|
Ok so the bailout was rejected, or whatever (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I am disappointed that several members of both parties chose to vote no. THey simply do not get it. But I cannot believe that after last week's promise to get something done, she would come out with this kind of partisanship. There is just no place for this right now. I would certainly be offended by this grandstanding, but not enough so to miss the big picture. She shouldn't have done this, and congressional members should not have voted no. |
That pretty much sums it up. It's just not the kind of speech you make when you're looking for a consensus. And it's also just not something you vote against if your country is in a situation like this. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by josh4
So the republican leadership isn't to blame for so few of them backing it? There were even less republicans willing to vote on the bill speech or not. And its your boy McCain that came sailing in to save the day only to derail what progress had been made at the time and not contribute anything. |
maybe i haven't been clear. House Republicans thought it was a crap bill to begin with, and it is really. it can be improved and some Dems know this as well. didn't take much out of Pelosi's mouth to tip what was a crap bill. if it was so great why the hell can't she rally 90 House Dems to go along? because its crap.
as far as McCain is concerned, i would think you wouldn't be shocked to find out that McCain doesn't have a whole lot of pull among the conservative wing of his party. he's managed to pull some but, it's McCain ffs.
at least the man is engaged in the process. where the f**k is the appointed leader of the entire Democrat party? |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
finally, some common sense on this whole bailout business..
| quote: |
Commentary: Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer
CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.
This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.
The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.
Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.
This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.
Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.
The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.
The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.
Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.
In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.
Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.
Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.
Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.
The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.
If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.
The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.
Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.
So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.
The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09...lout/index.html |
|
|
|
| verndogs |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
I am disappointed that several members of both parties chose to vote no. They are simply chicken because they're up for re-election and are afraid that voting for this will get them out of office |
I believe that is more accurate |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| That's a shame. It was a reasonably good plan. At least for Congress. |
|
|
| josh4 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
maybe i haven't been clear. House Republicans thought it was a crap bill to begin with, and it is really. it can be improved and some Dems know this as well. didn't take much out of Pelosi's mouth to tip what was a crap bill. if it was so great why the hell can't she rally 90 House Dems to go along? because its crap.
as far as McCain is concerned, i would think you wouldn't be shocked to find out that McCain doesn't have a whole lot of pull among the conservative wing of his party. he's managed to pull some but, it's McCain ffs.
at least the man is engaged in the process. where the f**k is the appointed leader of the entire Democrat party? |
I agree with your assessments but I don't believe Pelosi can be singled out as a scape goat for the failure. The entire process from start to finish was a farce. It was never guaranteed to work anyways. So Republicans will get less intervention, less regulation, they will have their recession, since thats what they seem to want. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
which goes to show how petty, and unfit congressional members are to be running a country. personal squabbles over the health of a nation. makes sense to me. :rolleyes: |
I watched Boehner say it at the press conference while I was taking lunch and this was EXACTLY my thought.
Q, in true partisan hack fashion, applauds this effort that further destroys our country.
IMO, we are very ed. I'm torn about what to do with my investments, because I know we're going a lot lower very quickly, but when this looked good to go, I averaged on some long-term investments, so I can't cash out now and deduct my losses off the taxes. It's a matter of trying to predict how low we're going vs. how much I'm down now x write-off value, so I'm probably going to suck it up and puke rather than sell for firesale prices. Fortunately, none of them look to be going bankrupt anytime soon. |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
BTW, Pelosi was out of line. That doesn't make the childish reaction to it any better. The House GOP ed us all so that they could say that Nancy didn't get her way. Talk about tearing off your nose to spit your face.
ing morons |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
f**k you she was right. 40% of her own caucus couldn't get behind her on this. how can she not, as leader, get 40% or her own caucus to vote yes? technically she didn't need a single Republican to pass this.
three days it took to negotiate all the other crap she christmas treed this bill with out of it and now we're back to square on. worst Congress ever |
Because the Democrats should have narrowly passed this bill that wasn't supported by an uneducated public (and from listening to last week's hearings, an uneducated Congress)? They should have taken the full brunt of the public backlash for a vote that will help them, but not noticeably in 30 days?
You and your ignorant House GOP and the constituents that they represent can really suck my dick. But congrats, you sure showed Nancy and her libtard supporters. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
Q, in true partisan hack fashion, applauds this effort that further destroys our country |
so you support this bill? interesting
in typical ill-informed and politically naive fashion Groundhog Boy can't come up with a simple explaination as to why the worst Speaker of the House in the history of the Republic can't corral a dozen of her own hand-picked seats to pass this "crap sandwich" of a bill. amazing.
i mean forget that literaly thousands, maybe millions, of concerned citizens across this country leaned on their elected officials Democrat and Republican pleading with them not to pass this bill. no. you gotta take a page from Pelosi to make some petty partisaned comment. bravo. 2 points for originality.
this fight is not over yet. the sky hasn't fallen quite yet. when the next comprimise bill comes along are you going blindly follow Madame Speaker again? or will you bring more of the same after the fact again? i'll be waiting |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by noikeee
Portuguese TV just said the stock market at São Paulo, Brazil, was losing 10% and they had to close it temporarily.
Holy . :wtf: |
That surprised me as well (link in Portuguese). The weird thing is: As far as I know, our economy is doing fine.
:conf: |
|
|
|
|
