Discomfort With The Bailout

[Sheiky 0]

No. Its paid paid with revenues from taxes. And floating more treasuries in the future. We also loan money to other nations, unfortunately we don't always 'collect'.Its not like Ben Bernake makes a call to the treasury and says; "fire up presses 1, 2, and 3 we need 200 Billion by tomorrow. Were working overtime tonight guys!"We have the largest Deficit dollars wise we have ever had, but as a % of GDP (which is the more telling number) it is not that bad. Copernicus quoted is some where earlier, I believe it is in the 40% range:http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/OMB-2004-Na...ebt-History.pdf

Ok, so, am I now right in thinking we have a finance system where we borrow money to pay of the interest and principal of money we borrowed in the past?

[copernicus 0]

Ok, so, am I now right in thinking we have a finance system where we borrow money to pay of the interest and principal of money we borrowed in the past?

government finance system yes. What suited up and many others miss is that much of what is spent benefits future generations as well or even more than the current generation (Infrastructure, war), so borrowing and paying a portion of them with future tax revenues is appropriate. The problem is when borrowed money is spent on projects that dont benefit future generations.

[copernicus 0]

btw, if mccain had picked romney for VP this election would be over

[CaneBrain 95]

btw, if mccain had picked romney for VP this election would be over

proof to me that McCain should not be President because he could not put aside his distaste for Romney and make the smart (obvious) choice for his running mate. He is far too impulsive and prone to fits of anger for my taste.....George W Bush's 8 years of "shooting from the hip" was more than enough for me.I was against the Biden pick (because Biden is just too prone to doing stupid things) but at least I understand the thought process (more or less the same thought train that lead the fresh-faced Bush to run with the veteran Cheney).Every time Palin opens her mouth I wonder what McCain was thinking. I mean sure she might work out but she might also collapse the whole deal. Such a gamble of a pick....its like he was playing blackjack and he split tens when he could have just stayed on his 20 (picked Mitt). I like my gambling in casinos not on the road to the White House.

[copernicus 0]

proof to me that McCain should not be President because he could not put aside his distaste for Romney and make the smart (obvious) choice for his running mate. He is far too impulsive and prone to fits of anger for my taste.....George W Bush's 8 years of "shooting from the hip" was more than enough for me.I was against the Biden pick (because Biden is just too prone to doing stupid things) but at least I understand the thought process (more or less the same thought train that lead the fresh-faced Bush to run with the veteran Cheney).Every time Palin opens her mouth I wonder what McCain was thinking. I mean sure she might work out but she might also collapse the whole deal. Such a gamble of a pick....its like he was playing blackjack and he split tens when he could have just stayed on his 20 (picked Mitt). I like my gambling in casinos not on the road to the White House.

it has nothing to do with any of that. Its just the timing of the bailout, which McCain couldnt predict. If the bailoutmhadnt happened now Palin would have been the better (political) pic, because Romney would not have energized the party like Palin did.

[CaneBrain 95]

it has nothing to do with any of that. Its just the timing of the bailout, which McCain couldnt predict. If the bailoutmhadnt happened now Palin would have been the better (political) pic, because Romney would not have energized the party like Palin did.

Romney was a good pick either way. Palin was only a good pick if the energy burst had real staying power (hard to maintain since this campaign just drags and drags.....and hard to maintain because the press just beats everything to death these days). This economic thing has really overshadowed her and now she almost seems to be in a constant state of hiding.Conservative commentators are starting to call her a joke and the Couric interview was a disaster.Not to mention the fact that Palin is only useful as a political pick and I would hope mr. country first would not be playing politics with the vice presidency. (alright that was a bit of a cheap shot)

[El Guapo 8]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080928/financial_meltdown.htmlUp to the House and Congress to vote now. It should make for an interesting week.

[copernicus 0]

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080928/financial_meltdown.htmlUp to the House and Congress to vote now. It should make for an interesting week.

sounds like its still buying more than insuring unfortunately. And if ACORN is still in there I hope its vetoed and **** the markets. Let Congress hang for it. Just sent to my representatives:"These are interesting times for the US and its financial markets as you are well aware. It is difficult for the average citizen to differentiate between the rhetoric of panic and what is really best for us in the long run.One thing is clear however. If a bill is passed that includes an allocation to ACORN many of us will work tirelessly for the defeat of anyone who votes for it. The lowest rated Congress in US history will also be remembered as the most corrupt and having the least respect for the intelligence of the voting public.Please consider these comments in your vote."

[Potomophobia 17]

Can't we just be a cash only society?Anyone ever heard of a Silver Certificate?

[copernicus 0]

text of the bill Ill edit this with thoughts after Ive read it. Edit: this is what theyve been arguing about? It cant be the whole thing. This reads like a summary of the original Paulson bill without as much detail

[Sheiky 0]

Sec. 8. Review.Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

[copernicus 0]

Sec. 8. Review.Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Standard release so Paulson can act without being second guessed on every turn.

[Nimue1995 1]

Note the date is September 20th. I don't think this is the bill that's being debated now. There's someplace on the house website that the entire text of the real bill is listed. I'll see if I can find it. Okay here it is: http://financialservices.house.gov/ http://speaker.govI don't think I can absorb this right now so will get back to you later with my opinion on it (which I'm sure you're all waiting with bated breath so you can pounce )Okay the site seems to be down right now. Probably too many people trying to access it.

[JustDoIt 10]

Note the date is September 20th. I don't think this is the bill that's being debated now. There's someplace on the house website that the entire text of the real bill is listed. I'll see if I can find it. Okay here it is: http://financialservices.house.gov/ http://speaker.govI don't think I can absorb this right now so will get back to you later with my opinion on it (which I'm sure you're all waiting with bated breath so you can pounce )Okay the site seems to be down right now. Probably too many people trying to access it.

Probably won't make a difference in the long run......All the Democrats that blocked reform of Fannie and Freddie over the last 7 years should be voted out! And yes that would apply to any Republicans involved. Totally agree with Clinton that the Democrats blocked him and Republicans trying to clean up the mess.Clinton at 8:14 of following link.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs...-to-reform.html

[hblask 1]

I told you, the inflation needs to somehow not go up with the wage.But as it stands now... minimum wage is not enough to even eat off the dollar menu. How does that somehow seem like the right thing to you?

I have a really high roof, and I was going to work on it. It was about 50 feet tall. So I went and bought a ladder. Unfortunately, I bought it from a liberal economist.It didn't have any rungs until about 20 feet up.

[copernicus 0]

I told you, the inflation needs to somehow not go up with the wage. the law of gravity has to be repealed

FYP

[copernicus 0]

The devil is in the details.The draft bill seems to address the major concerns, including no earmark for community organizers like ACORN, insurance for losses, executive comp, and oversight. However everything is addressed in principle, not specific provisions. If staffers attempt to stuff the bill, it could face a tough road getting the bi-partisan support the Dems want to be able to duck responsibility if it blows up.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Can I ask a question here. I havent' read the whole thread, so forgive me if this has been answered already. If a company A has a bunch of high "risk" investments, where there is huge profit potential, but also a large risk of a huge loss, but the government will bail the company out if their investments all fail.. what incentive is there for similar companies to invest in lower risk, economically sound investments? It seems like any company could and should feel free to take on high risk, potentially economically unsound investments, knowing there is no real consequences for a failed investment model, no risk of ultimate failure. What this bail out seems like to me is that a bunch of politicians trying to scramble to save the asses of people and companies that have donated billions of dollars to their campaigns over the years.

[Loismustdie 0]

Note the date is September 20th. I don't think this is the bill that's being debated now. There's someplace on the house website that the entire text of the real bill is listed. I'll see if I can find it. Okay here it is: http://financialservices.house.gov/ http://speaker.govI don't think I can absorb this right now so will get back to you later with my opinion on it (which I'm sure you're all waiting with bated breath so you can pounce )Okay the site seems to be down right now. Probably too many people trying to access it.

The summary leaves alot open to interpetation, and the 110 page version is to much for right now, but I will spend a few hours in the next few days going over this. I did like on page 8, what it said about tax treatment for certain preffereds- wonder how much FNM and FRE Pelosi really has? I'm not sure of the number, it's alot.

[akoff 0]

Know what I think might actually help. (Based on my simple ideas)Double the minimum wage. (And obviously balance the middle areas somewhat proportionately) It would have to force companies to funnel some money back to the bottom. That's what we really need, money at the bottom so there's actually something to flow back upwards.Only issue would then be inflation. It's always growing faster than it should be. Inflation seems to be based on the top tier, and it should be based on the bottom.

PLease just stop with this line of thought.

[Nimue1995 1]

Can I ask a question here. I havent' read the whole thread, so forgive me if this has been answered already. If a company A has a bunch of high "risk" investments, where there is huge profit potential, but also a large risk of a huge loss, but the government will bail the company out if their investments all fail.. what incentive is there for similar companies to invest in lower risk, economically sound investments? It seems like any company could and should feel free to take on high risk, potentially economically unsound investments, knowing there is no real consequences for a failed investment model, no risk of ultimate failure. What this bail out seems like to me is that a bunch of politicians trying to scramble to save the asses of people and companies that have donated billions of dollars to their campaigns over the years.

Pretty much what I've been trying to ask but not as clearly I guess. As I've said earlier, this bill will have a number of consequences that are totally unintended by the framers.

[copernicus 0]

Can I ask a question here. I havent' read the whole thread, so forgive me if this has been answered already. If a company A has a bunch of high "risk" investments, where there is huge profit potential, but also a large risk of a huge loss, but the government will bail the company out if their investments all fail.. what incentive is there for similar companies to invest in lower risk, economically sound investments? It seems like any company could and should feel free to take on high risk, potentially economically unsound investments, knowing there is no real consequences for a failed investment model, no risk of ultimate failure. What this bail out seems like to me is that a bunch of politicians trying to scramble to save the asses of people and companies that have donated billions of dollars to their campaigns over the years.

Think of it this way. It wasnt the companies making high risk investments that failed. It was the Government (us) forcing them to make high risk investments that failed. When we (the people) didnt do our part by endlessly pushing home prices up, it was up to us (the Government) to bail them out whilte they (the companies executives) took home multi-million dollar bonuses for following the orders of the Government (us).Got it? Or.....they were too big and the economy dug in too deep to let them fail.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

Think of it this way. It wasnt the companies making high risk investments that failed. It was the Government (us) forcing them to make high risk investments that failed. When we (the people) didnt do our part by endlessly pushing home prices up, it was up to us (the Government) to bail them out whilte they (the companies executives) took home multi-million dollar bonuses for following the orders of the Government (us).Got it? Or.....they were too big and the economy dug in too deep to let them fail.

This seems the exact opposite of conservative economic theory to me, the exact opposite of laisse faire. It's all fun and Milton Friedman games till Wall Street drops a trillion, then everyone comes crawling back to Keynes.

[Nimue1995 1]

This seems the exact opposite of conservative economic theory to me, the exact opposite of laisse faire. It's all fun and Milton Friedman games till Wall Street drops a trillion, then everyone comes crawling back to Keynes.

QFT! You're hearing Cope's explaination of how it's not the free market's fault. It's those nasty government guys that held a gun to their heads forcing them to loan to anyone who was breathing. Riiiight! Not a chance. As I said before the anti-redlining legislation had about as much effect on this fiasco as throwing a rock into a stream and saying that's the reason the stream got dammed up. It's bs and they know it. But somehow someway they have to find a way to throw it back on anybody but the free-marketers and deregulation.

[copernicus 0]

. Riiiight! Not a chance. As I said before the anti-redlining legislation had about as much effect on this fiasco as throwing a rock into a stream and saying that's the reason the stream got dammed up. It's bs and they know it. But somehow someway they have to find a way to throw it back on anybody but the free-marketers and deregulation.

Youre wrong again. Just look at the Republican efforts to reign in FNMA/FRE that were blocked by the Dems and you know what youve said here is total BS.