I agree that 'something' should be done....but folks need to realize that $$ has no value just our credit scores.....and they are based on 'work that will be done in the future'.......I'm ashamed that we have been 'strung out' on this tread mill that we have created......there is no straw for our bricks.....
....and I am not so dumb as to believe that 'golden parachutes' are the downfall of a company....however, the 'products' that have been sold without a direction book are shameful....no different than poisoned babyfood from china.....and we were all blaming those leech blood sucking lettuce picking immigrants for our plight........
keep the masses in the dark or without the will to fight/live/learn and here we are......
exerpt from The Medici Giraffe(and other tales of exotic animals and power)
Quoted Text
Wild beast displays and contests were beloved spectacles in ancient Rome. They had their roots in gladatorial shows, which in their turn originated in funeral celebrations. Fed by Rome's subjugation of foreign lands and their resouces, exotic animal combats grew in size and splendor with each territorial conquest. They began as a way to entertain and control the populace and to give it a symbolic share in the glory of the state. But as the people got more and more addicted to these exhibitions, politicians had to sponsor them to ensure popular support. Their reputaions came to depend on the games they put on.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
The revised bailout bill also includes a “Mental Health Parity” provision, which would require health insurance companies to cover mental illness at parity with physical illness.
How the hell did Barbara Boxer get this PORK in here? We the people should be OUTRAGED!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
"When credit is as frozen as it has been and when banks are unwilling to lend to each other, and when 8 percent of deposits in American banks have had to be moved in the last couple of weeks to solvent institutions ... this is an economic Pearl Harbor," he told the network.
"If the United States Treasury offered me the chance to have a 1 percent participation in the profit or loss in the $700 billion they're going to spend, and if they buy the assets at market prices, I would feel I'd made myself a very sweet deal," he added.
Check out this example - one of MANY in this bill, that was tacked on at the last minute:
Quoted Text
20 SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN 21 WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY 22 CHILDREN. 23 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 4161(b) 24 is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as sub-
1 paragraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph (A) 2 the following new subparagraph: 3 ‘‘(B) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN WOODEN 4 ARROW SHAFTS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not 5 apply to any shaft consisting of all natural 6 wood with no laminations or artificial means of 7 enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold 8 separately or incorporated as part of a finished 9 or unfinished product) of a type used in the 10 manufacture of any arrow which after its as- 11 sembly— 12 ‘‘(i) measures 5⁄16 of an inch or less in 13 diameter, and 14 ‘‘(ii) is not suitable for use with a bow 15 described in paragraph (1)(A).’’. 16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 17 this section shall apply to shafts first sold after the date 18 of enactment of this Act.
More insight from someone who knows a little something about money:
Charlie Rose: Go through why that is true beyond the fact that there is a freeze on credit, beyond the fact that nobody is making loans, beyond the fact that banks don't lend to backs beyond the fact that treasury bills are at a low.
Warren Buffett: Yeah. When 40 billion of treasury bills are sold like they were last week, seven day treasury bills, at a yield of 1/20th of one percent, that means the whole country is basically at the point virtually, or a lot of the country is at the point of putting the money under the mattress. One twentieth of one percent away from where it's betting to put it under the mattress. You don't want 300 million Americans putting their money under the mattress. This economy doesn't work well without the lubrication of credit and trust. And that's been lost. It's a huge problem. What you have is you have the major institutions of the world all wanting to deleverage. They want to take down their assets and liabilities. What seemed so easy to borrow against a year ago now looks like rat poison to them. So they're trying to deleverage. There is only one institution in the world that can leverage up in a way that's all a countervailing force to that, and that's the United States Treasury.
Regarding who voted which way for whatever reason:
Charlie Rose: The Senate will vote sometime this evening.
Warren Buffett: Right.
Charlie Rose: Are you satisfied with that rescue plan?
Warren Buffett: Well, I don't think it's perfect, but I don't know that I could draw one that's perfect. But I'd rather by approximately right than precisely wrong, and it would be precisely wrong to turn it down. We need -- we have a terrific economy -- it's like a great athlete that's had a cardiac arrest. It's flat on the floor, and the paramedics have arrived. And they shouldn't argue about whether they put the resuscitation equipment a quarter of an inch this way or a quarter of an inch this way, or they shouldn't start criticizing the patient, because he didn't have a blood pressure test or something like that. They should do what's needed right now. And I think they will. I think the Congress will do the right thing. I think that they've -- you know, they got into certain arguments and they start worrying about assessing blame, and there is a little demagoguery, but in the end, something this important, they'll do the right thing. So this really is an economic Pearl Harbor. That sounds melodramatic, but I've never used that phrase before. And this really is one.
"When credit is as frozen as it has been and when banks are unwilling to lend to each other, and when 8 percent of deposits in American banks have had to be moved in the last couple of weeks to solvent institutions ... this is an economic Pearl Harbor," he told the network.
"If the United States Treasury offered me the chance to have a 1 percent participation in the profit or loss in the $700 billion they're going to spend, and if they buy the assets at market prices, I would feel I'd made myself a very sweet deal," he added.
Answer: Warren Buffett
I keep on hearing from the political talking heads and expert economists that the $700 billion is going to buy up all the bad paper, repackage it, and then turn around and sell it. And somehow the taxpayer who put up the $700 billion may actually profit on the investment. If that's true, why wouldn't private investors seize upon that same opportunity and buy the bad paper if it may be profitable??
It just isn't adding up for me. These politicians and Wall St. moguls keep on rewording and repackaging this bill, trying to sell this pile of crap to the American people. Buffett made hundreds of millions of dollars in America's capitalist markets, now he's endorsing the largest social, nationalization of the banks in American history to protect him from losses. How convenient. Donald Trump recently said he's against this bailout. Probably because he's a real estate man with plenty of capital, and sees opportunity in the real estate market instead of disaster. A Wall St. investor like Buffett may profit more with this bailout, where as a real estate investor like Trump may profit more without it.
I chose not to be influenced by moguls like Buffett or Trump, because they are playing for much higher stakes than I probably ever will. And most likely there public statements are meant to persuade the public in the direction that would beneficial to themselves financially. I really believe they could care less about Joe Public.
If that's true, why wouldn't private investors seize upon that same opportunity and buy the bad paper if it may be profitable??
I'm not pretending to have the answers - but I think the response to that question would be that the Fed can afford to sit on them for a while - which private investors aren't willing to do.
I could be wrong - but that's the way I understand it
Fair enough, Cicero. I understand the other side. In fact, at the Bear Stearns point in this, I was against any big government bailout.
I only quote Buffett because he has more cache than I do but makes similar points in better fashion than me, As far as Trump being against it - it's easy for him to be against it because he has the cash to withstand it better than Joe Schmoe (ie:me).
The bottom line, I think, is that they got off to a very bad start conveying exactly what whatever adopted bailout is really designed to do. It looks like a Wall Street bailout because it was presented poorly. What the average guy still isn't understanding is that the tax consequences of this will be the least of his worries if we don't do it. Without banks lending to each other (they're not right now) or to people who need a car loan or student loan (they're not right now) or to businesses that rely on financing to even out their revenue streams, meet payroll, etc. (they're not right now), the average guy is going to be saying "what the f***" when he can't do simple things like get a car loan. But maybe it won't matter - he won't have a job he needs to drive to - or if he does, the car company won't exist to make cars anymore. (Did you see today's auto sales numbers? This crisis will only exacerbate matters.)
Economic development? Forget it. Capital expenditure relys on financing. Buffett correctly identifies that only the US government is positioned to adequately confront the global deleveraging. No one has to like it but we'll be better off, I think, if we force ourselves to swallow it. The longer we delay, the worse the problem becomes and the harder it will be to deal with.
Senate eagerly passes bailout Measure OK’d by wide margin, gains traction in House BY JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS AND CHARLES BABINGTON The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — After one spectacular failure, the $700 billion financial industry bailout found a second life Wednesday, winning lopsided passage in the Senate and gaining ground in the House, where Republicans opposition softened. Senators loaded the economic rescue bill with tax breaks and other sweeteners before passing it by a wide margin, 74-25, a month before the presidential and congressional elections. In the House, leaders were working feverishly to convert enough opponents of the bill to push it through by Friday, just days after lawmakers there stunningly rejected an earlier version and sent markets plunging around the globe. The measure didn’t cause the same uproar in the Senate, where both parties’ presidential candidates, Republican John Mc-Cain and Democrat Barack Obama, made rare appearances to cast “aye” votes. In the final vote, 40 Democrats, 33 Republicans and independent Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted “yes.” Nine Democrats, 15 Republicans and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont voted “no.” The rescue package lets the government spend billions of dollars to buy bad mortgage-related securities and other devalued assets held by troubled financial institutions. If successful, advocates say, that would allow frozen credit to begin flowing again and prevent a deep recession. Even as the Senate voted, House leaders were hunting for the 12 votes they would need to turn around Monday’s 228-205 defeat. They were especially targeting the 133 Republicans who voted “no.” Their opposition appeared to be easing after the Senate added $110 billion in tax breaks for businesses and the middle class, plus a provision to raise from $100,000 to $250,000 the cap on federal deposit insurance. They were also cheering a decision Tuesday by the Securities and Exchange Commission to ease rules that force companies to devalue assets on their balance sheets to reflect the price they can get on the market. There were worries, though, that the tax breaks would cause some conservative-leaning Democrats who voted for the rescue Monday to abandon it because it would swell the federal deficit. “I’m concerned about that,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the majority leader. President Bush issued a statement praising the Senate’s move. With the revisions, Bush said, “I believe members of both parties in the House can support this legislation. The American people expect and our economy demands that the House pass this good bill this week and send it to my desk.” As revised by the Senate, the package extends several tax breaks popular with businesses. It would keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million middle-income Americans and provide $8 billion in tax relief for those hit by natural disasters in the Midwest, Texas and Louisiana. It doesn’t designate a way to pay for many of the tax cuts, though, angering the House’s band of conservative “Blue Dog” Democrats. Leaders in both parties, as well as private economic chiefs everywhere, said Congress must quickly approve some version of the bailout measure to start loans flowing and stave off a potential national economic disaster. “This is what we need to do right now to prevent the possibility of a crisis turning into a catastrophe,” Obama said on the Senate floor. In Missouri, before flying to Washington to vote, McCain said, “If we fail to act, the gears of our economy will grind to a halt.” Critics on the right and left assailed the rescue plan, which has been panned by their constituents as a giveaway for Wall Street and has little obvious direct benefi t for ordinary Americans. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., a leading conservative, said the step was “leading us into the pit of socialism.” Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, an independent who’s a self-described socialist, said the rescue was fundamentally unfair. “The masters of the universe, those brilliant Wall Street insiders who have made more money than the average American can even dream of, have brought our financial system to the brink of collapse,” Sanders said, and are demanding that the middle class “pick up the pieces that they broke.” Still, proponents argued that the financial sector’s woes were already being felt by ordinary people in the form of unaffordable credit and underperforming retirement savings, and without the bailout, it would soon translate into even more economic pain for working Americans, including more job losses. “There will be no balloons or bunting or parades” when the rescue becomes law, said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman. But lawmakers will have “the knowledge that at one of our nation’s moments of maximum economic peril, we acted — not for the benefit of a particular few but for all Americans.”
Carl Strock THE VIEW FROM HERE Carl Strock can be reached at 395-3085 or by e-mail at carlstrock@dailygazette.com. . BAILOUT
In case you’re wondering where I stand on the Great Bailout, I will tell you that as the holder of a modest amount of hypothetical wealth in the form of stocks, bonds and boxtops, I am in favor of it. Anything to restore the hypothetical value of my hypothetical wealth. As an ordinary humble citizen, however, I would like to see the bailout tied to some penalty for those captains of finance who made tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars for themselves while driving their own banks and brokerages into bankruptcy. Never mind some namby-pamby limits on how many millions they can make in the future, running gambling houses with our tax subsidies. I mean, when you lose, you lose, like in the free-market world they profess to love but actually love only when they’re winning. My modest proposal is the death penalty. I’d call it a lead parachute. Then we can do the bailout.
Sooner or later people have to stop borrowing money to buying luxuriy items, buying houses that are too expensive for their income, and learn to live within their means and now might be the time to start doing just that.
You are correct Shadow, but that is NOT what our government wants. Debt/credit/spending is what keeps ours, and the world's economy going. That is how it is set up. THEY WANT US TO SPEND AND SPEND AND SPEND!
If we stop or slow down on spending, how would you expect the worker in India to eat?
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Logged
