Posted on 09/24/2008 10:34:43 AM PDT by HAL9000
Breaking News - Republican officials say the Bush administration will accept executive-pay curbs as part of the bailout. President Bush plans to address the nation Wednesday at 9:01 p.m. EDT on the financial crisis.
I’d rather act now then give Obama more money to invest in his socialist programs down the line. Acting now, and being successful, like the surge, will all but ensure that Obama is not elected! Exactly! I am not willing to take that chance.
Oh... we are in for a crash landing even with the bailout. I believe the bailout IS the semi-controlled landing. Without it, we are going to burst into flames before we hit the water.
1 Give us the money
2 now
3 Now
4 NOW
5 NOW!!!
/s
I am down with the plan save a few conditions:
No moratorium for any homeowner who did not originally put 10% or more down on their home. No way no how. No multi home owner assistance ( speculators ). There must be some type of consequence for CEO’s who managed these companies so poorly, but that is not a deal breaker for me. I think their firing would be plenty with no golden parachutes. I don’t know who, but someone has to manage the assets. Some concrete plan for the selling of the properties at the time when they can turn a profit.
Simple. This is not socialism. This is not a federal takeover.
These companies have a choice. Sell your bad debts cheap and start fresh, or go down in flames. I think the alternative is far worse to this plan.
And I want to know who to call for the contract for mowing the grass at all these empty homes.
OK, now who is going to be the first to call me a socialist/communist that should move to France?? LOL!
Just an opinion folks. I am hoping for some civil discussions.
Scare tactics are coming hot and heavy.
Working Americans are told constantly if they hit tough times, to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and not expect government bailouts.
Same needs to go for the greedy super rich that made bad decisions, and investments and drove their companies into the ground.
No bailouts.
Given that most of the distressed mortgages came out of Southern California, Nevada, Florida, and the Bay area, I find it hard to believe that any of those $700,000 houses will recover in the next ten years.
What confused me is his statement that these securities would be bought at current market prices, which is not more than 20-cents on the dollar, yet, all day, Bernanke was talking about buying these securities at “hold-to-maturity” levels. So, which is it? If we’re buying these things at current market prices, that’s no bailout for anyone. In fact, it seals the fate of most of these banks. If we’re going to buy them at hold-to-maturity, well, there’s no way in hell we see a sizable profit for many many years. And with inflation factored in, what will that profit actually amount to?
I really want to like our President. I really wish I could trust what he’s saying. But the damage that will occur to the basic foundation of our system through a bailout seems to me a bridge too far. A bailout will not prevent a recession. It will lead to massive tax increases with Obama in office. And the fact that these clowns in Congress couldn’t help stuffing pork into the spending bill tells me they are simply not serious about being servants of the commonweal. And because of that, I am firmly against this bailout.
Exactly!!!
A major concern I have with the current plan is that the Dems appear to be significantly expanding the role of the government in areas that will be corrupted by the politicians.
Just sent an e-mail to Senator Corker telling him that I do NOT support the bailout. I also asked him when the inditements of those government officials responsible for the errant lending practices would be served.
Thanks Mom. Those modifications to the plan may be the best we can do. Oversight, transparency and lack of earmarks are the keys for me.
Have you ever wondered what the world was like without credit? No bankers skimming huge amounts of money off from all your purchases. Just pay as go. You want something then you save for it.(and the prices will be lower) Want to build a business then build it on savings. After all they must make more than they borrow or eventually they will go under right? So a well run business would do far better in time without spending part of their profits on bankers interest. No bankers making millions a year. All that money effectively going back into the taxpayers pocket. Dratts to the banker who first came up with the idea of credit in the first place. You know that in the beginning most people in this country lived without credit. And it was a better place. We would not have Trillions in debt right now either. Stop letting the bankers hold America hostage. But if people want to live in a credit based system then let them that borrow pay for it. Not those who save.
Again...Anyone who does not understand money and banking should watch this 5 part video series.
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThXpjmfyiMQ&feature=related
I have everything I NEED. Of course I’m responsible. I think I can suffer without a new car for a few years.
His methods are hard, but they work. Good luck. (he would have told you “no” on the car)
Even if you’re a goldbug that’s never done a loan in his/her life — a complete credit/liquidity/banking collapse is going to be worse than Obama swooping in and implementing all his socialist wet dreams, believe it or not.
This is not a bailout as much as it is to prevent the total collapse of the economy, which would decimate everyone’s banking accounts, 401Ks, retirement savings, SS, etc., and would likely bring down the rest of the world. The warnings are not exaggerated.
Unless you have a farm and grow enough food to supply your family and have a water source, you’d be out of luck.
LOL! You sound like a”typical democrat”! Me. Me. Me.
I think you are on the wrong forum. : )
Stealing tax dollars from competent people that didn't overspend to bail out those that did (and their enablers) isn't an investment - it's THEFT!
It is sure a lot better then the original plan and those three key elements oversight, transparency and lack of earmarks are what it makes it easier to swallow. Like the other poster, I recognized what Pres Bush was starting to say from reading this plan of McCain’s.
Think it is the only plan that will sell in Congress. Bush should have known that first plan would be DOA with no oversight.
“Would some knowledgeable FReeper please suggest to me what the heck is going to happen now, and what I might possibly do? I am NOT a financial genius...obviously.”
Well, my personal suggestion is that you start listening to Dave Ramsey. His podcasts are on itunes and one hour a day is free. He has a refreshing, anti-debt philosophy that is based Christianity. He’s fun to listen to as well. His books are available at the library. Local churches in your area probably offer his “financial peace university.”
You might want to take a hard look at that car loan. I don’t see how you’re able to swing it on your income; you can get a beater for $1000 that will get you from point a to point b.
You also have an income crisis. Like I’m telling you something you don’t know, eh? Might want to start thinking about doing jobs on the side to get out of debt. As Dave Ramsey is fond of suggesting: delivering pizzas or mowing lawns to make extra bucks.
“I expect derision, but if some kernel of truth can come out of it, so be it.”
Why would you expect derision? FReepers are generally good folks. We might throw the furniture at each other over politics, but rarely will someone in need be turned away, scorned, or otherwise ill treated. I expect that you’ll get a lot of useful suggestions and support.
The problem is that injecting money will inflate rather than deflate the economy. It's precisely the wrong medicine for the fundamental problem.
Suppose you have a fabric balloon which you're trying to inflate as much as possible and keep inflated. It starts to develop leaks. As air flows through the leaks, the fabric becomes more and more frayed, and the balloon thus leaks more and more, thus requiring an ever-increasing supply of air.
The balloon isn't going to remain inflated forever. A small blower may help to control the balloon during deflation, but the goal must be to deflate the balloon smoothly, rather than to keep it inflated.
To put it in more specific monetary terms: financial institutions operate on the premise that, at any given time, their assets won't be worth the full value of investors' deposits, but by the time investors withdraw their money the assets will have grown. At present, the gap between the amount of money investors have been told they have versus the amount that actually exists is so big that there's no realistic possibility that investors will ever be paid off even close to what they owe.
The fundamental question is whether it's better to have someone hold an investment that's supposedly worth $100,000 but is actually worth $25,000, or whether it would be better for him to hold an asset which is accurately labeled at $25,000.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.