Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

The 700 Billion Bailout package has been the subject on talk radio & the Radio host said something interesting, he said, "I can see that just as in a Hockey Franchise you pay top dollar to get a player (CEO) you think will produce.
That being said, if he doesn't produce, you don't hand him a big fat cheque (Parachute, Severence Package, Bonus, ETC)."

In essence, "YOU DON'T REWARD FAILURE!!!!!"

That being said, are you in favour of this package as is?
With modifications?

Should there be accountability for these CEO'S?
Should they be allowed to fade into the sunset with all the cash & live high on the hog with no accounting?

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Not in its present form, but with modifications, more accountability,and more in the form of a long term loan than just a "bailout" giveaway.

More accountability for the CEO's, especially regarding their compensation packages.

If it cant be proven they stole the money or did anything illegal, then I'm not in favor of trying to take their money away just for the sake of being punitive. If it's theirs, it's theirs. Lets move on.

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Don't look now...your Canadian is showing. :ursofunny:ursofunny
Seriously, I am very uneasy about this whole thing. I'm trying to learn more about it.

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Is there another way to spell it?:tease


Seriously, a lot of people were shocked when the biggest Capitalist Nation on Earth is talking about a Government bail out of thier economy!

That is a Socialist act.

In Canada, which has left leanings itself, the Government came under attack because it gave subsidies to Bombardier in Quebec.

It turned the other way when Freightliner of Portland, Oregon came and stole Western Star Trucks of Kelowna away from Canada.

They said--That is business!

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

I'm just trying to learn more about it, the pros and cons, the potential issues if it is not done, and trying to reconcile it with the conservative Republican platform. On surface, it looks to me like more pandering to big business by the GOP, but I could be off.

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Right - trying to learn more. We keep hearing of the Mark to Market, Community Reinvestment Act that needs to be done away with and then abolish the Bank Holding Company Act.

Just so much keeps getting added every hour and every day!

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Give the $700,000,000.00 to the taxpayers, than everybody will have enough to pay off their mortgages, and lots left over to fuel the economy. :thumbsup

ARPH:doggyrun

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

I read that idea on a political forum today!!! :ursofunny

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

oops, I left out 3 zeros

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

:ursofunny:ursofunny

Either way, it's redistribution. :ursofunny

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

I will agree with a Bailout WHEN they come up with a plan to start AT THE TOP and start selling off the assets of the filthy rich who managed every corporation involved in this debacle AND take it out of their bank accounts FIRST, then go to every investment banker and every other individual not managing the companies that through their own efforts contributed to these things and you can include the members of congress and the house AND force each and every one of them that have stock in these companies to sell off first, and each and every one of these politicians that got monies from these corps as contributions...take all that money FIRST and apply it towards the companies...if the real deal is to save the companies.

Oh yes...appoint a third party with no ties to the rich or to party affiliation to investigate. Include in that an investigation of the central bank and the SEC chairman

And make sure THEY PAY TOO

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

I am trying to learn as much as I can about this. My gut feel is that the problem has been exaggerated by the news media, who like to make news. I am very distrustful of the politicians, and am against giving them a blank check of 700 Trillion dollars. I do feel there needs to be some action, and some bailout may be necessary. But I think there need to be plenty of regulations in place.

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Somebody's gots ta go to jail, they gots ta!

ARPH:doggyrun

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

This can correct itself without further devaluing the currency or fleecing the taxpayer. The foreclosed homes won't be worth zero. Remaining banks, that DIDN'T engage in the risky junk, can buy up the wreckage and turn a profit.

This bailout proposal stinks to high heaven. We started plinking at redcoats for less than this.

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Wish they would be stripped of their huge pensions and then jailed or executed, but that won't happen. They are too rich and too influencial with folks in government (both parties).

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

I am against the bail out package. You know who is going to pay for this in the end....


I think it is time for a revolution, not talking violent overthrow. But something has got to happen.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The rich make financial mistakes, bad decisions and such, they get more favor and more money.

The poor miss a car payment, they get a ding on their credit report-- a ding that the rich will not forgive.

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

It's pretty much like the FDIC.

Who pays when banks mess up?

F oolish
D umb
I nnocent
C itizens

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

another voice,
I'm not smart enough to agree or disagree


The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.
Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.

Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.

Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.

In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.

But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.

At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.

The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.

And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.
There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.

But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.
Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.

While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.

Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

CARTER MAY BE MORE TO BLAME THAN BUSH OR MCCAIN (WORTH THE READ):
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...bush-or-mccain

AN ARTICLE FROM WINTER 2000 but WORTH THE READ:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_...on_dollar.html

The link below to forums goes to an inactive page..Wonder why?..It was entitled "Social Engineers of 1977 Caused Bank Failures"

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6035_102...sageID=2865328

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

I'm against the bailout. If we are to suffer, let's suffer now. I would prefer that my children be spared from suffering in years to come.

This situation reminds me of the story of King Hezekiah in II Kings, chapter 20.


At that time Berodach-baladan, the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present unto Hezekiah: for he had heard that Hezekiah had been sick.

And Hezekiah hearkened unto them, and shewed them all the house of his precious things, the silver, and the gold, and the spices, and the precious ointment, and all the house of his armour, and all that was found in his treasures: there was nothing in his house, nor in all his dominion, that Hezekiah shewed them not.

Then came Isaiah the prophet unto king Hezekiah, and said unto him, What said these men? and from whence came they unto thee? And Hezekiah said, They are come from a far country, even from Babylon.

And he said, What have they seen in thine house? And Hezekiah answered, All the things that are in mine house have they seen: there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shewed them.

And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of the LORD.

Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the LORD.

And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be Eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.

Then said Hezekiah unto Isaiah, Good is the word of the LORD which thou hast spoken. And he said, Is it not good, if peace and truth be in my days?

Hezekiah was a scumbag. He was willing to sacrifice his children's future, and their potential for procreation, in return for his present personal comfort..

Selfishness defined.

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

The truth is, folks, that there is NO BAILOUT!

There is a bandaid to the cancer of greed and unrighteouness on a country that has in a large margin "forgotten God" and we know what happens next. We've read The Book.

Here is an article that offers food for thought:

http://mises.org/story/3126

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Sorry, Ferd, but Ron Paul makes so much sense!

http://casone.blogs.foxbusiness.com/...at-depression/

Incidentally, a Fox Business Poll asked this question:

Who do you think will come out of this economic crisis looking smartest?

Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman
Henry Paulson, the Secretary of the Treasury
Warren Buffett, head of Berkshire Hathaway
Ron Paul, Texas Congressman and presidential candidate
Bill Gross, PIMCO chief investment officer

I took the poll just to check it out. 74% in favor of Ron Paul. lol

http://www.foxbusiness.com/

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

heck even Ralph Nader is looking good compared to the current goonsquad we have for politicians

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Nobody has clean hands in this!

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

I think it is interesting that so many folks on this forum are eager to give the current Administration and the most current business "professionals" connected to this disaster a pass on all of this.

8 years of Republican leadership, 8 years of loyalty and THEY let the country almost go down the tubes financially on THEIR watch!

But I'm supposed to blame Pres. Carter....

wow.


Just wondering, how bad did the economy tank after the 1st Bush? Does anyone see any similarities in his situation and this situation?

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

It was both parties that let us down.

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Get ready for the NAU and the Amero

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

You got that right!

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

This is not a Republican issue. The corruption in Washington is bipartisan. That's why you don't hear a lot of blame being placed squarely in the lap of the Republicans--because the Democrats are just as guilty as they are, and they can't cry foul without getting their own noses dirty.

I haven't figured this out well enough to feel one way or the other (re: the bailout).

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Update:

September 27, 2008
A Slimmer, Cleaner Paulson Plan is a Win-Win
By Lawrence Kudlow

Here's the key point: Any loan package bought by the Treasury will be 100 percent taxpayer owned. Period.

House Republicans understand these key points. Unfortunately, this understanding did not materialize in their original meeting with Mr. Paulson a few days ago. But now the actual reality is sinking in.

Another point: Republican leader Eric Cantor has an excellent idea for a federal bond insurance guarantee for straight mortgage-backed paper, financed by private-sector insurance premiums. That will improve investor confidence in mortgage bonds and will make those bonds highly marketable. Importantly, senior Treasury officials have told me that Mr. Paulson will accept the insurance idea as an option in the final bill, alongside the ability of the Treasury to purchase distressed assets.

Sources also tell me that other conditions will be necessary to bring the House GOP along. First, the ACORN slush fund must be removed. Second, the so-called union proxy to run a slate of corporate directors is a big problem. Third, all profits from the Treasury rescue mission must be used to reduce the national debt -- 100 percent. Fourth, Republican members are opposed to bankruptcy judges setting mortgage terms and interest rates (Sen. Obama also is opposed). Fifth, the so-called government equity ownership of banks is distasteful because it effectively creates a corporate tax increase on banks at a time when they are struggling. And last, the Treasury secretary's request for $700 billion is regarded as way too high.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...is_a_winw.html

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

right off the bat, he said we created the same problem we created in the 1920's which is totally false. we were on the gold standard at the time, we werent on a fiat system. there was no fed at the time.

Ron Paul is wrong.

but he is right on the bailout. its a bad deal. but wanting to go back to a gold system which is economic suicide. period.

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

there was a very mild 2 quater recession at the end of bush 1. more mild than in 2000 at the end of Clinton's term.

this deal has been in the making since 1996. Republicans and democrats alike are at fault. (Yes that includes GWB.)

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Right, Ron Paul is right about the bailout! :D

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Ron. Short story is we are doomed!

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

I didn't get that impression from him. :D

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Not quite sure I would go with "nothing" but I sure dont think the gov. should be in the business of business.

You watch. someone will go to jail for messing with this money.

I would do what Jeb Hincerling has suggested. Loan some money and offer an insurance plan.

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Yes, I agree. Larry Kudlow said that is what they are working on - the insurance plan.

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

Here is my plan.

You get Larry Kudlow, Newt Gingrich, Paul Volker, and the ghost of Milton Freedman in a room and what ever they come up with, thats what we do.

Re: Bailout Package-For Or Against?
 

:cheer :cheer :cheer

Couldn't agree more!!!!!