Summary of new bill...

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/105887/The-Bailout:-An-Owner's-Manual

This is a link to Forbes' summary/explanation of the new rescue bill...

This is a REALLY bad bill. And the sad part is the rejected house bill was 3 pages. This monstrosity the Senate passed last night is 250 pages.

I'm thinking Belize. Or possibly a less socialist country like China.

What's the Best Case Scenario for the Bailout?

That credit markets start functioning properly again, and the government can turn a profit on the sale of the assets it buys. The former scenario will become evident in the next several months, the latter could take years.

That doesn't mean the U.S. economy will become healthy again overnight, however. Stephen Auth, chief investment officer for Federated Investors, says to expect more bad economic news for at least the next couple of quarters, including unemployment levels at 7% or higher. "This is going to throw up a breakwater and keep it from swamping the whole system," he says of the bailout.

What's the Worst Case?

It simply doesn't work. Credit markets remain gummed up, borrowing and lending for consumers and businesses of all sizes comes to a halt and banks continue to fail. That could lead to a prolonged recession. There's also the possibility that the expansion of insurance caps on bank deposits won't do much to help small businesses, which typically need to insure more than $250,000.

In addition, if the government can't make any money from the purchase of these assets, it saddles Americans with more debt and higher interest rates, perhaps for years to come.

Well Aaron I keep getting stuff encouraging me to go to Belize.

They say you can live pretty comfortably there on 4 or 5 hundred $ a month.

Are you saying they are socialist?

I did not get that impression since they want people to come and open businesses.

And lots of people go there for dental care but it is not free like it would be if it was socialist.

I'm saying America is a socialist country and I'm sick and tired of paying $.40 of every dollar I make to pay for wasteful and fradulant health care, unconstitutional entitlement programs and on top of that, taking care of the work via foreign aid and police actions.

And now, on top of all of that, I'm expected to bail out banks and investment firms because they made bad decisions.

I for one am sick of it.

The cost is now estimated to be over $1 Trillion dollars.

The Senate in effect played legislative enabler for the House, adding tax provisions popular with the left and right in a bid that House leaders hoped would persuade enough of the rank-and-file to switch their votes to yes.

The modified Senate bill would extend several tax breaks popular with businesses, which are favorites for most Republicans. It would keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million middle-income Americans, which appeals to lawmakers in both parties. And it would provide $8 billion in tax relief for people hit by natural disasters in the Midwest, Texas and Louisiana.

Help for rural schools was aimed mainly at lawmakers in the West.

Another addition, to extend the deductibility of state and local taxes for people in states without income taxes, helps Florida and Texas, among others.

source

Well I guess the aginners must not have run out of steam yet.

The House republicans don't seem to be breaking over.

As I understand, they could pick up enough House Democrats to pass it if they re-write it to actually prevent foreclosures in the first place and change the bankruptcy laws to allow bankruptcy judges to negotiate lower mortgage payments.

But then the Senate might renege.

It's a bad bill Sherm and whoever votes for it, will likely pay come election day.

Especially if the economy is still lagging, unemployment increases and credit is still not fully recovered, all of which are hopeful to happen under a BESTcase scenario.

Call SMC and tell her to hang tough. This is an outrage.

Stephanie wrote:Call SMC and tell her to hang tough. This is an outrage.

I have. Twice. And I've emailed her.

She has more cahona's then our other 4 repsentatives combined.

Did Jay vote for this abomination? Do you know where to get a list of who voted how?

BTW.....are you interested in joining a group dedicated to ending the Fed?

Aaron wrote:It's a bad bill Sherm and whoever votes for it, will likely pay come election day.

Especially if the economy is still lagging, unemployment increases and credit is still not fully recovered, all of which are hopeful to happen under a BESTcase scenario.

WHAT, you mean this "bailout" is now more important when it comes to deciding who one will be voting for ....... rather than the abortion issue?

MERCY GODS, ....... and here I thought you all considered the "abortion issue" as the numero uno issue in casting your vote.

Well now, considering the current situation the US economy is now facing, ...... you better let that be a lesson for you all to be selecting the really important qualifications, positions and beliefs of a political candidate when choosing which one to vote for.

WHATTA YOU WANNA BET, if the US economy does go into an extended recession with tight money, no credit, loss of jobs, etc., etc., ........ the abortion rate will increase drastically.

Thus, all the anti-abortion voters will have defeated their own purpose ...... by helping to elect all those committed pro-life candidates ....... who are completely incomponent when it comes to doing the jobs their Office dictates.


.

Stephanie wrote:
BTW.....are you interested in joining a group dedicated to ending the Fed?

If you're talking about ending the federal reserve, then yes I'm interested.

If you're talking about the federal government, I thought we were keeping that private for now. What if the man is monitoring this forum???

Aaron wrote:It's a bad bill Sherm and whoever votes for it, will likely pay come election day.

Especially if the economy is still lagging, unemployment increases and credit is still not fully recovered, all of which are hopeful to happen under a BESTcase scenario.

Well Aaron have you talked tp any businessmen about this?

They are getting really concerned about credit drying up.

People don't realize I dont think how much businesses depend on credit,

Just the president of our 35 location 2,500 employee company Sherm. And yes he's concerned because we rely on credit, particulary in the winter time. The thing is, most credit is business to business and that credit is NOT drying up. If anything, it's increasing in the same manner that GMAC is doing more financing to keep cars moving.

It's not as doomsday as Paulson is telling you and there are other alternatives to fixing the credit crunch besides wasting over one trillion dollars ($1,000,000,000,000.00) of tax payers dollars on a program that's not guranteed to work.

Well I would like to see a survey of some kind gauging the support among business people.

Likewise with economists.

If it's so cut and dried as you and Stephanie say I cant see for the life of me why so many would support it.

Especially Democrats joining hands with Bush to support it.

Bush is a big-government loving toad. If he only had a D after his name, you'd feel altogether different about him.

sodbuster wrote:Well I would like to see a survey of some kind gauging the support among business people.

Likewise with economists.

If it's so cut and dried as you and Stephanie say I cant see for the life of me why so many would support it.

Especially Democrats joining hands with Bush to support it.

First, I'm not saying that the government should do nothing. I realize there is going to have to some sort of government intervention if for no other reason then to settle the natives. Economist agree on that. I've posted links saying that and Stephanie has posted links saying the same thing. How much more do you need?

We are saying the same thing they are. There are other options which is what I've been saying all week long. But you're doing the same thing the liberal media is doing and that is insinuating that if one is against this specific waste of taxpayer money they are calling a rescure bill, then they don't want the government to do anything. That's just not the case and you know it as I've posted several other options, including Newt Gingrich's, which you managed to find fault with soley because Newt put it out even though you could find NO fault with his proposal.

As for why so many in Congress would support it, all you have to do is look up annual campaign contributions. THAT is what seems pretty cut and dry to me.

sodbuster wrote:Well I would like to see a survey of some kind gauging the support among business people.

Likewise with economists.

If it's so cut and dried as you and Stephanie say I cant see for the life of me why so many would support it.

Especially Democrats joining hands with Bush to support it.

Funny man, ..... they did the same thing for the Iraq War.

.

Because they have PCness disease out the ying-yang.

ziggy wrote:Because they have PCness disease out the ying-yang.

Well zig I hate to differ but the pc thing to do is to oppose it.

Not support it.

The Iraq war? Not in October 2002 it wasn't. The PNAC neo-cons had whipped the nation into such a false frenzy that Jesus himself would likely have joined the march to war in the race to show who could show the most political correctness.

Not talking about the Iraq war zig.

I meant the pc thing to do was oppose the President's rescue plan.

I agree with you about the Iraq War,

sorry about the mixup...

Wall Street money and campaign contributions override political correctness Sherm. Congress was bought and paid for long ago. Now they have to deliver what Paulson (he is Wall Street after all) demands.

If nothing, this is bi-partisanship at its best. Both sides of Congress have known from day one that they would have to do and in the end, they'll do it.

I think the house vote Monday was a sham set up to fail and the reason is simple.

The vote would then go to the Senate, who had to attach it to another spending bill for constitutional reasons, could attach more pork to this fraud being heaped upon America so that certain members who switch can show how much they’ve got for their betrayal.

If one looks at the final votes, members the most vulnerable will vote as their district want them to from both parties while those more secure will be allowed to go against the will of the people.

West Virginia is the perfect example. SMC is facing a tough challenge from Ann Barth so Republican leadership will not make her go against the will of the West Virginians and vote for the bailout. She voted no Monday and I would be shocked if she switches this afternoon.

On the other hand, Rahall and Mollohan face no challenge so democratic leadership can allow them to go against what West Virginians what.

Aaron wrote:As for why so many in Congress would support it, all you have to do is look up annual campaign contributions. THAT is what seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Wall Street money and campaign contributions override political correctness Sherm. Congress was bought and paid for long ago. Now they have to deliver what Paulson (he is Wall Street after all) demands.

Why is it that when I suggest the same thing- that campaign contributions affect Congressional votes to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars- that you poo-poo it as some kind of misguided or irrelevant statement? But when it serves your argument, it seems that it is spot on ....................

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:As for why so many in Congress would support it, all you have to do is look up annual campaign contributions. THAT is what seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Wall Street money and campaign contributions override political correctness Sherm. Congress was bought and paid for long ago. Now they have to deliver what Paulson (he is Wall Street after all) demands.

Why is it that when I suggest the same thing- that campaign contributions affect Congressional votes to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars- that you poo-poo it as some kind of misguided or irrelevant statement? But when it serves your argument, it seems that it is spot on .................

I've not said its not relevant Frank and I'm not saying campaign contributions effect voting. I'm saying Congress was purchased long ago.