"Just 7% Favor Fed Bailout for Financial Firms"

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is no financial crisis and any tiny problem there might actually be is all the fault of Clinton.

One need also only look up any thread in which the notion that Bush is a disaster to find that things are actually all coming up roses.

Bolded for truth

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
BigDH: What do you expect?
--------------------

The answer couldn't possibly be more obvious to any intelligent mind, in my opinion.

1. The Republicans held 3 branches of government

2. The brought us unprecedented disasters

3. Only a Democrat or a Republican will win the coming election.

4. A Democrat with a Democratic congress could be elected and bring change

5. Therefore, all rational, thinking, patriotic minds will be voting for Obama

6. People with more than average self-hate will be voting for more disaster because they feel they deserve it and so do their kids

7. A small segment of idealistic dreamers and loons with help the disaster come by wasting their vote on some third party

#4 is wrong, and thus, so is #5.

#6 is stupid, so is #7.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Game theory 101 (sequential Nash Equilibria). When the government is going to step in and save creditors, creditors will always make risky investments for higher returns. This is a matter of credibility. When the government states it will not save creditors, everyone knows that this statement is made with no credibility. All history points to the opposite. Until the government actually lets the system collapse or unwind, it will have no credibility and creditors will continue to make illogical gambles. Like I said, the system will continue until the one time that it doesn't. Once the government can make statements with credibility, investors can actually invest based on risk.

The harder choice to make ahead isn't really a choice at all. It is inevitable but certainly won't be articulated in an election year. The one tough pill most of us have to swallow and desperately want to avoid is that we are going to have to have a lower standard of living. We will have to make sacrifices (we means the average American). The problem for politicians is that large drops in standard of living often leads to shorter terms for representatives or all out revolution. It's a game of musical chairs for politicians and they are just trying to keep the music playing as long as possible.

False dilemma.

The preferred option would be to fix the immediate situation and regulate so that it cannot recur (or at least with such severity).

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The general public has absolutely no place opining on this matter.

It's far too complex for them, and no I'm not kidding.

I'm sure England said the same thing to the Colonists over 225 years ago too.

Maybe they were right, it's just taken 225 years to catch up

#4 is wrong, and thus, so is #5.

It's debateable, far more debateable than whether change will come via the republicans.

I certainly see this election more clearly than the last. I believe only a fool would want the republicans in power for another four years.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bamacre

Where is the representation?

I've been saying for a long long time we are not represented.

This clearly shows that it is the Corporations that are represented by the Government not the people.

Did you at least write to your Congressman? I know it's a long shot, but I emailed mine.
http://www.house.gov/

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The general public has absolutely no place opining on this matter. It's far too complex for them, and no I'm not kidding.

Totally agreed... On the surface, of course we all want to let them fend for themselves... But at a deeper look, we realize its too late, and if they were to fail now, it truly would cause a great depression similar to the one in the 30's. Knowing that fact would change this poll dramatically

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
BigDH: What do you expect?
--------------------

The answer couldn't possibly be more obvious to any intelligent mind, in my opinion.

1. The Republicans held 3 branches of government

2. The brought us unprecedented disasters

3. Only a Democrat or a Republican will win the coming election.

4. A Democrat with a Democratic congress could be elected and bring change

5. Therefore, all rational, thinking, patriotic minds will be voting for Obama

6. People with more than average self-hate will be voting for more disaster because they feel they deserve it and so do their kids

7. A small segment of idealistic dreamers and loons with help the disaster come by wasting their vote on some third party

#4 is wrong, and thus, so is #5.

#6 is stupid, so is #7.

4 is absolutely correct and therefore so is 5

6 is beyond your pay grade to comprehend and 7 your blind to by bigotry

The case you made for your counter, however, was top notch, full of profound analysis and deep reasoning.

I'd be curious as to your explanation why people fuck themselves in the ass. Because they actually hate themselves makes a lot of sense to me disregarding for a second the fact that I actually know it.

 

[BigDH01]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: BigDH01

Game theory 101 (sequential Nash Equilibria). When the government is going to step in and save creditors, creditors will always make risky investments for higher returns. This is a matter of credibility. When the government states it will not save creditors, everyone knows that this statement is made with no credibility. All history points to the opposite. Until the government actually lets the system collapse or unwind, it will have no credibility and creditors will continue to make illogical gambles. Like I said, the system will continue until the one time that it doesn't. Once the government can make statements with credibility, investors can actually invest based on risk.

The harder choice to make ahead isn't really a choice at all. It is inevitable but certainly won't be articulated in an election year. The one tough pill most of us have to swallow and desperately want to avoid is that we are going to have to have a lower standard of living. We will have to make sacrifices (we means the average American). The problem for politicians is that large drops in standard of living often leads to shorter terms for representatives or all out revolution. It's a game of musical chairs for politicians and they are just trying to keep the music playing as long as possible.

False dilemma.

The preferred option would be to fix the immediate situation and regulate so that it cannot recur (or at least with such severity).

700B is not a "fix," it is a band-aid. One that may or may not actually work.

We can certainly argue whether this dilemma is false. I don't assume that regulations put in place after this mess will

A) address every contingency and close all loop holes

B) remain in place given the corrupt nature of our gov't

Of course, drastic new regulation changes the nature of the game. It likely means less credit, less spending, lower returns, and a lower quality of life for the rest of us.

Regardless, I believe this bill is only the "band-aid" and doesn't address any new regulations or controls. Wall St is clamoring for a bail out right now but how are they going to feel after they get their money? Are they going to ask for the government to restrict their activities? Who's really running the show on Capitol Hill?

 

[JS80]

In other words, 65% are idiots, 7% have a brain.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's fat too complex for the public to divide $700B/300M and realize that they are getting hosed almost $2K per every man, woman and child to bail out poorly ran banks and allow others to profiteer, at the same time while we have people who cannot afford health insurance to protect their health. Talk about priorities.

Please, this problem is far more complex than taking two numbers and dividing.

The public thinks this is a bailout of the banks, yet they don't realize it's a bailout of the country.

You sure would like to think that way, to justify this outright grand theft of taxpayer money.

How do you think this would end if we just let them fail? How would it be any different than 1929? How could we possibly recover in anything less than 10 years?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: BigDH01

700B is not a "fix," it is a band-aid. One that may or may not actually work.

We can certainly argue whether this dilemma is false. I don't assume that regulations put in place after this mess will

A) address every contingency and close all loop holes

B) remain in place given the corrupt nature of our gov't

Of course, drastic new regulation changes the nature of the game. It likely means less credit, less spending, lower returns, and a lower quality of life for the rest of us.

Regardless, I believe this bill is only the "band-aid" and doesn't address any new regulations or controls. Wall St is clamoring for a bail out right now but how are they going to feel after they get their money? Are they going to ask for the government to restrict their activities? Who's really running the show on Capitol Hill?

I prefer to try the band aid before cutting off the entire arm.

Some of those changes are already happening on their own. Goldman and Morgan are to become holding companies which are subject to much more regulation and stricter leverage limitations. Some of the other I banks with probably follow suit.

The end of easy access to cheap cash will humble the hedge funds (the ones that make it) into less aggressive entities.

With the election looming and both candidates exploiting the public's unhappiness about this I think more regulation will be coming down the pipe in the relatively near future.

 

[extra]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
7. A small segment of idealistic dreamers and loons with help the disaster come by wasting their vote on some third party

Ahh, so if you vote on principal and vote for someone you like who happens to be a member of a third party you are a loon? K. . .

I'm 99% sure I will be voting for Obama, but please...get over yourself. The democrats aren't the saviors of mankind and neither is Obama. He is, however, the best realistic hope at this point for getting the country back on track... That does not make you a loon if you don't like him and want to vote for a third party. It doesn't make you an idealistic dreamer, either. It just means you have different ideas and principles.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bamacre

Where is the representation?

I've been saying for a long long time we are not represented.

This clearly shows that it is the Corporations that are represented by the Government not the people.

Did you at least write to your Congressman? I know it's a long shot, but I emailed mine.
http://www.house.gov/

I did more than that. I went and met with them.

Know what I was told?

I was told their job is to make as many new laws as possible since it is their job as "Lawmakers" otherwise they are not doing their job.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's fat too complex for the public to divide $700B/300M and realize that they are getting hosed almost $2K per every man, woman and child to bail out poorly ran banks and allow others to profiteer, at the same time while we have people who cannot afford health insurance to protect their health. Talk about priorities.

Please, this problem is far more complex than taking two numbers and dividing.

The public thinks this is a bailout of the banks, yet they don't realize it's a bailout of the country.

You sure would like to think that way, to justify this outright grand theft of taxpayer money.

How do you think this would end if we just let them fail? How would it be any different than 1929? How could we possibly recover in anything less than 10 years?

Our current course of borrowing and spending is unsustainable. The crash will happen, sooner or later. The only question is if we take our lumps like men, or try to delay the inevitable and make things worse when it finally does happen, because not only will we have more debt, but we will have a corrupt banking system that is living off the government dole.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: retrospooty

Originally posted by: Skoorb
The general public has absolutely no place opining on this matter. It's far too complex for them, and no I'm not kidding.

Totally agreed... On the surface, of course we all want to let them fend for themselves...

But at a deeper look, we realize its too late, and if they were to fail now, it truly would cause a great depression similar to the one in the 30's.

Knowing that fact would change this poll dramatically

Not true.

Real Americans want to fend for themselves.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's fat too complex for the public to divide $700B/300M and realize that they are getting hosed almost $2K per every man, woman and child to bail out poorly ran banks and allow others to profiteer, at the same time while we have people who cannot afford health insurance to protect their health. Talk about priorities.

Please, this problem is far more complex than taking two numbers and dividing.

The public thinks this is a bailout of the banks, yet they don't realize it's a bailout of the country.

You sure would like to think that way, to justify this outright grand theft of taxpayer money.

How do you think this would end if we just let them fail? How would it be any different than 1929? How could we possibly recover in anything less than 10 years?

Our current course of borrowing and spending is unsustainable. The crash will happen, sooner or later. The only question is if we take our lumps like men, or try to delay the inevitable and make things worse when it finally does happen, because not only will we have more debt, but we will have a corrupt banking system that is living off the government dole.

How do you know it will happen sooner or later? We fix the problem in front of us, not the one that could be in front of us, provided we don't do anything to fix it.

 

[sactoking]

I think you're ALL missing the point here. This whole mess is not the fault of the government, and it's not the fault of the companies that are collapsing. If you want to know who's fault it is, just LOOK IN THE MIRROR!

The 'financial crisis' can, at its roots, be traced back to the real estate boom, and before that the dotcom boom. It's time for the American people to take some g-d responsibility and realize that we would not be in this mess if we weren't so g-d STUPID.

How many people accepted "bad deal" loans to buy a home? Maybe they should take a look in the mirror and say "You know, if I had actually read those loan documents and thought about the problem long-term, I really shouldn't have taken that loan". But no, as Tommy Lee Jones says in 'Men in Black', "A person is smart, people are dumb". Everyone got caught up in 'easy money' fever. Houses, internet stocks, who cares what it is if you can buy now, sell tomorrow, and make 10000000000000% profit? I mean, someone will ALWAYS come along and pay more in the future, right?

Blame it on the "Evil Corporations" if you want. Shake your fist at "The idiot from Texas and his Congressional Crony Crew". Just know that they only offered what YOU wanted. Nobody FORCED you to wear your ass as a hat when you signed your name to that bad deal. In the end, it was your short-sightedness, greed, and stupidity, Mr. and Mrs. Average American, that caused this mess.

So, do whatever you want. Bail out the banks or not. It won't matter. You'll be back, whether it's 2 years from now or 10, clamoring for the next 'quick buck' to compensate for your lack of retirement planning or desire for the next great electronic toys, and you'll find yourself back where you are now, hurt and broke and unemployed, looking for someone to blame.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: bamacre

Where is the representation?

I've been saying for a long long time we are not represented.

This clearly shows that it is the Corporations that are represented by the Government not the people.

Did you at least write to your Congressman? I know it's a long shot, but I emailed mine.
http://www.house.gov/

I did more than that. I went and met with them.

Know what I was told?

I was told their job is to make as many new laws as possible since it is their job as "Lawmakers" otherwise they are not doing their job.

Sure dave. Nobody believes you.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's fat too complex for the public to divide $700B/300M and realize that they are getting hosed almost $2K per every man, woman and child to bail out poorly ran banks and allow others to profiteer, at the same time while we have people who cannot afford health insurance to protect their health. Talk about priorities.

Please, this problem is far more complex than taking two numbers and dividing.

The public thinks this is a bailout of the banks, yet they don't realize it's a bailout of the country.

You sure would like to think that way, to justify this outright grand theft of taxpayer money.

How do you think this would end if we just let them fail?

How would it be any different than 1929?

How could we possibly recover in anything less than 10 years?

By kicking the criminals on Wall St and Washington to the curb.

By fending for ourselves getting rid of the so called "Global Economy" bullshit.

Make things at home and for ourselves.

Selling things to ourselves for ourselves.

That means no China, no India, No Walmart.

We survived just fine, in fact thrived for close to 200 years without them and will again once we get rid of them.

1929 was the result of greedy rich boys and this is the result of greedy rich boys.

History just repeating itself.

The only question remains is if the America will remain known as America.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's fat too complex for the public to divide $700B/300M and realize that they are getting hosed almost $2K per every man, woman and child to bail out poorly ran banks and allow others to profiteer, at the same time while we have people who cannot afford health insurance to protect their health. Talk about priorities.

Please, this problem is far more complex than taking two numbers and dividing.

The public thinks this is a bailout of the banks, yet they don't realize it's a bailout of the country.

You sure would like to think that way, to justify this outright grand theft of taxpayer money.

How do you think this would end if we just let them fail? How would it be any different than 1929? How could we possibly recover in anything less than 10 years?

Our current course of borrowing and spending is unsustainable. The crash will happen, sooner or later. The only question is if we take our lumps like men, or try to delay the inevitable and make things worse when it finally does happen, because not only will we have more debt, but we will have a corrupt banking system that is living off the government dole.

How do you know it will happen sooner or later? We fix the problem in front of us, not the one that could be in front of us, provided we don't do anything to fix it.

Because you cannot consume more than you produce indefinitely. We are borrowing money to do so, at some point we will only be able to repay it by printing a lot of money, our foreign lenders will cut us off, and sh!t will really hit the fan. Hello stagflation. The government is now creating implicit guarantees for all kinds of debts that it has no business guaranteeing.

 

[Thump553]

Dave, talk to your older relatives and get back to me. My parents were born in the 1920s and inlaws in the 30's. None of them-nor any of my extensive network of aunts and uncles-ever, ever expressed the slightest desire to go back to those days.

 

[ITJunkie]

Originally posted by: CPA
Count me in as one of the 65%.

NM....

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's fat too complex for the public to divide $700B/300M and realize that they are getting hosed almost $2K per every man, woman and child to bail out poorly ran banks and allow others to profiteer, at the same time while we have people who cannot afford health insurance to protect their health. Talk about priorities.

Please, this problem is far more complex than taking two numbers and dividing.

The public thinks this is a bailout of the banks, yet they don't realize it's a bailout of the country.

You sure would like to think that way, to justify this outright grand theft of taxpayer money.

How do you think this would end if we just let them fail?

How would it be any different than 1929?

How could we possibly recover in anything less than 10 years?

By kicking the criminals on Wall St and Washington to the curb.

By fending for ourselves getting rid of the so called "Global Economy" bullshit.

Make things at home and for ourselves.

Selling things to ourselves for ourselves.

That means no China, no India, No Walmart.

We survived just fine, in fact thrived for close to 200 years without them and will again once we get rid of them.

1929 was the result of greedy rich boys and this is the result of greedy rich boys.

History just repeating itself.

The only question remains is if the America will remain known as America.

1929 wasn't a result of "greedy rich boys", when everybody down to shoeshine boys were trading stocks on margin. Now they just traded houses on margin.

All I see is more talk from a hugely ignorant person.

 

[yllus]

From what I've read and heard, a bailout seems necessary considering the situation. It sucks, but it's better than everything going kaboom.

There are, however, a bunch of people who I assume know what they're talking about who are taking issue with some items from the proposal:

Paul Krugman:

But the more I think about this, the more skeptical I get about the extent to which it?s a solution. Problems:

(a) Although the problem starts with mortgage-backed securities, the range of assets whose prices are being driven down by deleveraging is much broader than MBS. So this only cuts off, at most, part of the vicious circle.

(b) Anyway, the vicious circle aspect is only part of the larger problem, and arguably not the most important part. Even without panic asset selling, the financial system would be seriously undercapitalized, causing a credit crunch ? and this plan does nothing to address that.

Or I should say, the plan does nothing to address the lack of capital unless the Treasury overpays for assets. And if that?s the real plan, Congress has every right to balk.

So what should be done? Well, let?s think about how, until Paulson hit the panic button, the private sector was supposed to work this out: financial firms were supposed to recapitalize, bringing in outside investors to bulk up their capital base. That is, the private sector was supposed to cut off the problem at stage 2.

It now appears that isn?t happening, and public intervention is needed. But in that case, shouldn?t the public intervention also be at stage 2 ? that is, shouldn?t it take the form of public injections of capital, in return for a stake in the upside?

Robert Kuttner:

The plan is outrageous on several levels. It demands nothing from these firms in return. It holds the Treasury Secretary accountable to no one. And it extends the most generous terms to Wall Street while offering nothing to Main Street.

The bailout bill should be explicitly tied to a commitment to re-regulate all types of financial institutions. The bill's authority should expire after six months, so that when the next Congress re-authorizes any bailout authority it would be combined with tough comprehensive regulation.

Any private company that sells assets to the Treasury should be subjected to stringent limits on executive windfalls.

The government should get an equity position in the firms it helps, proportional to the help that it gives.

Treasury should be authorized and directed to take controlling interest in some firms, and take over their management, if of course that provides the greatest potential savings to taxpayers. For example, when an FDIC-insured bank goes broke, the FDIC either merges it into a healthy bank, or takes it over and runs it for a time while it pays off depositors, to make sure that it is run properly. It does not just bail out the incumbent management that created, and profited from, the mess.

There should be a recapture provision, so that if firms end up profiting from this bailout, the government gets its money back.

Part of the $700 billion should be for mortgage refinancing, and authority for cities and towns to acquire foreclosed properties and put buyers and renters back in them.

The package should include at least $200 billion of new economic stimulus, in the form of aid to states, cities, and towns, for infrastructure rebuilding, more generous unemployment and retraining benefits, and green investment.

Yves Smith:

Losses on the paper acquired are guaranteed. This is not a bug but a feature. The whole point of this exercise is an equity infusion to banks. The failure to be honest about it upfront will lead to a taxpayer backlash (or will lead to the production of phony financial statements for the rescue entity, which will lead to revolt by our friendly foreign funding sources).

Taxpayers have no upside participation.

There is no regulatory reform as part of the package. This would seem to be a minimum requirement for a donation of this magnitude.

There is no admission that deleveraging is inevitable. This plan seems to be a desperate effort to keep bad debt from being written down. Yet the sorry fact is that a lot of these assets simply will not be repaid.

There appears to be no intention to do triage. The financial services industry, on the back of an explosive growth in debt, has reached an unsustainable size. The industry will have to shrink. Yet the Administration does not address this issue; indeed, it appears it intends to forestall the inevitable. Regulators need to decide who will make it, who won't, and figure out what to do with damaged institutions.

Instead, the reaction is ad hoc. The stunner was the contemplation of a possible merger between Morgan Stanley and Wachovia. As far as I can tell, the only thing the two firms had in common was coming into crisis on roughly the same timetable. For all I know, their IT systems are not compatible (many an otherwise promising bank merger has been scuttled over IT integration issues).

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
BigDH: What do you expect?
--------------------

The answer couldn't possibly be more obvious to any intelligent mind, in my opinion.

1. The Republicans held 3 branches of government

2. The brought us unprecedented disasters

3. Only a Democrat or a Republican will win the coming election.

4. A Democrat with a Democratic congress could be elected and bring change

5. Therefore, all rational, thinking, patriotic minds will be voting for Obama

6. People with more than average self-hate will be voting for more disaster because they feel they deserve it and so do their kids

7. A small segment of idealistic dreamers and loons with help the disaster come by wasting their vote on some third party

#4 is wrong, and thus, so is #5.

#6 is stupid, so is #7.

4 is absolutely correct and therefore so is 5

6 is beyond your pay grade to comprehend and 7 your blind to by bigotry

4 is absolutely incorrect for reasons "beyond your pay grade to comprehend."

The case you made for your counter, however, was top notch, full of profound analysis and deep reasoning.

I've pleaded my case to you plenty of times. Why bother to continue? All you do is reply back with nonsensical analogies involving turds and toilets.

I'd be curious as to your explanation why people fuck themselves in the ass. Because they actually hate themselves makes a lot of sense to me disregarding for a second the fact that I actually know it.

I'm sure you know it, and well. Because you Obama and McCain voters are living it.