$700bn Wallstreet Bailout REJECTED

[guthix121]

Well, check it out:

 

 

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/fina ... ected.html

 

 

 

Earlier today, the House of Representatives had a vote for the $700 billion bailout for Wall Street to help the economy, but it was shot down.

 

 

 

What are your opinions on this? I have a feeling the US is heading straight for a depression worse than that of the 1930s.

[Da Pirates]

where would we come up with 700 Bil if it got approved? Democrats are trying to kill the economy :roll:

[Woodcut Lvr]

where would we come up with 700 Bil if it got approved? Democrats are trying to kill the economy :roll:

 

 

 

Borrow it from other nations?

[llcoolguy972]

Supposedly they're re-voting Thurs, but it'll definitely be interesting to see the outcome, either way. It's an interesting time right now, we're already strapped in the coaster, might as well enjoy the ride. ;)

 

 

 

Edit: Yea, they've already announced that they're continuing to work on the bailout and will be back in session on Thurs. source

[Skull]

Either way were screwed, It's just a matter of now or later.

[anonymous1234]

where would we come up with 700 Bil if it got approved? Democrats are trying to kill the economy :roll:

 

Maybe we could have used some of the trillion dollar loss in the markets after the bill got rejected.

[RSBDavid]

Why in the hell should we bail the government out for their mistake? Our economy is going down the drain anyways. Good thing we have a house off the grid (7 miles from anything basically).

[warri0r45]

where would we come up with 700 Bil if it got approved? Democrats are trying to kill the economy :roll:

 

 

 

So you're saying that approving this bail out would be bad and the Dems are endorsing it? Isn't it the case that the economy goes down if these companies aren't bailed out?

 

 

 

Sorry, my understanding of the economy is pretty rudimentary at the best of times.

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

where would we come up with 700 Bil if it got approved? Democrats are trying to kill the economy :roll:

 

 

 

Borrow it from other nations?

 

That's how we got into most of this mess the first time. We borrow too much money, we print too much money, and we expect our word to hold value?

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm kind of glad that the plan got rejected. Sure, we're in a major crisis, and our economy might not make it to February, but that plan was just too shaky -- I'm not interested in footing any part of a $700B bill.

[dinoboy100]

where would we come up with 700 Bil if it got approved? Democrats are trying to kill the economy :roll:

 

 

 

Borrow it from other nations?

 

 

 

You could borrow it from the IMF and learn waht its like to be a 3rd world country and send al your money of to them...

 

But up here in alberta, we have maybe $15 billion saved away if we were to go all depressiony again.. so its all goodish here.

[Quoi_Tu]

Fact Check:

 

 

 

What are your opinions on this? I have a feeling the US is heading straight for a depression worse than that of the 1940s.

 

 

 

1930s

 

 

 

where would we come up with 700 Bil if it got approved? Democrats are trying to kill the economy :roll:

 

 

 

Sigh, I'm not sure you deserve a response anymore. We came up with over 500 Bil for the Iraq war. Oh no, the republicans are trying to kill the economy :roll:

 

 

 

Either way were screwed, It's just a matter of now or later.

 

 

 

What makes you think that?

 

 

 

Why in the hell should we bail the government out for their mistake? Our economy is going down the drain anyways. Good thing we have a house off the grid (7 miles from anything basically).

 

 

 

Many of the failing banks did absolutely nothing wrong. The Fed was of the same thought during the Great Depression when banks were failing everyday. About half the banks in the US failed during the Great Depression. Many because the Fed did not help them.

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm kind of glad that the plan got rejected. Sure, we're in a major crisis, and our economy might not make it to February, but that plan was just too shaky -- I'm not interested in footing any part of a $700B bill.

 

 

 

We need to do something. It's the best plan they could come up with, but they didn't want to give too many details so people wouldn't lose faith in certain banks. Ultimately, I think that hurt their support more than they thought it would.

 

 

 

This is not a time for laissez-faire policy.

[Skull]

We don't do anything about it now, economy sinks terribly. We throw in the $700 billion and we have to pay it off eventually. Although it would probably be over a period of time and wouldn't be a big problem all at once.

 

 

 

Can't say I'm all that knowledgeable on the subject though.

[Woodcut Lvr]

We could but Federal Taxes on the wages of prostitutes to gain money to pull us out of the crisis. Just a thought.

[anonymous1234]

We don't do anything about it now, economy sinks terribly. We throw in the $700 billion and we have to pay it off eventually. Although it would probably be over a period of time and wouldn't be a big problem all at once.

 

 

 

Can't say I'm all that knowledgeable on the subject though.

 

So either the economy dies, or we get in a [cabbage]load of debt? Wonderful :cry:

[Skull]

We could but Federal Taxes on the wages of prostitutes to gain money to pull us out of the crisis. Just a thought.

 

:twss:

 

 

 

We don't do anything about it now, economy sinks terribly. We throw in the $700 billion and we have to pay it off eventually. Although it would probably be over a period of time and wouldn't be a big problem all at once.

 

 

 

Can't say I'm all that knowledgeable on the subject though.

 

So either the economy dies, or we get in a [cabbage] of debt? Wonderful :cry:

 

I don't know, that's what looks like to me though. Someone who actually knows what they're talking about could probably tell you more.

[Quoi_Tu]

We don't do anything about it now, economy sinks terribly. We throw in the $700 billion and we have to pay it off eventually. Although it would probably be over a period of time and wouldn't be a big problem all at once.

 

 

 

Can't say I'm all that knowledgeable on the subject though.

 

 

 

Not a problem, I'll try to explain. The 700Bil is going to be spent on the "bad assets" (simplified) of the banks that are driving their net worth down. These bad assets weren't bad before the crisis and will most likely increase in value back to normal after this crisis is over. The government plans to buy these assets so that the banks' net worth goes up and they feel confident to spend the money they are currently just sitting on. The government will then try and sell these assets once the economy returns to normal and will hopefully make back the 700Bil (or even a profit).

 

 

 

I hope that clears some things up.

[Skull]

We don't do anything about it now, economy sinks terribly. We throw in the $700 billion and we have to pay it off eventually. Although it would probably be over a period of time and wouldn't be a big problem all at once.

 

 

 

Can't say I'm all that knowledgeable on the subject though.

 

 

 

Not a problem, I'll try to explain. The 700Bil is going to be spent on the "bad assets" (simplified) of the banks that are driving their net worth down. These bad assets weren't bad before the crisis and will most likely increase in value back to normal after this crisis is over. The government plans to buy these assets so that the banks' net worth goes up and they feel confident to spend the money they are currently just sitting on. The government will then try and sell these assets once the economy returns to normal and will hopefully make back the 700Bil (or even a profit).

 

 

 

I hope that clears some things up.

 

 

 

Got it, thanks. :)

 

 

 

I hope it passes.

[hellbellz]

That $700,000,000,000 comes from the tax payers' pockets. Why the hell should I pay for the mistakes some big badass businessmen made. They screw up, and get paid. Sounds like [cabbage] to me.

[chris1216]

I find it absolutely hilarious that everyone's irate about 700 billion dollars of money that has to be borrowed/conjured up/etc.

 

 

 

In case none of you noticed, this has been going on for decades. Ever hear of the national debt? This country has been living on rolling over debt for decades and decades.

 

 

 

As for the bailout that many of you also don't actually comprehend (see whoever thought we were bailing out the government), the reason it isn't a stupendous idea is because the crash in housing prices has yet to run its course. As long as home prices continue to fall, no amount of bailouts will solve the root of the problem.

 

 

 

The important part is that once the housing crisis is done running its course, banks need to be confident enough to loan money to everyone with good credit who is then willing to buy into a house.

 

 

 

 

 

I freaked out about the bailout because of the utter lack of oversight- if there were draconian oversight measures combined with a cap on CEO salaries and a guarantee that the government would receive a share of the bailed companies once they turned themselves around, I would feel much more comfortable as is.

 

 

 

 

 

And surprise surprise as to politicians instantly playing the blame game the second the bailout was defeated in the House.

[Lenticular_J]

This bailout would have been better than the other major plan, which was to slowly and painfully fix it by taxing the hell out of the middle class, which would probably just kill it.

[Quoi_Tu]

That $700,000,000,000 comes from the tax payers' pockets. Why the hell should I pay for the mistakes some big badass businessmen made. They screw up, and get paid. Sounds like [cabbage] to me.

 

 

 

Many of the failing banks did absolutely nothing wrong. The Fed was of the same thought during the Great Depression when banks were failing everyday. About half the banks in the US failed during the Great Depression. Many because the Fed did not help them.

 

 

 

Quoted from above. More or less answers your question/statement that posed earlier.

 

 

 

As for the bailout that many of you also don't actually comprehend (see whoever thought we were bailing out the government), the reason it isn't a stupendous idea is because the crash in housing prices has yet to run its course. As long as home prices continue to fall, no amount of bailouts will solve the root of the problem.

 

 

 

The important part is that once the housing crisis is done running its course, banks need to be confident enough to loan money to everyone with good credit who is then willing to buy into a house.

 

 

 

I freaked out about the bailout because of the utter lack of oversight- if there were draconian oversight measures combined with a cap on CEO salaries and a guarantee that the government would receive a share of the bailed companies once they turned themselves around, I would feel much more comfortable as is.

 

 

 

And surprise surprise as to politicians instantly playing the blame game the second the bailout was defeated in the House.

 

 

 

Crash in housing prices running their course!? What are you talking about?

 

 

 

I'll post the explanation of the bailout again:

 

 

 

Not a problem, I'll try to explain. The 700Bil is going to be spent on the "bad assets" (simplified) of the banks that are driving their net worth down. These bad assets weren't bad before the crisis and will most likely increase in value back to normal after this crisis is over. The government plans to buy these assets so that the banks' net worth goes up and they feel confident to spend the money they are currently just sitting on. The government will then try and sell these assets once the economy returns to normal and will hopefully make back the 700Bil (or even a profit).

 

 

 

(Quoted from above)

[chris1216]

As in, the real problem is that housing prices continue to fall. Until they hit bottom, no amount of bailing will actually solve the true reason the economy is in this mess.

 

 

 

What's necessary is time, for the housing market to finally hit rock bottom. Once that happens, people will finally be willing to buy back into real estate and stabilize the economy. The bailout on its own doesn't solve everything.

 

 

 

Your explanation is also wrong because

 

 

 

1) The problem isn't banks being unwilling to spend money (they don't spend money), it's the fact that no one knows exactly how much in bad mortgages each bank is holding. This makes every bank terrified and unwilling to lend money first to EACH OTHER, then to companies that depend on those loans to buy inventory, pay payroll, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

2) The idea that the government will generate a profit off of these mortgages is refuted here- http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/ ... .html#more

[Quoi_Tu]

As in, the real problem is that housing prices continue to fall. Until they hit bottom, no amount of bailing will actually solve the true reason the economy is in this mess.

 

 

 

What's necessary is time, for the housing market to finally hit rock bottom. Once that happens, people will finally be willing to buy back into real estate and stabilize the economy. The bailout on its own doesn't solve everything.

 

 

 

Why do they have to hit bottom to recover?

 

 

 

You don't seem to understand the bailout. The bailout will allow the banks to confidently invest again, then allowing them to take in more loans, which will allow them to loan people money to buy houses, thus, solving the housing crisis. You don't seem to understand real estate either. This is a great time to buy real estate, just not sell. Similar to it's a great time to buy stocks, just not sell them.

[chris1216]

You don't seem to understand the concept that housing prices are still decreasing. Few people are willing to buy in yet, much less get a loan.

 

 

 

Even if banks suddenly were loose with their money, the rate of houses being foreclosed/sold would still outkick the number of houses being bought by a large margin.

 

 

 

You're also still wrong about the bailout being a magic potion that suddenly will cause the economy to recover- source here: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/17/news/ec ... 2008091814

[hellbellz]

Well, Quoi_Tu, we pay taxes to pay for the services the Fed does?

 

 

 

However you put it, we're paying people to [screw] up.