$700bn Wallstreet Bailout REJECTED

[Quoi_Tu]

Well, I doubt the plan will make any money, but that's not really a surprise.

 

 

 

It sounds like there are differing opinions on the whether we should let the housing market run itself or we should help banks be able to loan money to people buying houses. If I had a full tim job right now, I'd want to buy a house because the prices in my area are down. Unfortuantely, I'd be hard pressed to find a bank that would loan me the money. So, because of that, I couldn't buy a house.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

The Fed doesn't get any tax money. It's separate from the government.

[chris1216]

Wrong again. There are no differing opinions on whether or not to let the housing crisis run its course because there is no other choice.

 

 

 

You're also wrong in implying that the problem is banks being unwilling to lend money. Again, even if banks were willing to give out loans to everyone with good credit, people are still overall unwilling to buy into the housing market.

 

 

 

ONCE AGAIN, from the cnnmoney article: "Home prices, while sharply off from the 2006 peaks, are still high in comparison to long-term gains in income, rents or overall prices, suggesting that they still have a way to fall, according to experts."

[jackattack]

This just shows that both the Democratic and Republican leadership are both very ineffective. Probably the Democrats more so. I wouldn't have expected John Boehner to come up with that many votes as he did but I certainly would have thought Pelosi, and Steny Hoyer would have been able to get more than 60% of their party to vote for it. I missed most of the floor debate but from what I heard Pelosi gave a pretty partisan speech that might have turned off a few Republicans from voting for it. They only missed it by a dozen or so. That seems pretty ridiculous. I haven't seen the speech but If you are trying to pass a bi-partisan bill that might not have been the best idea. I do think that if the Republican bill were brought to the floor it would have a good chance to pass.

[hellbellz]

that's right. it's been a few years since i took civics.. so my mind is a little foggy.

 

 

 

so maybe it was a county as a whole [screw] up.

[Quoi_Tu]

Wrong again. There are no differing opinions on whether or not to let the housing crisis run its course because there is no other choice.

 

 

 

You're also wrong in implying that the problem is banks being unwilling to lend money. Again, even if banks were willing to give out loans to everyone with good credit, people are still overall unwilling to buy into the housing market.

 

 

 

ONCE AGAIN, from the cnnmoney article: "Home prices, while sharply off from the 2006 peaks, are still high in comparison to long-term gains in income, rents or overall prices, suggesting that they still have a way to fall, according to experts."

 

 

 

So, assuming the housing crisis can only be solved by crashing, shouldn't we make sure the banks don't crash with it? As in, the 700Bil bailout. This would at least give people the option of taking out loans and would allow banks to loan money to firms.

 

 

 

I'll admit though, I still don't understand how the housing market crash can't be stopped.

[warren211]

Why is it that money seems so easy to find when we're throwing it at Iraq but when we try a bailout all of a sudden it's ridiculously costly and impossible to agree on, and everyone is "where is the money gonna come from?!?!?!?".

 

 

 

A spokesperson made a point that with 200bil less than the bailout, we could pay off every mortgage in the US. He got quite some support from this, because it sounds pretty cool at first glance, but when you think about it for a few minutes... how is it fair that a hardworking family who's been paying their mortgage for 15 years gets the same reward as a young man with a low wage job who's just bought a house he couldn't afford but is saved by the mortgage giveaway? We're trying to find better ways to put the money to use, while so much is being tossed towards Iraq and only the Democrats (correct me if I'm wrong, I probably am) seem to care?

[rangeor]

 

 

 

Neil Cicierga predicted this.

[warren211]

CNN just said the Dow plunged 778 points today. That's insane, the largest plunge in history of I'm not mistaken. 1.2 trillion dollars down the drain, and the House is playing the blame game. John McCain states that the defeat (which is costly to his campaign) is at the fault of Obama, and then says that this is not the time for blaming. I'm sure the Daily Show is going to have a blast with all that's going on, but I'm getting seriously worried. 1.2 trillion? that's not going to go unnoticed in the economy.

[db300]

Sigh, all this happening right when I'm about to be on my own in the world. -.-

 

 

 

On another depressing note, I find it sad that most of the people I talk to at school or just other friends in rl don't really have a clue on what's going on.

[saif]

oh noes :twss:

[Barihawk]

Sigh, all this happening right when I'm about to be on my own in the world. -.-

 

 

 

On another depressing note, I find it sad that most of the people I talk to at school or just other friends in rl don't really have a clue on what's going on.

 

 

 

People under 18 not having a clue about politics is the worldwide norm. Don't be embarrassed.

[Woodcut Lvr]

Sigh, all this happening right when I'm about to be on my own in the world. -.-

 

 

 

On another depressing note, I find it sad that most of the people I talk to at school or just other friends in rl don't really have a clue on what's going on.

 

 

 

People under 18 not having a clue about politics is the worldwide norm. Don't be embarrassed.

 

 

 

It's only because we're not obligated to know/care. So most take the easy road and not know/care.

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

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.

 

Well I agree, we can't really sit on our hands about this, but there has to be a better way to get the kind of money that we need to get out of debt. From what I understand of the rejected proposal, it was intended to be a gamble - they would buy up the depleted stock, wait for the economy to recover, then sell it at (hopefully) a profit, with the taxpayers paying the difference if the stocks failed to come in.

 

 

 

It worked in the 1930s, but we were lucky to get out of the depression through a war -- when we were really producing things, and we were exporting goods instead of always importing.

 

 

 

We can't sit on our hands, but the issue as it stood couldn't fly on it's own. I mean seriously, what's wrong with taxing the wealthiest companies and citizens a little (read: a lot) more, ending the really expensive war, and taxing pornography? I think the latter alone would pay for a fourth of the debt.

[Woodcut Lvr]

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.

 

Well I agree, we can't really sit on our hands about this, but there has to be a better way to get the kind of money that we need to get out of debt. From what I understand of the rejected proposal, it was intended to be a gamble - they would buy up the depleted stock, wait for the economy to recover, then sell it at (hopefully) a profit, with the taxpayers paying the difference if the stocks failed to come in.

 

 

 

It worked in the 1930s, but we were lucky to get out of the depression through a war -- when we were really producing things, and we were exporting goods instead of always importing.

 

 

 

We can't sit on our hands, but the issue as it stood couldn't fly on it's own. I mean seriously, what's wrong with taxing the wealthiest companies and citizens a little (read: a lot) more, ending the really expensive war, and taxing pornography? I think the latter alone would pay for a fourth of the debt.

 

 

 

Like I said

 

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

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

Like I said

 

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

 

Guess that means I agree.

[Sly_Wizard]

People who are against the bill amuse me. Most like to use the "I don't want to pay " without realizing 1.) Very few people were complaining when they were reaping the benefits of the government's/Wall Street's/the bank's mismanagement of capital and 2.) the plan is better than standing in line for 14 hours just so you can get a piece of bread and soup, which is what will happen if nothing is done.

[baalboy5]

So....who fault is it?

[Kill_Thomas9]

Tax pornography, legalize and tax weed, and let all the people in prison only for possession of marijuana out, and there's the majority of the money :thumbsup:

 

 

 

 

 

Sigh, all this happening right when I'm about to be on my own in the world. -.-

 

 

 

On another depressing note, I find it sad that most of the people I talk to at school or just other friends in rl don't really have a clue on what's going on.

 

 

 

People under 18 not having a clue about politics is the worldwide norm. Don't be embarrassed.

 

 

 

 

 

I guess people where I live are pretty smart. We discuss this daily in my AP World class, and even the people who I hang out with (the ones who get D's in at-level classes) know what is happening.

 

 

 

 

 

Just please don't let Blizzard go bankrupt :pray:

[Lordjake]

So....who fault is it?

 

IMO, the fault lies primarily on the banking industry that participated in so much sub-prime lending. (long story short- they gave out loans to people that couldn't pay em back)

 

Then these same banking companies bundled up these mortgages and sold the rights to them as investments. Investors bought these bundles, expecting them to gain value as the mortgages were eventually paid off.

 

 

 

You could also argue that guilt lies with the regulators that didn't pay close enough attention, or the actual people who took out the loans and didn't pay em back.

 

 

 

 

 

(if you meant whose fault is it that it didn't pass, then it lies with the House of Representatives.

 

Voting yes were 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans. Voting no were 95 Democrats and 133 Republicans.)

[Ginger_Warrior]

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.

 

You're making some pretty bold assumptions there. Who says this will actually restore confidence enough to avoid a depression? I'm looking at the stock markets at the London Stock Exchange now and I'm seeing frankly irreparable damage to confidence in the banking world.

 

 

 

Would $700B (or lower, as it will now be for a re-vote later this week) actually restore that confidence enough?

[Sumpta]

It's hard to say if injecting money into failing banks is a good thing or not. In the short term, it does seem to have an effect. The European banks that came crashing down yesterday, are restoring themselves after government aid. It will at least keep people from pulling their money out and it does restore some confidence with the investors. In the long term... we'll have to wait and see. In any case, I don't feel a government should just remain passive and watch their people lose their houses, jobs and savings.

 

 

 

The Dow Jones has lost more points today than was ever seen in its history before... shooting down a possible plan, however rickety, without an alternative, is unwise, to say the very least.

 

 

 

But no matter what, it has been clear for quite a while now that we are heading into a worldwide period of recession. The bubble had to burst at one time or another.

[Barihawk]

 

Like I said

 

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

 

 

 

And in the process creating a whole new can of worms in the way of poverty traps. Most of those girls will not be using protection, will be having babies which now need to be taken care of which qualifies them for welfare which leads right back into the welfare trap and sucks more money out of the government's pocket. Yeah. Great plan.

[How2PK]

Meh, nevermind. Got nothing useful to contribute.

[Sumpta]

Meh, nevermind. Got nothing useful to contribute.

 

 

 

Heh, I've written two texts, simply to delete them, rewrite them and eventually post something. I found it very difficult to say something sensible, considering that I'm not an economist...

 

 

 

Quite frankly, the machinations behind what is going on with the world economy at the moment are a mystery to me, and I depend on articles, the press and clever economists to get a vague idea.

[Powman3]

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

 

 

 

Last time I checked Bush was a Republican.

 

 

 

EDIT: Sorry, I felt my post was way too off-topic, so I'll post something.

 

 

 

Honestly, I won't lie, I don't know much about the economy. But how Congress denied the bailout plan is a complete mystery to me, it just looks like another depression to me, sadly. The DOW went down, what, 7000 points (though I may be wrong)?

 

 

 

It's not the Democrats. Bush FINALLY realized the economy is getting worse so he actually had to find out a plan to save it before it fell, which already happened. <_<