed by a shareholder why he was pouring so much into the U.K., a modest part of AIG's empire, the insurer's then-CEO Martin Sullivan explained: "I am not buying the U.K. I am buying Asia."

And despite this week's market meltdown, companies will still be keen to buy the special brand of magic that sports teams offer. Citigroup stumped up some $400 million to tag its name to a new stadium that baseball team the New York Mets will play in from next year. And British lender Barclays ? who backed out of talks over a possible takeover of troubled Lehman Brothers last weekend ? lavished a similar sum for the naming rights to the New Jersey Nets' planned Brooklyn basketball arena. If that sounds risky, consider its exposure in its home market: the U.K. bank is the proud sponsor of the English Premier League.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
10,688
2,403
136
Yes the tax payers are about to be royally screwed again.
We need a candidate that stands up and says NO..ENOUGH..NO MORE
to these bailouts. let the banks fail along with the greed.
This means nothing to the average Joe like you and me.
They will put on an act that it does, but it does not!
Let them fail. We tax payers will be just fine, as well as the economy.
The greed mongers and CEO's will be the one crying in their caviar.
Let them fail!!!
 

badkarma1399

Senior member
Feb 21, 2007
689
2
0
Originally posted by: sportage
Yes the tax payers are about to be royally screwed again.
We need a candidate that stands up and says NO..ENOUGH..NO MORE
to these bailouts. let the banks fail along with the greed.
This means nothing to the average Joe like you and me.
They will put on an act that it does, but it does not!
Let them fail. We tax payers will be just fine, as well as the economy.
The greed mongers and CEO's will be the one crying in their caviar.
Let them fail!!!
I agree. There are plenty of banks that are doing fine even with the crisis. Over the summer I worked for PNC, a regional bank from Philadelphia that posted a $500 million dollar profit from Q2 '08. They were smart and avoided the sub prime fiasco.

You can't have capitalism without a little destruction.
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,435
79
91
Originally posted by: lupi
Gee, someone should come up with a list of all the senate/house committees that have oversite of these areas and list whom the chair of each is :D
Let's not and say we did. There is blame to be placed on both sides of the aisle. And the blame game matters not, as now we have to deal with it. I would rather action be taken to deal with the problem than the normal standing around doing nothing and pointing of fingers.
 

babylon5

Golden Member
Dec 11, 2000
1,363
1
0
Wall Street makes big $$$ when their bets pay off, but taxpayers get the debt when they lose.

Great arrangement.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
31,247
4,759
126
Originally posted by: Coldkilla
One commentator this evening said 1.3 trillion dollars and another said over 2 trillion...

<sarcasm> Oh yea... you know 1-2-3 trillion... their all the same!</sarcasm>

Man my head is spinning...China is having a field day purchasing up all of our businesses for pennies on the dollar... Its only a matter of time before we're working in assembly lines.
When talking about how much we _could_ be spending, look at my signature for what we've already done.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,514
5,597
126
Originally posted by: babylon5
Wall Street makes big $$$ when their bets pay off, but taxpayers get the debt when they lose.

Great arrangement.
Don't forget the bonuses they make when they place the bets in the first place.
 

cyberserf

Member
Sep 28, 2000
58
0
61
Weren't these bastards saying the great depression was not possible?
then why are they bailing out all these companies?
I dare them to let the free market take its course. what a bunch of BS.

on a different note, will there be anything done to find out who lost soo much money? where did the money go?
its not like every loan these companies made to low income went bad?

why is our goverment trying to save the global markets?
I say let them all crash.

last, isn't it our government that allows this global bullshit to continue? China would be nowhere if it wasn't for the American companies getting too F** greedy!

 

jackschmittusa

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
5,972
1
0
Here's an interesting article.

How SEC Regulatory Exemptions Helped Lead to Collapse

Is Financial Innovation just another word for excessive and reckless leverage? Apparently so. As we learn this morning via Julie Satow of the NY Sun, special exemptions from the SEC are in large part responsible for the huge build up in financial sector leverage over the past 4 years -- as well as the massive current unwind Satow interviews the above quoted former SEC director, and he spits out the blunt truth: The current excess leverage now unwinding was the result of a purposeful SEC exemption given to five firms. You read that right -- the events of the past year are not a mere accident, but are the results of a conscious and willful SEC decision to allow these firms to legally violate existing net capital rules that, in the past 30 years, had limited broker dealers debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1. Instead, the 2004 exemption -- given only to 5 firms -- allowed them to lever up 30 and even 40 to 1.
Another failure of this Administration to actually regulate.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
346
126
Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Here's an interesting article.

How SEC Regulatory Exemptions Helped Lead to Collapse

Is Financial Innovation just another word for excessive and reckless leverage? Apparently so. As we learn this morning via Julie Satow of the NY Sun, special exemptions from the SEC are in large part responsible for the huge build up in financial sector leverage over the past 4 years -- as well as the massive current unwind Satow interviews the above quoted former SEC director, and he spits out the blunt truth: The current excess leverage now unwinding was the result of a purposeful SEC exemption given to five firms. You read that right -- the events of the past year are not a mere accident, but are the results of a conscious and willful SEC decision to allow these firms to legally violate existing net capital rules that, in the past 30 years, had limited broker dealers debt-to-net capital ratio to 12-to-1. Instead, the 2004 exemption -- given only to 5 firms -- allowed them to lever up 30 and even 40 to 1.
Another failure of this Administration to actually regulate.
It's so simple. Make rules for most people, to disadvantage them. Trade favors with your buddies to not follow the rules and profit. Wrap yourself in the flag to look good.

For example, the sone of the President of the US is selected to sit on the board of Karkin Energy, I wonder why. He learns of the company cooking the books and knows this will be coming out. He gets a memo saying directors are not allowed to sell their stock to prevent insider trading lawbreaking. He sells all his stock just before it crashes on his insider information illegally. The head of the relevant SEC section that would punish him is his personal attorney, the guy who did the deal for him with the Texas Rangers. The head of the SEX was appointed by his father. The staff of the SEC is furious how he is let off but can't stop it.

He becomes governor of Texas and plays games with the huge University funds. He runs on a platform of ending the contract of the corrupt lottery commission, but when in office the lottery commission has as its lobbyist the former head of the legislature who directly was responsible for Bush getting the National Guard opening ahead of 500 on the list. Bush goes to the head of the Lottery and gets her to agree to do him a favor and keep the corrupt company. The lobbyist is paid $16 million for his being able to keep the tax dollars flowing to them. The head of the Lottery who Bush got to do him a favor? You know the name - Harriet Myers, who Bush later appoints to the US Supreme Court. And so on.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Buy Gold.
Buy Silver.
Sleep Tight.
People like you have been saying, yet, again and again, you're proven wrong.
Yeah, precious metals were a haven back in the day, now not so much.

Unless you're a pirate ARRRR...
 

ponyo

Lifer
Feb 14, 2002
19,687
2,794
126
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Buy Gold.
Buy Silver.
Sleep Tight.
People like you have been saying, yet, again and again, you're proven wrong.
Yeah, precious metals were a haven back in the day, now not so much.

Unless you're a pirate ARRRR...
If the govt had not declared martial law and placed our free financial system on a "hold", he would've been right and made a killing. But the govt can and choose to change or modify the rules of the game anytime they wish and thus in act of desperation changed the game. This just confirms what everybody knew. We would've crashed and people like Capitalizt would've made mad money from their then correctly placed bet. However, the govt acting as the House changed the rule of the bet and changed the outcome.
 

Pliablemoose

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
25,195
0
56
Originally posted by: Naustica
Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Buy Gold.
Buy Silver.
Sleep Tight.
People like you have been saying, yet, again and again, you're proven wrong.
Yeah, precious metals were a haven back in the day, now not so much.

Unless you're a pirate ARRRR...
If the govt had not declared martial law and placed our free financial system on a "hold", he would've been right and made a killing. But the govt can and choose to change or modify the rules of the game anytime they wish and thus in act of desperation changed the game. This just confirms what everybody knew. We would've crashed and people like Capitalizt would've made mad money from their then correctly placed bet. However, the govt acting as the House changed the rule of the bet and changed the outcome.
Exactly, as one of the bond traders I like just said, 'It's a legislated bottom."

I'm a little concerned just how far we're going to go here... And having Reid & Pelosi in there doesn't exactly give me any confidence in what they're doing.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY