House rejects 700B bailout plan

interesting...I also did not see this coming. I find it funny more democrats voted for it than republicans
 
Kamikazie said:
Oh shit. Basically the US is fecked in the ass.
Click to expand...

Better to get ****ed now for a few years than ****ed forever like the bill passing would of resulted in. Personally I'm impressed the Republicans didn't vote it through, the whole think stank to high heaven. This allows the market to re evaluate itself naturally.
 
Kadayi said:
Better to get ****ed now for a few years than ****ed forever like the bill passing would of resulted in. Personally I'm impressed the Republicans didn't vote it through, the whole think stank to high heaven.
Click to expand...

I didn't look at it that way. Basically they were looking for a short term answer rather than looking at the bigger picture of what $700 BILLION of debt would do to our economy down the road.
 
Kamikazie said:
I didn't look at it that way. Basically they were looking for a short term answer rather than looking at the bigger picture of what $700 BILLION of debt would do to our economy down the road.
Click to expand...

What's 700 billion on top of the 10 trillion debt we have now? it's a drop in the bucket.
 
That's like saying "i owe $100,000 to my credit card company, what's another $50,000 going to do?" If they start building themselves out of debt now, we might be out of the red within the next decade... Ok, that was to optimistic. Next 20?
 
man what assholes! they spend 500 billion on vapourising iraq and they wont even help rich americans save their companies! george bush doesnt care about rich people ..he only has monies for brown people
 
Not entirely surprising. Michael Moore (whose movies I usually hate for their bias) had this to say:

No matter what they say, no matter how many scare words they use, they are up to their old tricks of creating fear and confusion in order to make and keep themselves and the upper one percent filthy rich.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The bailout is total BS and how it got this far is beyond me, but so is everything else with this administration (the war, the debt, etc).
 
The bailout is actually rather necessary, I'm afraid. But along with it should come legislation to limit these companies from quite literally single handedly raping our economy.
 
Kadayi said:
Care to elaborate why it's so necessary?
Click to expand...

It boils down to companies (not people) being unable to get loans. The vast majority (90+%) of companies in my experience use lines of credit as a way to leverage their business to grow and improve. If you were to suddenly prevent these companies from obtaining lines of credit, one of two things will happen:

1) The company will cease to grow
2) The company will fail

Number 1 sucks, but Number 2 is what is apparently happening in our current economy (AIG, WaMu, etc). Thus, if a company fails, it means that people working for that company will loose their job. Luckily, it is not bad because other companies can buy those failed companies, but after a while, if enough companies fail, there will not be enough healthy companies to absorb those failed companies. Which is starting to happen. Can you name any other major financial institutions that have not absorbed one or more financial institutions in the past few months?

So if Congress passes this bailout, the thinking is it will unfreeze the credit markets and allow companies to at least survive this recession which means fewer jobs lost.

I'm personally against the bailout though. We need some fundamental corrections to the economy based upon what has unfolded over the past decade. Those changes won't happen if a bailout happens because the pain of what is happening would be spread over 10+ years. Additionally, there is no guarantee this will work. I believe that the companies will use the bailout money to shield them from market risk that is existing in Europe and Asia.

PS - Democrats = Socialistic Economy. Republicans = Free Market Economy. That should explain why so few republicans backed the bailout. It has nothing to do with President Bush, it has everything to do with party beliefs.
 
Enjoy your economical AIDS America.

*grabs popcorn and enjoys the show*
 
Kadayi said:
Better to get ****ed now for a few years than ****ed forever like the bill passing would of resulted in. Personally I'm impressed the Republicans didn't vote it through, the whole think stank to high heaven. This allows the market to re evaluate itself naturally.
Click to expand...

Adam Smith Bullshit.

We saw what the market "naturally" "corrected" to in 1929. The same is possible here.
 
blahblahblah said:
It boils down to companies (not people) being unable to get loans. The vast majority (90+%) of companies in my experience use lines of credit as a way to leverage their business to grow and improve. If you were to suddenly prevent these companies from obtaining lines of credit, one of two things will happen:

1) The company will cease to grow
2) The company will fail

Number 1 sucks, but Number 2 is what is apparently happening in our current economy (AIG, WaMu, etc). Thus, if a company fails, it means that people working for that company will loose their job. Luckily, it is not bad because other companies can buy those failed companies, but after a while, if enough companies fail, there will not be enough healthy companies to absorb those failed companies. Which is starting to happen. Can you name any other major financial institutions that have not absorbed one or more financial institutions in the past few months?

So if Congress passes this bailout, the thinking is it will unfreeze the credit markets and allow companies to at least survive this recession which means fewer jobs lost.

I'm personally against the bailout though. We need some fundamental corrections to the economy based upon what has unfolded over the past decade. Those changes won't happen if a bailout happens because the pain of what is happening would be spread over 10+ years. Additionally, there is no guarantee this will work. I believe that the companies will use the bailout money to shield them from market risk that is existing in Europe and Asia.

PS - Democrats = Socialistic Economy. Republicans = Free Market Economy. That should explain why so few republicans backed the bailout. It has nothing to do with President Bush, it has everything to do with party beliefs.
Click to expand...

you know what's funny...at least you've elaborated your position.


not unlike this guy here

Kadayi said:
Better to get ****ed now for a few years than ****ed forever like the bill passing would of resulted in. Personally I'm impressed the Republicans didn't vote it through, the whole think stank to high heaven. This allows the market to re evaluate itself naturally.
Click to expand...





disclaimer: i don't believe that the bailout is necessary, but hey...you never know
 
Largest drop in the DOW today.... EVER.

I don't know how I feel about this 700 billion dollar bailout bill, as I don't like the idea of bailing out CEO's and other executive types and basically rewarding them for this shit storm, but I thought the bill was reworked to not allow this and to help protect taxpayers and the people...

The response of republicans, "We didn't do it because of Nanci Pelosi trying to make us look bad."

Great... so you're going to let her words get to you and vote opposite of what you probably would have initially voted for? And you're complaining about HER politics!?
 
I would like to see some more detailed arguments from both sides - the bailout is necessary, the bailout is stupid.

But what I do know is that firms which have spent the last decade using financial instruments and tax havens to dodge their debts, all the while castigating any suggestion of government intervention or regulation as 'market distortion' are now demanding - and getting - huge bailouts which will be paid for by the public, and not those parts of it who seem to have incurred these current problems.
 
Sulkdodds said:
I would like to see some more detailed arguments from both sides - the bailout is necessary, the bailout is stupid.

But what I do know is that firms which have spent the last decade using financial instruments and tax havens to dodge their debts, all the while castigating any suggestion of government intervention or regulation as 'market distortion' are now demanding - and getting - huge bailouts which will be paid for by the public, and not those parts of it who seem to have incurred these current problems.
Click to expand...


There's quite an informative video here that details some of the issues from an economist, as to why the bailout would of been bad. It all comes down to trust.:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsC2k9opOP0
 
LOL@Republican phobia of lifting a finger to interfere with the market.

And sniping at Pelosi, like Raz mentioned, wow, that was pathetic. Horrifying, when you consider the mentality behind it. We're talking about a world-changing decision over whether or not the state should step in and intervene in a failing market, and these people are basically saying, to quote Barney Frank, that "because somebody hurt their feelings, they decided to punish the country." WTF is this? Even a primary school kid would recognise that sort of behaviour as childish.

That said, like Sulkd00ds I would like to see some more detailed arguments for either side. In my case that's because, like McCain, the economy is not my strong suit and I'm finding it hard to be anything but ambivalent. In principle, the bailout seems an awful idea because essentially it's rewarding bad business practice with the promise of infinite government backing. The problem, however, is that at this point America has already come too far down a road of allowing its financial institutions to operate with recklessness and cynicism, so that if the state now neglects to get its hands dirty out of 'principle' - hoping that the markets will 'self-correct naturally' - it's too little too late by far. The consequence won't just be a few fatcats getting their just desserts, but millions of ordinary people feeling the burn as market confidence bottoms out completely.

Surely the priority now is not to maintain some kind of consistency of principle, but rather damage limitation?

...Is any part of that glaringly stupid? :angel:
 
Laivasse said:
And sniping at Pelosi, like Raz mentioned, wow, that was pathetic. Horrifying, when you consider the mentality behind it. We're talking about a world-changing decision over whether or not the state should step in and intervene in a failing market, and these people are basically saying, to quote Barney Frank, that "because somebody hurt their feelings, they decided to punish the country." WTF is this? Even a primary school kid would recognise that sort of behaviour as childish.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

That said, like Sulkd00ds I would like to see some more detailed arguments for either side. In my case that's because, like McCain, the economy is not my strong suit and I'm finding it hard to be anything but ambivalent. In principle, the bailout seems an awful idea because essentially it's rewarding bad business practice with the promise of infinite government backing. The problem, however, is that at this point America has already come too far down a road of allowing its financial institutions to operate with recklessness and cynicism, so that if the state now neglects to keep its hands clean out of 'principle' - hoping that the markets will 'self-correct naturally' - it's too little too late by far. The consequence won't just be a few fatcats getting their just desserts, but millions of ordinary people feeling the burn as market confidence bottoms out completely.
Click to expand...

Also agreed.

The economy is not my strong suit - hell, i actively avoid learning about it, at least in an official context - but self-correction doesn't ring true to me, and I think it'll be the ordinary people who will suffer.
 
Pretty much with Laivasse on this. I'm not an economist and I won't pretend to be one. But on the surface of the whole situation I was leaning towards being pro-bailout. God knows I don't want to be "rewarding" bad business practice driven by greed, especially if the life jacket is coming straight from taxpayers' wallets to fix their horrible ****ups. Doesn't even need to be said that adding further to our massive debt is hardly appealing.

But at the same time, part of me sees this as a practical necessity if the alternative is having Wall Street's financial woes hitting the countless lives of ordinary citizens. It has been termed an emergency bail-out, and that to me entails a suspension of current guiding principles for the sake of damage control. While I'm skeptical of the long-term follow-through in having these loans paid back or utilized with effectiveness and honesty, I'm still left feeling that our best bet is trying to cap this episode off now, with comprehensive oversight, restructuring, and policy adjustment coming later.

Bottom line, though: It all sucks.
 
Jintor said:
The economy is not my strong suit - hell, i actively avoid learning about it, at least in an official context - but self-correction doesn't ring true to me, and I think it'll be the ordinary people who will suffer.
Click to expand...

Certainly people are going to suffer, but self correction will bring the markets down to a natural equilibrium in terms of genuine finance rather than purported. The bailout would of just been a means to prop up a false and failing economy for another year or two at best. It wouldn't really guarantee long term stability.
 
Laivasse said:
LOL@Republican phobia of lifting a finger to interfere with the market.

And sniping at Pelosi, like Raz mentioned, wow, that was pathetic. Horrifying, when you consider the mentality behind it. We're talking about a world-changing decision over whether or not the state should step in and intervene in a failing market, and these people are basically saying, to quote Barney Frank, that "because somebody hurt their feelings, they decided to punish the country." WTF is this? Even a primary school kid would recognise that sort of behaviour as childish.

That said, like Sulkd00ds I would like to see some more detailed arguments for either side. In my case that's because, like McCain, the economy is not my strong suit and I'm finding it hard to be anything but ambivalent. In principle, the bailout seems an awful idea because essentially it's rewarding bad business practice with the promise of infinite government backing. The problem, however, is that at this point America has already come too far down a road of allowing its financial institutions to operate with recklessness and cynicism, so that if the state now neglects to keep its hands clean out of 'principle' - hoping that the markets will 'self-correct naturally' - it's too little too late by far. The consequence won't just be a few fatcats getting their just desserts, but millions of ordinary people feeling the burn as market confidence bottoms out completely.

Surely the priority now is not to maintain some kind of consistency of principle, but rather damage limitation?

...Is any part of that glaringly stupid? :angel:
Click to expand...

A few fatcats? In my opinion a large portion of the US economy had this coming. Really who do you think should be at fault in this situation:

1) Person buying a house that knew they couldn't afford that home. This person literally went from paying rent of 900 USD to 2,800 USD a month before utilities and other home owners expenses.
2) The real estate agent so desperate to close a deal, she was willing to pay the first month of mortgage payments for people unable to afford the first month of mortgage payment. This real estate agent gross over 190,000 a year in real estate commissions.
3) The loan officer who rubber stamped or lied on applications to have loans sold when those loans had no business being approved.
4) The mortgage company executive willing to write loans and then bundle those loans as a safe investment.
5) Investors betting heavily in real estate even though historically real estate has not performed substantially better than the stock market.
6) The people who realize that they are going to have their home foreclosed on, so they either A) trash the house or B) stop paying the mortgage so they have some savings. Either option they have little impact on their lives other than a few years of bad credit which doesn't matter because people with good credit are unable to obtain loans right now.

I personally know people involved in 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. I hate to say this as some of these people are friends of mine, but they all deserve this coming to them. A person with any common sense could have told them this was going to happen, but they decided to let this happen.

Really the 700+ USD bailout will do nothing but allow this type of behavior to continue. And it unfairly penalizes people like me who responsible. I am still living in an apartment because I knew that I could've purchased a home, but knew I wouldn't have been able to realistically afford the payments every month.
 
Geogaddi said:
World markets are heavily tied to American markets you dumbshit.
Click to expand...

I was going to say, American economy fails, European economy fails, no-one buys Russia's resources, Russian economy fails, Chinese economy fails, thats what globalization is all about.


Thanks for saving me the effort. :D
 
blahblahblah said:
A few fatcats? In my opinion a large portion of the US economy had this coming. Really who do you think should be at fault in this situation:

1) Person buying a house that knew they couldn't afford that home. This person literally went from paying rent of 900 USD to 2,800 USD a month before utilities and other home owners expenses.
2) The real estate agent so desperate to close a deal, she was willing to pay the first month of mortgage payments for people unable to afford the first month of mortgage payment. This real estate agent gross over 190,000 a year in real estate commissions.
3) The loan officer who rubber stamped or lied on applications to have loans sold when those loans had no business being approved.
4) The mortgage company executive willing to write loans and then bundle those loans as a safe investment.
5) Investors betting heavily in real estate even though historically real estate has not performed substantially better than the stock market.
6) The people who realize that they are going to have their home foreclosed on, so they either A) trash the house or B) stop paying the mortgage so they have some savings. Either option they have little impact on their lives other than a few years of bad credit which doesn't matter because people with good credit are unable to obtain loans right now.

I personally know people involved in 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6. I hate to say this as some of these people are friends of mine, but they all deserve this coming to them. A person with any common sense could have told them this was going to happen, but they decided to let this happen.

Really the 700+ USD bailout will do nothing but allow this type of behavior to continue. And it unfairly penalizes people like me who responsible. I am still living in an apartment because I knew that I could've purchased a home, but knew I wouldn't have been able to realistically afford the payments every month.
Click to expand...
But won't a potential crash penalise you too, in that it penalises eveyone? Isn't it better to shore up confidence in the market in order to buy time so that those institutions in peril can trade their bad assets for good ones (essentially bringing a bit of sanity back to the system)?

While I agree with you that everyone in those situations outlined has something bad coming to them, there is a different weight of responsibility on each of them, not least because people of types 1) and 6) far outnumber the others.

Although I think it should and can be discouraged, the people on the consumer end of the wedge are always going to be trying to live beyond their means, angling for ridiculous deals that they can't afford - you can never fully eliminate this kind of behaviour. That's why credit checks and so forth exist, so that there is a means of distinguishing those people from others from whom there is a genuine chance of seeing some capital flow. Lenders and private enterprise can't just say 'we gave them what they wanted! we're ALL to blame in the end...'

Someone who borrows from a loanshark can be criticised for being stupid, for instance, but it's the shark that should be criticised on deeper moral grounds since they are the one in a position of power in that relationship. Terrible analogy I know, but once I started typing it I couldn't be bothered to think of a better one.
 
From what I've read the repeal of the glass-steagall act in 1999, is partly responsible for this economic crisis.
 
Laivasse said:
But won't a potential crash penalise you too, in that it penalises eveyone? Isn't it better to shore up confidence in the market in order to buy time so that those institutions in peril can trade their bad assets for good ones (essentially bringing a bit of sanity back to the system)?

While I agree with you that everyone in those situations outlined has something bad coming to them, there is a different weight of responsibility on each of them, not least because people of types 1) and 6) far outnumber the others.

Although I think it should and can be discouraged, the people on the consumer end of the wedge are always going to be trying to live beyond their means, angling for ridiculous deals that they can't afford - you can never fully eliminate this kind of behaviour. That's why credit checks and so forth exist, so that there is a means of distinguishing those people from others from whom there is a genuine chance of seeing some capital flow. Lenders and private enterprise can't just say 'we gave them what they wanted! we're ALL to blame in the end...'

Someone who borrows from a loanshark can be criticised for being stupid, for instance, but it's the shark that should be criticised on deeper moral grounds since they are the one in a position of power in that relationship. Terrible analogy I know, but once I started typing it I couldn't be bothered to think of a better one.
Click to expand...

The saying "Cut off your nose to spite your face" comes to mine, though it isn't entirely explain my feelings. Why should I give other people a tremendous second break if I don't get one? If this passes, do I get a jail out of free card to commit corporate fraud or some other white collar crime because I did not partake in this madness?

Having the bailout not happen will penalize me in some ways. But my penalty will be far less to those who have lost their home and their job. Which will lead to the drastic reform that will prevent this from happening again. Which benefits me because I am now playing on the same field as everyone else.

Responsibility falls on those that knew that what they were doing was wrong. To say that the corporate executive has more blame than the family trying to live in a house four times what they can afford is wrong. Both are idiots, both need to have punishment. Why should the family be able to live in their house with a bailout? They should go back to the place they were previously living at and save money so they can afford to buy a house. You know, like a responsible person.

delusional said:
From what I've read the repeal of the glass-steagall act in 1999, is partly responsible for this economic crisis.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily say that just yet. In fact, the repeal of portions of that act is what is preventing this from being a true economic disaster in proportions we haven't seen since the great depression. However, give it 10-20 years for people to forget why that rule existed and why bank holding companies can own investment companies, we will conveniently create a good chance for a depression.
 
blahblahblah said:
1) Person buying a house that knew they couldn't afford that home. This person literally went from paying rent of 900 USD to 2,800 USD a month before utilities and other home owners expenses.
2) The real estate agent so desperate to close a deal, she was willing to pay the first month of mortgage payments for people unable to afford the first month of mortgage payment. This real estate agent gross over 190,000 a year in real estate commissions.
3) The loan officer who rubber stamped or lied on applications to have loans sold when those loans had no business being approved.
4) The mortgage company executive willing to write loans and then bundle those loans as a safe investment.
5) Investors betting heavily in real estate even though historically real estate has not performed substantially better than the stock market.
6) The people who realize that they are going to have their home foreclosed on, so they either A) trash the house or B) stop paying the mortgage so they have some savings. Either option they have little impact on their lives other than a few years of bad credit which doesn't matter because people with good credit are unable to obtain loans right now.
Click to expand...
Ok, in theory credit is stupid. We shouldn't have a society that allows people to live far beyond their means.

But in reality, with good regulation it can work.

What regulation was/is there in America? No job? Bad debts? Criminal record? WE DON'T CARE!! TAKE OUT A LOAN WITH US TODAY!
 
But won't a potential crash penalise you too, in that it penalises eveyone? Isn't it better to shore up confidence in the market in order to buy time so that those institutions in peril can trade their bad assets for good ones (essentially bringing a bit of sanity back to the system)?
Click to expand...
When you're flying an airplane, and the airplane stalls (the angle of attack is such that the wing ceases to provide lift), you have two options:
1. Fight it, trying to keep the plane's nose up as long as possible
2. Roll with it, let it stall and use the increased airspeed from your quick descent to recover.

If you fight it, your plane will continue to stall repeatedly, and when you finally cannot fight it any longer, your plane will drop like a piece of lead. Depending on the aircraft and altitude, this can be fatal. Where as the 2nd option almost always leads to full recovery.

Now where am I going with this? For too long we've been trying to fight to keep our economy from stalling out. Propping it up with mergers and government aid and flooding the market with excess cash. Finally, we allowed it to stall. The government decided to stop fighting it and let the market take its course. It's a really bad drop but it shows there's something wrong with the system that needs fixing. If we just kept fighting it and propping everything up, the inherent issues with our current system would lead to a permanent, irrecoverable crash.

I still can't believe the house voted it down, it's about damn time they did something responsible.
Ok, in theory credit is stupid. We shouldn't have a society that allows people to live far beyond their means
Click to expand...
If something doesn't work in theory, it will work worse in practice. Humans will **** it up every time.
 
blahblahblah said:
I wouldn't necessarily say that just yet. In fact, the repeal of portions of that act is what is preventing this from being a true economic disaster in proportions we haven't seen since the great depression. However, give it 10-20 years for people to forget why that rule existed and why bank holding companies can own investment companies, we will conveniently create a good chance for a depression.
Click to expand...

How does allowing Banks get into investment banking, keep this from becoming a greater economic disaster, when allowing banks to interact with investment banks enabled this economic crisis to happen.
 
Kadayi said:
Certainly people are going to suffer, but self correction will bring the markets down to a natural equilibrium in terms of genuine finance rather than purported. The bailout would of just been a means to prop up a false and failing economy for another year or two at best. It wouldn't really guarantee long term stability.
Click to expand...
I agree.

How much of Americas fake economy draws strength from the crappy credit system? It seems silly that any economy would grow because of an unregulated chaotic financial system. New car sales going up because any hobo can take out a loan. Electronics sales going up because any hobo can take a loan. Real estate markets exploding because any hobo can take a loan. New jobs created to fill sales positions at retailers that sell aforementioned items, new jobs for builders, engineers, architects to build houses for the booming housing industry, more people in the workforce, more spending.

Growth, growth, growth all built on crap credit.

Build your economy on technological advantage through superior education!

We're in for a really rough ride ahead. I hope the global economy can stabilise after this or else you know what that means.

World war 3 then a new world order, followed by first contact with vulcans and the eventual construction of a moneyless society and the birth of Captain James T Kirk.
 
Raziaar said:
Largest drop in the DOW today.... EVER.

I don't know how I feel about this 700 billion dollar bailout bill, as I don't like the idea of bailing out CEO's and other executive types and basically rewarding them for this shit storm, but I thought the bill was reworked to not allow this and to help protect taxpayers and the people...

The response of republicans, "We didn't do it because of Nanci Pelosi trying to make us look bad."

Great... so you're going to let her words get to you and vote opposite of what you probably would have initially voted for? And you're complaining about HER politics!?
Click to expand...

Ever? Or two decades? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30markets.html
 
why aren't the people who ****ed up the economy in the first place paying for at least part of the debt? the CEO's of all those banks should go to jail for like 10 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

bbson john
Hi everyone. I am new to this forum!
Replies
11
Views
6K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Dr. Rosenberg's cut appearance in Half-Life: Blue Shift
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
From Warren Spector to Arkane Studios: Half-Life 2's cancelled Ravenholm episode
Replies
2
Views
10K
Clan Wolf 2
Clan Wolf 2
B
The leaked maps of the Half-Life 2 episodes - Part 1
Replies
0
Views
48K
Barnz
B
Back
Top