I'm 100% with you, Scuds. But I'm an economic novice, I hope your summary is correct.

I say "Just say no" to the bailout-it's welfare for the rich

It isn't that simple. without the bailout there would be HUUUUGE problems including a possible depression and it would affect the consumers/individuals, etc. in many ways. The government actually has a good chance to get paid back on a lot of the $ that they are using for the bailout. If the banking system,insurance,financial companies fail you would have a worldwide crisis and you would have problems in every aspect of business thus everyone would feel it. Unemployment at historic levels, etc. I don't like government stepping in and taking care of businesses issues any more than the next guy, but the ramifications of not doing something at this point would be devastating. If you would like a good chuckle on the mortgage crisis pm your email and I can send you a nice power point on the mortgage crisis.

Mussolini made the trains run on time....the feds saved PennCentral.





I don't know much about houses,though.

That's what would happen if they aren't forced to sell these houses to the highest bidders. If they knew they had to sell them, they would. They would rather wait for a sweet government bail out. They've been counting on getting bailed out(if they hadn't been, then they would of started selling these homes at bad prices to the highest bidders, and they would have money to loan again.) There is a money freeze, because they refuse to cash in their chips low. Force them to sell these homes to get money from people that have their money. Of course it's in their best interest not to sell them at low prices(and wait for a bail out.) They have a product. Make them sell their product in the open market. People will buy, but they don't want to sell low. Too fkn bad. Don't bail them out. Make them sell these houses.

Even if the taxpayers have to inject this money, it should be given to somebody new to make loans with. How can you give it to people that made bad loans already? Make them sell their homes for the market value. Yea, they have to feel the pain. If the Gov't has to provide money to make new loans with..o.k., but don't buy other people's bad loans. Why is it that the only way to inject money into this is to bail out bad loaners? People seem to often have the creativity of a gnat.

Dannie called you "honey"...didn't she?

Scuds-

You are attempting to simplify something that is infinitely more complex. This isnt about "selling homes back". You are viewing loans with the "george bailey/mr potter" mentality and mortgages arent done like that anymore. They are pooled, packaged and sold as securities...or were.

Loans that are "on the shelf" and being held for investment cant be sold. That is the issue. There arent many buyers or Sellers out there for a number of reasons:

1. Who wants to buy an asset backed security when you arent sure of the rating but more importantly backed by a declining asset?

2. If you sell an asset backed security at a firesale price you have to "mark to market" the other loans in your portfolio. Basically, you are devaluing everything to sell a little bit.

3. No one knows what the next step is going to be for the govt.



Individual mortgage companies ARE buying back fraudulent investments sold to unwitting investors. What do you think happened to countrywide and AHM? The problem i, what are they going to do next? Go after the broker? He is out of business and probably snorted the profit anyway.

You want to know what happened to the money? Well, some of it filtered into other segments of the economy. Beyond that? Read up on deflation.

Is the air n' water around the "mistake by the lake" so bad as to make you act like this constant irritant?

To clarify, the plan isnt to "give" anyone money. The plan is to use up to 700 million dollars to buy distressed assets that are rotting on bank shelves and clogging up the flow of liquidity.

To put it simply: The govt is BUYING ASSET backed securites. Just like they would buy a bomb or a plane or a missille. They are NOT simply giving money to banks.

Now, some of the securities are probably going to be pretty toxic and go bad. If they do, you can sell the asset and recoup some of the 700 billion. Remember, they are not paying full value for the ABS's. So even if the market continues to decline you can still recoup most of your costs.

If the market stabilizes from here on out, the govt can actually make money. A lot of money.

The main issue is going to be determing buy prices. They have already stated that they are going to pay MORE than the firesale price. But how are they going to determine that?

The last point is the main issue.

With all due respect, take the loss. Put new money into the market another way. We have to have money available to loan? Fine, but we don't have to buy their fk ups. Sorry, but they fkd up, and this idea that capitalism doesn't hurt (those who lose) is wrong. They need to lose, and if new money needs to be put in, it doesn't have to be put in to bail them out of their mistakes. Money needs to be available to loan, yes, but not in the way they have proposed to do it. That is welfare for the rich who fkd up. Take the hit. These market funds that are getting hurt are the same ones this a-s-s hole wanted people to "invest" their Social Security money in. When are people gunna realize just how much an a-s-s this guy has been? In July he was giving a speech about how stable the financial system was. O.K.? In F'n JULY. That is a maggot with a suit.

I'm getting a dala woody.




This is great!!

I know what you are saying. But...how do you "put new money into the market"? Where does that money go? How would you propose to do it? And the last question isnt facetious(sp?). I want to know how anyone else would fix this.

Regadless of what any one of us wants to admit, our economy is based on credit pure and simple. It rolls when credit is cheap and easy and it gets really slow (like now) when it tightens up.

Something has to be done to fix the locked up credit markets. Injecting massive amounts of cash hasnt worked. Lowering fed funds rates hasnt worked. What else can the govt do at this point?

And remember, the govt isnt spending 700 billion dollars.

If all this were easy there would not be so many
experts disagreeing on how to fix the problem.
They still dont have a clear picture on exactly where
some of these firms stand.

Shareholders of these financial companies are also
to blame. They ask the CEO's why a competitive investment
bank is making more money. So the competent, reasoning
CEO says our competition is making complex financial instruments
that are very murky and hard to figure out, but the bottom line
is they are building a house of cards, because everyone should
own a home... You tell that to your shareholders when the
competition is making money hand over fist and they fire you.

These guys just hid numbers in complex packages and played
top of the pyramid then got out. And oh yes... everyone should
own a home, even if they cant afford it... remember?

I don't want the people who made these decisions to be given new money. In no way can we give new money to these rats who made bad loans (in order to make quick interest off of people who couldn't afford to get these loans.)If we put new money in, we need to make sure it's for new loans, and those loans need to be well secured, and it needs to be regulated. We did it the way the free market capitalists wanted, and they fkd it up, and all want to be bailed out now. I totally disagree with you about this not being a bail-out. They made loans they shouldn't have made. Now they want help to overcome those mistakes. That's a bail out. I don't think we should do it. If we do it, then don't let these same people in charge of money loaning. Don't give them new money to loan. I wouldn't trust either Bush or Paulson . Paulson was making 40 million a year off this industry, and now you get him to be in charge of a solution? He is gunna want to bail his crooked friends out. Have some sort of program, but don't let any of these crooks draw it up. Yes, these 2 have been lying all year, and now they come clean. F BUSH, F PAULSON(liar scum.) I can't believe he came in front of the country and told us it's so messed up. How do you do that after denying it all year?

isn't part of the bailout supposed to be new regulations? seems that the finished product that congress will pass will be nothing like what bush originally proposed-thankfully! i've seen partial ownership mentioned, as well as exec salaries...quite a bit included, not just throwing money at the problem.

And do you realize what our economy will do IF there isnt some sort of help from the fed/taxpayer? Do you realize what a full blown credit lock up will do?

Do you realize what was happenning just last week before Paulson/bernanke came out with their RTC proposal? Did you see what Libor did? Did you see what the cost of short term commercial paper spiked to? Do you know what happened in the year 1929?

While we are all sitting here debating all of this, the economy sits on the precipice. This is not bu.l.l.sh.t.

The damage of a full blown credit siezure would be catastrophic. It is on our door step.

Paulson stated that he knew that his plan would be altered when he submitted it. He just knew that speed was important so he gave a bear outline.

SCUDS it would appear that you are aligned with the GOP Conservatives on this issue or am I missing your point. Because at the moment it appears that the DEM's are the ones propping up the Bush bail-out.

A lot of the points you have made seem to be more in line with Ron Paul.

What a salient point. The world is upside down. Bush...the socialist. Hank Paulson...HANK PAULSON..is a socialist.

Okay, for a little levity, watch this clip. It got me out of my depressive state earlier:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4479049n

Let's not forget these classic hits

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFag_BXhG6s

I wish I could find the one where he thought FDR was president in 1929 and FDR warned the nation in a TV address.

No wonder the polls think Palin is more qualified that Joe.