$700bn Wallstreet Bailout REJECTED

[assassin_696]

There is boom, there is bust. Bail-outs, tighter regulation, more stringent enforcement - they don't make one iota of difference to that basic rule.

 

 

 

I support this Bill because I'm not naive enough to believe that if the world economy does suffer as a result of this Bill's rejection, that it won't be the poorest who are unfairly hit hardest. I hope this will soften the blow, albeit, the rich bastards that put us into this position will still get away with the millions they earned for their own irresponsibility.

 

 

 

It is wrong to believe this is the "silver bullet" people are hoping for. Don't join the 'faith before facts' crowd.

 

 

 

Silver bullet? No this is far from it, like I said it's far from desirable, but the alternative scenario that would occur if the bill is not passed needs to be avoided at almost all costs. Hopefully the bill being passed second time round will mean that it's in better shape when it's actually passed, but this is not the time or way to punish greedy bankers. Remember it's innocent shareholders who are hurt just as much as the risk takers when the value of their shares is wiped out such as with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

 

 

Finally, the most important point anti-bank jihadists ignore: just as there should be no reward without risk in a market economy, there can be no risk without reward. If government bank rescues destroy all hope of reward for investors, there will be no banks.

[indy500fan]

I really don't think we should underestimate just how badly not only the world's financial sector but also many other industries will be hit if the bailout is rejected entirely. Once every large American bank starts failing (which they will) the stock market will crash further, millions of investors (average Joe's with a few shares) will lose their savings. Larger companies, Ford, General Motors might start going under taking thousands of jobs with them. And all for what? Some nicety about moral hazard?

 

 

 

I don't see how you can think that the rest of the world's economies are so insulated from what would be the almost complete collapse of the financial sector. The bailout is currently the lesser of two evils.

 

 

 

You are repeating the FUD that the rich bankers and politicians in their pockets are saying. If the bailout doesn't pass these companies don't cease to exist, they go bankrupt. That doesn't mean they don't own anything anymore, they still have a lot of capitol. Mainly they will just under go changes including new management (getting rid of the [bleep]ers that caused this) and probably some asset liquidation, which will result in new business opportunities.

 

 

 

Oh and GM (or Ford, can't remember) just received a $25 billion bailout just a few weeks ago. This is another example or corporate control over the politicians so that the managers can continue to make millions a year while their companies are failing. If they weren't given a bailout they could finally declare bankruptcy and divide into smaller companies under new management that would actually be forced to make a decent car so their company could survive.

 

 

 

Corporate welfare aka bailouts only help the rich, no matter how much fear about economic collapse the media spread you have to remember that.

[Ginger_Warrior]

There is boom, there is bust. Bail-outs, tighter regulation, more stringent enforcement - they don't make one iota of difference to that basic rule.

 

 

 

I support this Bill because I'm not naive enough to believe that if the world economy does suffer as a result of this Bill's rejection, that it won't be the poorest who are unfairly hit hardest. I hope this will soften the blow, albeit, the rich bastards that put us into this position will still get away with the millions they earned for their own irresponsibility.

 

 

 

It is wrong to believe this is the "silver bullet" people are hoping for. Don't join the 'faith before facts' crowd.

 

 

 

Silver bullet? No this is far from it, like I said it's far from desirable, but the alternative scenario that would occur if the bill is not passed needs to be avoided at almost all costs. Hopefully the bill being passed second time round will mean that it's in better shape when it's actually passed, but this is not the time or way to punish greedy bankers. Remember it's innocent shareholders who are hurt just as much as the risk takers when the value of their shares is wiped out such as with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

 

...My heart bleeds. They knew the risks when they took out the shares. They go down as well as up. For the matter, I despise the shareholders who come on TV and whine about how they've lost their investments when a company goes bust, as though it's anyone else's fault but their own for taking that chance.

 

 

 

On the other hand, there's a single parent struggling to make ends meet because they've defaulted on their mortgage, or because the price of utilities has shot up and there's no windfall tax (and those companies are making quite a few quid themselves too, by the way). Those are the people we genuinely need to be helping.

 

 

 

A recession is coming. Many of these banks will go bust with or without a bail-out plan. The extent to which this bail-out will actually help is also in question. Remove all the ideological arguments of capitalism vs socialism; regulation vs free markets; democracy vs totalitarianism, and there's reason enough to question this Bill, or at least take a long time considering it (which is a luxury we don't have). Add those arguments, and we're in serious doubt.

 

 

 

Frankly, we need money flowing around the banks. The problem is much of the money lies in the hands of the few. This is absolutely the right time to squeeze money out of them, pump it back in for liquidity, and set a precedent that this form of running an economy must never happen again.

[baron8000]

All this talk of economic gloom and doom, yet my outgoings, income, loans, taxes and almost everything else seem to be exactly the same :?

 

 

 

How does this economic event affect the average joe (or jack) tip.it forums?

[Lenticular_J]

The average Englishman is probably less affected than Americans on this one.

[assassin_696]

You are repeating the FUD that the rich bankers and politicians in their pockets are saying. If the bailout doesn't pass these companies don't cease to exist, they go bankrupt. That doesn't mean they don't own anything anymore, they still have a lot of capitol. Mainly they will just under go changes including new management (getting rid of the [bleep] that caused this) and probably some asset liquidation, which will result in new business opportunities.

 

 

 

Asset liquidation? Interesting choice of words for financial institutions laying off thousands of people. Besides, half their assets now are in credit default swaps that no one wants to swap and toxic loans that are (at the moment) practically worthless. How do they liquidate those and start again? For a start, it's not rich bankers and politicians playing their cards right when they say they want the bailout passed. In fact, the reason it probably failed is because it's so unpopular with voters who'll be voting for their representatives soon. The bailout makes economic sense, nearly every economic analyst that I've read over the past few days has said that in some form a bailout must be passed if we want a solvent financial system.

 

 

 

I take your point that companies going bankrupt isn't the end of the world, it's a natural consequence of risk taking in the free market system. But I'm talking about more than a few companies going bankrupt. I'm talking about nearly every major financial institution being nationalised (in the UK) at huge cost to the taxpayer, and every major American bank failing. If they're taken over by the government, the shareholders have their shares wiped and people lose confidence in investing in banks. Once people lose confidence in banks wholesale, what provides solvency for the financial system? Banks are forced to charge extortionate fees for any kind of loans to stay anywhere near profit and as a consequence Aggregate Demand plummets and we have recession, coupled with inflationary pressures as people move their money to things like oil. We not only have a recession due to the house market bubble bursting but a deep depression.

 

 

 

Corporate welfare aka bailouts only help the rich, no matter how much fear about economic collapse the media spread you have to remember that.

 

 

 

I'm sorry but that's utterly, utterly false. If the financial system starts to collapse the consequences will be felt at every level.

 

 

 

...My heart bleeds. They knew the risks when they took out the shares. They go down as well as up. For the matter, I despise the shareholders who come on TV and whine about how they've lost their investments when a company goes bust, as though it's anyone else's fault but their own for taking that chance.

 

 

 

On the other hand, there's a single parent struggling to make ends meet because they've defaulted on their mortgage, or because the price of utilities has shot up and there's no windfall tax (and those companies are making quite a few quid themselves too, by the way). Those are the people we genuinely need to be helping.

 

 

 

A recession is coming. Many of these banks will go bust with or without a bail-out plan. The extent to which this bail-out will actually help is also in question. Remove all the ideological arguments of capitalism vs socialism; regulation vs free markets; democracy vs totalitarianism, and there's reason enough to question this Bill, or at least take a long time considering it (which is a luxury we don't have). Add those arguments, and we're in serious doubt.

 

 

 

Frankly, we need money flowing around the banks. The problem is much of the money lies in the hands of the few. This is absolutely the right time to squeeze money out of them, pump it back in for liquidity, and set a precedent that this form of running an economy must never happen again.

 

 

 

I can't quite distill what your argument is. You seem to be in favour of supporting those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, but have little sympathy for those who've lost their savings on the stock market? I'd like to clarify what you're saying before I say anything, I wouldn't want to be setting up strawmen.

[baalboy5]

Are we all screwed or just in trouble? :?

 

Also does the War in Iraw have do with this?

 

Or the corruption of the Bush Adminstration

 

Or is it the citizens fault for not paying debts? also, how the hell this happen so fast? was there any warning?

[Lenticular_J]

You're jumping to a lot of not-so-well-founded conclusions there, baal. This has been going on since the early 90's. Banks gave loans and mortgages and all that to people who they shouldn't have, and now we're all paying for it.

[baron8000]

The average Englishman is probably less affected than Americans on this one.

 

 

 

Excellent, I would not wish to run out of Twinnings tea and digestive biscuits, one would drop one's monocle out of shock.

 

 

 

Seriously though, thats pretty good news, for me at least

[deloriagod]

Banks gave loans and mortgages and all that to people who they shouldn't have, and now we're all paying for it.

 

 

 

And now the gov't wants to reward them for taking those risks by bailing them out. I don't my family being bailed out because our business went down the drain (after 10 years) thanks to this damn economy. We're losing everything and the gov't doesn't care. But when some big company makes stupid choices the gov't is right there to hold their hand.

[chris1216]

Banks gave loans and mortgages and all that to people who they shouldn't have, and now we're all paying for it.

 

 

 

And now the gov't wants to reward them for taking those risks by bailing them out. I don't my family being bailed out because our business went down the drain (after 10 years) thanks to this damn economy. We're losing everything and the gov't doesn't care. But when some big company makes stupid choices the gov't is right there to hold their hand.

 

 

 

 

 

The problem being that these companies happen to be important. If the banks have zero liquidity, that effect ripples out everywhere.

 

 

 

Whether you like it or not, the economy needs them. Obama put it best when he said:

 

 

If your neighbors house is burning, youre not gonna spend a whole lot of time saying well, that guy was always irresponsible. He always left the stove on. He always was smoking in bed, Obama told the crowd of 12,000 at the University of Nevada - Reno. All those things may be true, but his house could end up affecting your house.

 

 

 

Weve got to make sure that we put the fire out and then go start making sure that these folks stop leaving the stove on.

[Kill_Thomas9]

Before saying we should take all the money from the rich people, we might want to take a look at the past. All throughout history, when the rich people get pissed off, the empire's economy fails, which means the military fails, which means the empire falls apart (yes, the US is an empire). So taking the money from all the rich people will not solve our problems. There have been numerous cases where the government has taken from the rich, and given to the poor. And guess what? The economy crumbles. It doesn't work.

[magekillr]

Thank god, it passed in the Senate. Now, for the House of Reps.

[Diesel]

Is it sad that I actually watched CSPAN during the voting? :lol:

 

 

 

Glad it passed. Now to the House.

[deloriagod]

 

The problem being that these companies happen to be important. If the banks have zero liquidity, that effect ripples out everywhere.

 

 

 

Yes, they're important. But as it's been stated before, just because they file bankruptcy doesn't mean they disappear. They'll basically be taken over by new management, liquidate some assets, and lay off some people until they get up and going again. I know, the loss of jobs would suck but I'd rather see those people feel the pain many of us are feeling than to have them keep their jobs and dump the debt on us via taxes. The gov't can print up all the money it wants to, it's just going to hurt us even more by decreasing the value of our dollar. It's not worth putting a band-aid on a foot long gash, why try to put a band-aid on such a huge problem? You all know as well as I do that this $700b isn't going to save us for long. A few months, maybe a year tops. But after that we're out $700b and we've got the same damn problems.

 

 

 

Also, I hope the House votes this down. Our leaders are merely showing their stupidity and arrogance when so many citizens are clearly against this bill. I think it's time we come together and take down our corrupt gov't. They're no longer there for the citizens of this nation, just for themselves. And people should not fear their gov't, a gov't should fear it's people. Land of the free my [wagon]. We're the laughing stock of the world right now.

[indy500fan]

I'm not ignoring your reply assassin, I don't know enough about economics to reply well enough though, so I'll let someone else who knows more than I do.

 

 

 

Before saying we should take all the money from the rich people, we might want to take a look at the past. All throughout history, when the rich people get pissed off, the empire's economy fails, which means the military fails, which means the empire falls apart (yes, the US is an empire). So taking the money from all the rich people will not solve our problems. There have been numerous cases where the government has taken from the rich, and given to the poor. And guess what? The economy crumbles. It doesn't work.

 

 

 

We're not talking about taking money from the rich, we are talking about not giving them money that the average person paid in taxes.

[magekillr]

I think Thunderf00t laid out the situation very simply, and in layman's terms, whereas not to ignore anything TOO important:

 

 

 

[indy500fan]

 

 

 

 

Obama and McCain both want the bailout to pass, Paul does not. Do you think maybe there is a connection here? The politicians who want the bailout to pass get [cabbage]-loads of money from the people they are bailing out.

[magekillr]

Do you think maybe there is a connection here?

 

 

 

No, not really...considering Paul doesn't want a Federal government to exist whatsoever.

 

 

 

Oh, by the way, how can branches of the military give to politicians? Methinks your picture is a POS :roll:

[indy500fan]

Do you think maybe there is a connection here?

 

 

 

No, not really...considering Paul doesn't want a Federal government to exist whatsoever.

 

 

 

Oh, by the way, how can branches of the military give to politicians? Methinks your picture is a POS :roll:

 

 

 

This is a perfect place for a facepalm picture. Are you really that stupid? The military doesn't give campaign contributions, the head of the military is the current President and he would always just give it to either himself or his party.

 

 

 

The soldiers are the ones that are contributing, just like the rich bankers are the ones that are contributing to McCain and Obama.

 

 

 

EDIT: The calling you stupid was probably uncalled for but you used the rolling eye smiley when you were wrong, and it's extremely [bleep]ing annoying even when you agree with a person.

[magekillr]

Do you think maybe there is a connection here?

 

 

 

No, not really...considering Paul doesn't want a Federal government to exist whatsoever.

 

 

 

Oh, by the way, how can branches of the military give to politicians? Methinks your picture is a POS :roll:

 

 

 

This is a perfect place for a facepalm picture. Are you really that stupid? The military doesn't give campaign contributions, the head of the military is the current President and he would always just give it to either himself or his party.

 

 

 

The soldiers are the ones that are contributing, just like the rich bankers are the ones that are contributing to McCain and Obama.

 

 

 

So, where are the contributions that belong to Obama from the military?

 

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542

 

 

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08 ... ve-61.html

 

 

 

Seemingly absent no? Thank you for your cleverly disguised picture in favor of Paul.

 

 

 

I, for one, am relying on these banks to stay afloat so I can continue to go to school. If they fail, I cannot return next semester. My friend who is going here this semester, had a loan approved for THIS semester (the one that/s 1/3 of the way over), and now they retracted it.

[Barihawk]

I will say of that graph that he is right about soldiers. The maximum any group can donate is 2000-ish dollars. However, employees/soldiers may pool their donations in the name of their company/group as long as it's accounted and they have receipts. So when military organizations are listed on the chart, it means that many individuals donated anywhere from 1c to 2000ish dollars.

[indy500fan]

So, where are the contributions that belong to Obama from the military?

 

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542

 

 

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08 ... ve-61.html

 

 

 

Seemingly absent no? Thank you for your cleverly disguised picture in favor of Paul.

 

 

 

I, for one, am relying on these banks to stay afloat so I can continue to go to school. If they fail, I cannot return next semester. My friend who is going here this semester, had a loan approved for THIS semester (the one that/s 1/3 of the way over), and now they retracted it.

 

 

 

Ok, I'll take back my edit. You are stupid. Do you not know what is meant by "TOP contributors"? Key word there is top. Obama doesn't have the military amounts listed on there because he gets much more from the other contributors.

[magekillr]

So, where are the contributions that belong to Obama from the military?

 

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3601542

 

 

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/08 ... ve-61.html

 

 

 

Seemingly absent no? Thank you for your cleverly disguised picture in favor of Paul.

 

 

 

I, for one, am relying on these banks to stay afloat so I can continue to go to school. If they fail, I cannot return next semester. My friend who is going here this semester, had a loan approved for THIS semester (the one that/s 1/3 of the way over), and now they retracted it.

 

 

 

Ok, I'll take back my edit. You are stupid. Do you not know what is meant by "TOP contributors"? Key word there is top. Obama doesn't have the military amounts listed on there because he gets much more from the other contributors.

 

 

 

 

 

2007-2008 vs. 2003-2008.

 

 

 

Disingenuous.

[indy500fan]

2007-2008 vs. 2003-2008.

 

 

 

Disingenuous.

 

 

 

Yes, it goes back a few years. I don't see what is wrong with that. The point still stands that Obama and McCain get [cabbage] loads of money from rich bankers while Paul doesn't, and Obama and McCain are the ones who voted to bail out those same rich bankers.