US Financial Bail-Out

[Stunt]

I understand the arguments for and against the bailout, I understand the complications associated with getting legislation passed in the house and senate. But what am I missing here?

Who decided on $700billion?
Obviously each loan has some associated risk with it, so did they just look at bailing out every single sub-prime loan? Half of all bad loans? A quarter?
Why not agree on a lower amount if both parties don't want to spend the whole amount?
Is $700billion enough to mend capital markets?
What is the total exposure to sub-prime?

It seems like people are voting blind based on qualitative information and emotions.

 

[compuwiz1]

Anyone who thinks this is only a 700B problem is shitting themselves. This bailout only works for a couple weeks until the next bailout is needed. :shocked:

 

[blackangst1]

It didnt pass so dont worry about it

 

[Pliablemoose]

Hank Paulson pulled the number out of his ass...

 

[Vic]

The actual figure was $250 billion, with provisions for 2 more installments as needed totaling up to a limit of $700b (but Congress would have to approve each of them).

Nor was it a bailout. What would have happened is that the Treasury would have committed to buying up $250b in distressed mortgage securities at reverse auction, so it wasn't just limited to prime or subprime deals. While projections are fuzzy, it is arguable that the govt might have even seen a profit on this down the road.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Vic
The actual figure was $250 billion, with provisions for 2 more installments as needed totaling up to a limit of $700b (but Congress would have to approve each of them).

Nor was it a bailout. What would have happened is that the Treasury would have committed to buying up $250b in distressed mortgage securities at reverse auction, so it wasn't just limited to prime or subprime deals. While projections are fuzzy, it is arguable that the govt might have even seen a profit on this down the road.

I understand that but how was the figure derived? What was it based on?

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic
The actual figure was $250 billion, with provisions for 2 more installments as needed totaling up to a limit of $700b (but Congress would have to approve each of them).

Nor was it a bailout. What would have happened is that the Treasury would have committed to buying up $250b in distressed mortgage securities at reverse auction, so it wasn't just limited to prime or subprime deals. While projections are fuzzy, it is arguable that the govt might have even seen a profit on this down the road.

Nice lie.

The amount was 700 billion if Bush wrote two letters.

 

[First]

Reposted for the reading-impaired:

Without a massive capital infusion and increase in the money supply you'd have crippling contractions in GDP, wages, and investment expectations. We'd likely lock in a small generation of U.S. investors with overly cautious expectations to risking assets in equity investment, much the way we locked in an overly-cautious generation until the 1960's due to the crippling nature of the 1929 crash and Depression. This is what a lot of these loony laissez-faire laymans don't get; the investment-related expectations of the public are just as big a concern as practically anything else, be it recapitalizing firms or getting rid of toxic debt. To claim some oversimplified yeoman nonsensical solution like "moral hazard" or "gov't intrusion = bad" is absurd. This idea that you can't run an economy off of debt is, plain and simply put, something that laymans don't get because they don't understand TVM; time value of money. Bottom line is that if you can borrow dollars now, pay back the principle (plus interest) later, while investing those loaned dollars for years in the meantime, you'll come out ahead if you invest well, and you'll be a vitally important part of economic growth, be it small business owners or middle class American investment.

In any case, there's simply no reasonable way to claim that the solution is let the debt go unpaid or to scrap the New Economy of the last 25 years as Michael Hudson (and a few other isolated economists) would have us believe. You cannot "let" these institutions fail or, even worse, end up doing no bailout whatsoever (gov't-assisted or not) without entering into an inevitable multi-year or even decade-long domestic financial slowdown. And this is to say nothing of how foreign nations would react to our slowdown; our decisions will have a direct impact on global market expectations like you wouldn't believe.

To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. I say shame on horrid "leaders" like Pelosi or Reid, who have injected too much partisan hackery and divisiveness to lead this country out of this troubling situation. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb


To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

You may want to take a look at the roll call one more time. Sorry to let facts get in the way of such a great post.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb


To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

You may want to take a look at the roll call one more time. Sorry to let facts get in the way of such a great post.

Yup, I just updated it (I cut and pasted from a 3 day old post). Pelosi and Reid (mostly Pelosi) have been disgraces.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb


To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

You may want to take a look at the roll call one more time. Sorry to let facts get in the way of such a great post.

You mean where a minority of the Dems and a supermajority of the Pubs in the House voted against the bill?
You're right, what was I thinking? Of course, ALL the blame lies on the Dems for this bills failure to pass. Especially after both Bush and McCain had promised that they could deliver their party, it has to be the Democrats' fault. Sorry, I guess I watched too much of that evil liberal media....

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb


To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

You may want to take a look at the roll call one more time. Sorry to let facts get in the way of such a great post.

You mean where a minority of the Dems and a supermajority of the Pubs in the House voted against the bill?
You're right, what was I thinking? Of course, ALL the blame lies on the Dems for this bills failure to pass. Especially after both Bush and McCain had promised that they could deliver their party, it has to be the Democrats' fault. Sorry, I guess I watched too much of that evil liberal media....

Republicans were more at fault, but Pelosi injected partisan bullshit when she didn't need to, and about 40% of Dems voted nay. They are certainly culpable here.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic
The actual figure was $250 billion, with provisions for 2 more installments as needed totaling up to a limit of $700b (but Congress would have to approve each of them).

Nor was it a bailout. What would have happened is that the Treasury would have committed to buying up $250b in distressed mortgage securities at reverse auction, so it wasn't just limited to prime or subprime deals. While projections are fuzzy, it is arguable that the govt might have even seen a profit on this down the road.

Nice lie.

The amount was 700 billion if Bush wrote two letters.

No, only the 2nd installment of $150b could have been released by the President. The final $300b were under Congressional lock and key no matter what.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb


To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

You may want to take a look at the roll call one more time. Sorry to let facts get in the way of such a great post.

You mean where a minority of the Dems and a supermajority of the Pubs in the House voted against the bill?
You're right, what was I thinking? Of course, ALL the blame lies on the Dems for this bills failure to pass. Especially after both Bush and McCain had promised that they could deliver their party, it has to be the Democrats' fault. Sorry, I guess I watched too much of that evil liberal media....

Republicans were more at fault, but Pelosi injected partisan bullshit when she didn't need to, and about 40% of Dems voted nay. They are certainly culpable here.

Did I say otherwise?

The current Republican talking point is that ONLY the Dems are at fault. You oughta see what they're saying out there. Apparently every single Pub in the House who voted No only did so because of Pelosi's speech.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Cry more.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: Vic
The actual figure was $250 billion, with provisions for 2 more installments as needed totaling up to a limit of $700b (but Congress would have to approve each of them).

Nor was it a bailout. What would have happened is that the Treasury would have committed to buying up $250b in distressed mortgage securities at reverse auction, so it wasn't just limited to prime or subprime deals. While projections are fuzzy, it is arguable that the govt might have even seen a profit on this down the road.

Nice lie.

The amount was 700 billion if Bush wrote two letters.

No, only the 2nd installment of $150b could have been released by the President. The final $300b were under Congressional lock and key no matter what.

Much better lie. When Bush requests the last 250 Billion congress would have 15 days have a joint session and stop it. In other words all bush has to do is wait 15 days and he gets 250 Billion dollars.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Cry more.

Nice contribution layman.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Ocguy31

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb


To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

You may want to take a look at the roll call one more time. Sorry to let facts get in the way of such a great post.

You mean where a minority of the Dems and a supermajority of the Pubs in the House voted against the bill?
You're right, what was I thinking? Of course, ALL the blame lies on the Dems for this bills failure to pass. Especially after both Bush and McCain had promised that they could deliver their party, it has to be the Democrats' fault. Sorry, I guess I watched too much of that evil liberal media....

Republicans were more at fault, but Pelosi injected partisan bullshit when she didn't need to, and about 40% of Dems voted nay. They are certainly culpable here.

Did I say otherwise?

The current Republican talking point is that ONLY the Dems are at fault. You oughta see what they're saying out there. Apparently every single Pub in the House who voted No only did so because of Pelosi's speech.

Wouldn't you throw the country into a depression if somebody hurt your feelings?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Cry more.

:laugh:

 

[jackace]

It's funny how we have all these people in the banking sector saying it's a must have, but then we have tons of economists and other business leaders inside and outside the banking and financial sectors around the country saying it won't fix the problems and is a bad idea. Who do we believe?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I understand the arguments for and against the bailout, I understand the complications associated with getting legislation passed in the house and senate. But what am I missing here?

Who decided on $700billion?
Obviously each loan has some associated risk with it, so did they just look at bailing out every single sub-prime loan? Half of all bad loans? A quarter?
Why not agree on a lower amount if both parties don't want to spend the whole amount?
Is $700billion enough to mend capital markets?
What is the total exposure to sub-prime?

It seems like people are voting blind based on qualitative information and emotions.

Not to pick on you, but anybody claiming they know the *for and against* stuff is blowing smoke up your @ss. So while you may understand what they're saying, a bucket of salt is required because they're speculating.

We'll need a while to dissect this thing, in the meantime some are trying to panic the herd and get a stampede started to get it passed before much scrutiny can be done.

The $700B amount? According to Paulson's own statements IT IS just basically pulled out of his @ss, only he used nicer words. He and Bernanke believe believe the problem is psychological and are "guessing" this is the right number to assuage the "pyschology"

Fern

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Reposted for the reading-impaired:

Without a massive capital infusion and increase in the money supply you'd have crippling contractions in GDP, wages, and investment expectations. We'd likely lock in a small generation of U.S. investors with overly cautious expectations to risking assets in equity investment, much the way we locked in an overly-cautious generation until the 1960's due to the crippling nature of the 1929 crash and Depression. This is what a lot of these loony laissez-faire laymans don't get; the investment-related expectations of the public are just as big a concern as practically anything else, be it recapitalizing firms or getting rid of toxic debt. To claim some oversimplified yeoman nonsensical solution like "moral hazard" or "gov't intrusion = bad" is absurd. This idea that you can't run an economy off of debt is, plain and simply put, something that laymans don't get because they don't understand TVM; time value of money. Bottom line is that if you can borrow dollars now, pay back the principle (plus interest) later, while investing those loaned dollars for years in the meantime, you'll come out ahead if you invest well, and you'll be a vitally important part of economic growth, be it small business owners or middle class American investment.

In any case, there's simply no reasonable way to claim that the solution is let the debt go unpaid or to scrap the New Economy of the last 25 years as Michael Hudson (and a few other isolated economists) would have us believe. You cannot "let" these institutions fail or, even worse, end up doing no bailout whatsoever (gov't-assisted or not) without entering into an inevitable multi-year or even decade-long domestic financial slowdown. And this is to say nothing of how foreign nations would react to our slowdown; our decisions will have a direct impact on global market expectations like you wouldn't believe.

To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. I say shame on horrid "leaders" like Pelosi or Reid, who have injected too much partisan hackery and divisiveness to lead this country out of this troubling situation. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

Not to rain on your parade, but IF your understanding of TVM ("they don't understand TVM; time value of money. Bottom line is that if you can borrow dollars now, pay back the principle (plus interest) later, while investing those loaned dollars for years in the meantime, you'll come out ahead if you invest well...) was so effective, then how do you explain the subprime mess that overly relied on credit? Of course it's a big IF "you invest well", lol. IF those people paid their mortgages back and on time. IF greedy mortgage brokers/banks didn't give a full line of home equity credit to a fcking bum for the front side commission with a loaded ARM. IF. And that is why credit doesn't work, because when it's overextended without regulation it's screwed. Which is why an economy that is not kept in check will FAIL. I agree that we need credit, but in smaller doses. Much smaller doses, even if growth is restricted.

Last, your proclamation of "without question... risk a global fucking depression" is completely fanatical, fear-mongering drivel spewed out by someone who has succumbed to more fear tactics. What are you so scared of, tell us? Why do you talk like a freaking crazed lunatic? I'd love to hear your explanation of how the EU will go into a global depression, this should be great. /grabs popcorn

 

[Squisher]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. I say shame on horrid "leaders" like Pelosi or Reid, who have injected too much partisan hackery and divisiveness to lead this country out of this troubling situation. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

And, why is there special chagrin reserved for Republicans given that 95 Democrats voted against?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

Cry more.

Nice contribution layman.

Given how you "experts" fucked everything up, that's a compliment.

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: Squisher

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

To all these dolts, especially the fantasy-land far right Republican nuts in Congress that dare to put this country in jeopardy by threatening to not pass any bill whatsoever (by filibustering), due to misguided ideological BS about the evil of gov't bailout, I say shame on you. I say shame on horrid "leaders" like Pelosi or Reid, who have injected too much partisan hackery and divisiveness to lead this country out of this troubling situation. Put your country first you rejects, otherwise you without question risk a global fucking depression.

And, why is there special chagrin reserved for Republicans given that 95 Democrats voted against?

lol you have no clue how Congress operates. This close to election, votes are traded and so many Dems agree to pass it if so many Reps agree too. And so on.

The Reps RENEGED! A similar number of Dems voted for it...but just enough Reps reneged and voted against it instead of for it.....and blamed Pelosi for hurting their feelings.

Disgusting really.