Massive financial bailout fails in the House

The US economy is based on free market economy and therefore, failure forms an integral part of that system. A bailout of the Financial system will go against the principles of Free Market Economy.
When i look at the failure of the bailout in the house as an individual i am worried as this means recession as a result of which i might lose my gob and increase poverty. But looking at the bigger picture this failure is good as this will discourage bad behavior in the financial system ( which the bailout would have encouraged), we will have a clean economic system and at the end of all this the US will stand up Stronger.

The only sad part in all this is that all those responsible for this failure who are already rich will walk out unharmed and as usual people like you and me have to pay for all this with or without Bailout.

Just heard on the news: the cost of oil is plummeting!! Donald Trump was right on. It is the lowest price per barrel - in a long time.

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
Just heard on the news: the cost of oil is plummeting!! Donald Trump was right on. It is the lowest price per barrel - in a long time.

Donald Trump is a smart man, a lot of people don't like him and think otherwise, or mischaracterize his record...but he's pretty smart. You know he's getting hurt on the Real Estate front by this, and for him to stand up and essentially say let it burn, takes balls. I give kudos to Trump for looking out for the tax payer.

reply to post by MatrixProphet


Don't be so happy, that just means that things are going to get worse before they get better. We do have some tough times ahead, but eventually we will get it right. There are going to be some major setbacks during this period, don't be shocked by that.


Whoever wins the Presidential election must feel like the Groom who marries sight unseen, then finds out he is married to a Ugly, 500 pound Bride who is already pregnant . Some big prize: being President during the deepest economic downturn since the 1930's. Somehow I don't think they will like it.

reply to post by MatrixProphet


Yeah, thats what happens when they expect the demand of oil to drop significantly. Want to know why they expect demand to drop so much? Because they are expecting quite a few people to not be able to afford it.

Of course the stock markets went down. The big money wanted to push stocks down to impress American citizens that we have been bad puppies for not swallowing their excesses. We were asked to eat the rotten leftovers from a financial party they gorged in, but the Champagne was all gone from the table.

Since most of us are pretty broke anyway, the further down stocks go the better the buy they will be when we have an administration that backs the middle class. That translates to reelection to the "No" votes, and voting down anyone that voted "Yes". We are screwed on both presidential contenders, as they both wanted to claim credit for this financial debacle. As was stated on Lou Dobbs tonight, "We live in an age of political midgets."

I am independent voter, and wrote my Congressperson that a yes vote would be sufficient to cause me to vote against any candidate. I don't care who wins, so long as the winners understand that we are living in an electronic age. That may mean that they can watch us, but they damn well better understand that we are now watching them too. That means that we don't have short memories any more than they do. We can call their votes up online anytime we please.

See www.congress.org/congressorg/headlines.tt

I hope that everyone else tells their Congressperson the same news, and follows up by voting against representatives that vote for unrestricted giveaways to foreign and special interest groups.

This bill insured foreign banks against default, which is ludicrous. The bill also gave large sums of money to PAC groups such as "Acorn," which sued lenders to force them to lend in inappropriate or bad cases.

This bill made Paulson a de facto King over spending. The last I saw the Constitution set up Congress to pass necessary appropriations. That mandate contains certain baggage, like protecting the interests of American citizens.

It does not help Americans to force us to pay foreign lending institutions for speculative buying of bundled sub-prime securities. The bill did nothing to help the 9 million Americans that are in default on their mortgage obligations, or to stop further foreclosures.

What is necessary is for Congress to call in economic experts, and to get real testimony on how to fix the mess we are in. Wasting our financial power is not going to fix anything. We need to have a deliberate, systematic, organized, and thorough review of any legislation before blowing our financial resources.

A trillion dollars will be needed to rescue millions of Americans from foreclosure, and to provide real liquidity to the financial markets.

Banks need to be put under a mandate to responsibly lend money where it is made available by the Fed for lending to Americans. Banks have been given 400 billion to lend out recently. Don't it beat all that they have frozen the credit markets? The 400 billion they were given to lend sits safely in their vaults.

This bill had no mandate to lend anything of the 700 billion to Americans facing a financial crisis. Many of those Americans that are responsible borrowers that are sandwiched in this stinking economy.

There was no change in regulations governing banks lending practices in the bill. Lenders should not be encouraged to lend to bad risk scenerios. The culprits of the failure should not be rewarded by Congress by forcing Americans to assume bad banker and foreign investor bets. Regulation of lenders must return to stabilize the housing market. The free wheeling Phil Graham style deregulation of banks has proved to be an absolute disaster, and oversight is key to returning America to responsible lending practices.

It was a great day for America when this mud sandwich was not put on our plates and served as an appetizer for the coming main course.

How about giving each taxpayer that was able to afford to pay $3,500.00 to spend? That's a recipe to stimulate the economy.

Originally posted by pavil
reply to post by MatrixProphet

 

Whoever wins the Presidential election must feel like the Groom who marries sight unseen, then finds out he is married to a Ugly, 500 pound Bride who is already pregnant . Some big prize: being President during the deepest economic downturn since the 1930's. Somehow I don't think they will like it.

I am all for change, and this is by golly...change! You cannot have change without some pain, however.

grimreaper797

If I have responded to your post, I either, A. Liked what you had to say and wanted to let you know or, B. I think you have no clue what you're talking about.

LOL!! Perhaps I fell somewhere in between??

Let's look for some other surprises to come along. This could shift - again, in a very different direction.

reply to post by pavil


You're 100% right about the next President. Whether it is McCain or
Obama, he will inherit the huge, daunting task of managing a downward
spiraling economy, complete with people who hate your guts because of
it. If McCain is elected, we'll probably have Palin taking over for him
within a year. The stress on the new President will be incredible. !

Its so obvious this bill was never meant to pass.
We've all known Pelosi to be a brown nose for Bush, he deserved impeachment the day he stole office, yet she stood by and allowed him unmanaged access.

If this Bill was the be all and end all of this crisis, why then didn’t the republican stand with their fearless, and flawless leader and pass the vote?

Seems they convinced / tricked democrats, yet declined to back it themselves, this gives an impression of legitimacy.

doesn’t that seem odd?

Now, being the vote was, something like 205 - 277 against, it makes it 'appear' to be a legitimate democratic vote..

but when you look at it more closely, it stinks of a setup.

They didn’t want the 700billion package, because it dumped a dying cow on their laps.. who would want to watch that suffering, especially doing election time.


These people stole the election, assisted in 911, lied the world into a war. and seemingly allowed the economy to get into a situation where it loses 770pts a history making loss in 1 day.

This is not coincidence, and what they intend to do in this next few weeks scares the crap out of me.

Originally posted by Flash_dancer
Banks have been given 400 billion to lend out recently. Don't it beat all that they have frozen the credit markets? The 400 billion they were given to lend sits safely in their vaults.

Yeah that's part of what I don't get. We have been lending credit to these banks and it seems all it has done is keep a slobbering drunk standing up before they fall eventually on their face. All that money just went to other banks and never to the consumers. In fact, they probably have used some of that money to buy other failing banks.

They must have been cooking their books something awful for all of sudden a bank to say "Hey!, you know what, I'm in really bad shape".

There damn well better be some prison time in line for some of these company heads and their accountants. I find it supreme irony that some of the largest banks in the world had shoddy accounting and horrible money management practices. They need to pay for their ineptitude. I can't stomach rewarding them with survival for such horrible practices.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by pavil]

The Congress should demand that the Securities and Exchange Commission suspend the mark-to-market accounting rule pending reevaluation of its destructive role in the current downward spiral. There is a grave danger the bailout itself may trigger further asset devaluation and actually worsen the liquidity crisis.

source



Does anybody know how this mark to market accounting rule works? Supposedly it undervalues everything and NEWT G seems to believe if Congress suspends this it could solve 70% of the market problem.

He also makes a few other suggestions on his site. all partisan politics aside he makes some interesting observations.

reply to post by jam321


Your link is bad. But I have never heard of that so I would like to find out more. Got me interested.

In accounting and finance, mark to market is the act of assigning a value to a position held in a financial instrument based on the current market price for the instrument or similar instruments. For example, the final value of a futures contract that expires in 9 months will not be known until it expires. If it is marked to market, for accounting purposes it is assigned the value that it would fetch in the open market currently.

It sounds like most of the speculating going on. Pricing something today on it's future real worth.

[edit on 29-9-2008 by pavil]

reply to post by pavil


was working a while ago. Now I go to website index and get error message. He was talking on greta and I went to his website.

Newt Gringrich just said on Fox that there is something that can be done that is simple and would require no congressional action:

"Suspend tomorrow morning the mark to market requirement. Replace it temporarily with a 3 year rolling average and you will overnight explode the amount liquidity on the street.

Companies will immediately have relief all across America. It will be a stunning affect and you will have bought plenty of time to now think through, in a better way, what was so badly designed by Sec'y Paulson, and that frankly could not be salvaged.

Public support for this bill was less than 1% but every news organization is blaming our representatives for voting wrong? I am starting to believe there may be something to all this MM and PTB you guys talk about.

reply to post by MatrixProphet


sounds pretty common sense. He even criticized Bush so that gives it more credibility that this isn't just a ploy. Trying to find out more about it.

RICHMOND, Va., April 10 (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said on Thursday mark-to-market accounting has helped to destabilize markets for illiquid assets, but regulators need to be careful about any changes to the system.

source



seems bernanke has already admitted to this but has chosen not to suspend it. Gotta do more research.

Pavil, found this on the subject...

Paulson bailout would worsen contagion-spreading accounting rules

source



seems like the domino effect they are expecting

reply to post by jam321


Newt went on to say that Cox could open the day before the market opens:

"Suspend the mark to market immediately in the morning. Chairman Cox could open for the markets by announcing at 7 or 8 am that it had been suspended for the next couple of weeks. You would immediately have relief in all sorts of areas of the financial system involving hundreds of billions of dollar evaluations...

A potential re serge of several hundred billion dollars of liquidity just by having Chairman Cox and the Security & Exchange Comm. with the stroke of a pen - without any legislation."

"Mark-to-Market" Accounting and the Origins of the Financial Crisis: Mark-to-market accounting (also known as "fair value" accounting) means that companies must value the assets on their balance sheets based on the latest market indicators of the price that those assets could be sold for immediately. Under such a rule, declining housing prices don't just reduce the value of defaulting mortgages. They reduce the value of all mortgages and all mortgage-related securities because the housing collateral protecting them is worth less.

Forbes

Here's some info on Market to Market Accounting I found on Forbes...