Bailout- beyond the hype...

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/09/17/pm_fed_cash/

Well in the beginning I was opposed to the bailout due to all the hype being put out by the naysayers.

Now I am not sure.

It's not like taxpayers are just giving the fatcats $700K because they made bad business decisions as the naysayers contend.

It is to be paid back, with interest.

Remember the so-called Chrysler bailout when President Carter was in office?

All the naysayers were just as opposed then as now.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/economy/a/chryslerBailout.htm

But they worked out a compromise and not only was the company saved and all those jobs preserved, the national treasury actually made $350 million in interest.

It as always easier to be a naysayer as opposed to trying to work things out.

But since the House republicans have done all this grandstanding, they will have to be given some "cover" so they don't look so foolish.

That is just my opinion.

This bailout is a risk undertaken by the government and is not assured of being paid back in full so a profit is in no way guaranteed.

I think the fear by the government now is that foreign governments will see our economy as unstable and pull their money out or call in loans.

For that reason, the bailout will pass. The problem is, it sets precedence and that's not good.

The positive is that if Obama is elected, it pretty much kills any chance he has of getting universal health care passed so there is a silver lining to every cloud.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3094318/Bailout-failure-will-cause-US-crash.html

Well it appears London is on board.

They are predicting a horrible crash of Hoover proportions if a package is not agreed to.

What do you think the rightwing holdouts' motive is?

From the bits and pieces we are being spoonfed it looks to me like the Insurance fatcats want to get their fingers in the pie....

"This bailout is a risk undertaken by the government and is not assured of being paid back in full so a profit is in no way guaranteed.

I think the fear by the government now is that foreign governments will see our economy as unstable and pull their money out or call in loans."

Well Aaron after re-reading my post I see where you are coming from.

My post reads like a payback is a sure thing but I recognize it is a gamble of sorts.

(course doing nothing, like some propose, is also a gamble isn't it?)

So the question becomes which is the better odds, right?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122257682963083173.html

Well from reading this it looks like I was right about the holdouts wanting to take care of the Insurance guys.....

Rep. Eric Cantor (R., Va.), who led the House Republican opposition, said he would have to see language on a proposal to require financial companies contribute to a mandatory insurance plan before declaring his full support.

"I'm not ready to say a deal is done," Rep. Cantor said in an interview on Cable News Network Sunday.

All the heavy hitters will get their fingers in or it wont pass.

According to a summary of the final text of the legislation, the Treasury would be required to establish a mandatory industry-funded program to insure the soured assets it acquires through the Wall Street rescue plan. The inclusion of the insurance idea is a victory for House Republicans who had argued that taxpayers shouldn't be left on the hook as part of the plan.

You know, I am getting pretty fed up with your deceptions.

The above is the "insurance" Rep. Cantor is speaking of.

This deal still SUCKS!

The board established to have oversight responsibilities of the bailout package would be comprised of the Treasury Secretary, the Fed chairman, the SEC chairman, the director of the Federal Home Finance Agency and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

This is the same bunch of greedy, self-serving, egotistical lowlifes who were supposed to be keeping an eye on this to begin with. These are the same offices who manipulated the markets by lowering interest rates and down payments and the standards for tidbits like income verification while increasing the cap on borrowing. We should trust them now because????????

Vote the bums out.

Every single last one who climbs on board for this.

Democrats got many concessions in bailout

But GOP held fast to not tying $700 billion proposal to homeowner relief

What started as a fairly simple three-page proposal giving the Treasury Secretary unchecked power to orchestrate a bailout of the country’s financial system ended up as a complex rescue package, with enhanced congressional oversight, some added protections for taxpayers and a slap on the wrist to highly paid, underperforming executives.

The measure also proposes limited caps on the pay and benefit packages of companies who receive the government rescue, strengthens government oversight of the program and adds an insurance program for financial companies’ bad assets.

While Democratic negotiators made significant changes to the plan Paulson sent Congress a week ago, they did not get everything they had sought, particularly more help for troubled homeowners.

House Republicans, meanwhile, fought hard for — and won — a provision that would establish a program whereby banks could buy government insurance to back the principal and interest on certain troubled assets, rather than selling them outright. They argued this was a better deal for taxpayers, and would reduce the overall cost of the rescue package.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26932944/

Well, if the bailout fails ........ it will be like always, ..... the fault of the Democrats and their "significant changes" that benefit only themselves.

The Democrats are more worried about getting themselves re-elected than they are about the future of the US.


.

Well Steph there is no deception.

I think the insurance companies have entirely too much power and influence.

And money.

Perhaps I am not being fair to them.

I have about as much contempt for them as some of you guys have for poor people.

Also I suspect it is not the lending institutions that are to be "bailed out" as much as the big insurance companies.

I am confident these so-called sub-prime risky loans required the borrowers to take out mortgage insurance.

Wall Street (according to Huckabee - I so wish he had received the GOP nod) is Vegas East. It is all a gamble.

The difference is, If I lose my money on the craps table, I can't go the the fed for more money...

sodbuster wrote:Well Steph there is no deception.

I think the insurance companies have entirely too much power and influence.

And money.

Perhaps I am not being fair to them.

I have about as much contempt for them as some of you guys have for poor people.

Also I suspect it is not the lending institutions that are to be "bailed out" as much as the big insurance companies.

I am confident these so-called sub-prime risky loans required the borrowers to take out mortgage insurance.

You're giving waaayyyy too much credit to the Democrats in Congress. They are on the brink of hammering the final nail in the coffin of our liberty.

If you think it's the big insurance companies being bailed out, why do you support the legislation?

They are stealing from the middle class and robbing our children and grandchilden and their children of their future to rescue the elite. How do they sleep at night?

The crash most Americans could deal with. We did in 1921, and again in 89 and 2001 and every other time we've had a financial crisis.

What is going to do in most Americans and make this much, much worse is the same thing that turned the crash of 29 into a great depression and that is government intervention.

It started with Smoot-Hawley Tarrif Act and New Deal legislation added to it. The only thing that brought us out of the Great Depression was WW2.

Let's just hope it doesn't take 3 to bring us out of this mess.