NO on the bailout!

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

be happy about this:

Dow 10,510.09 -633.04 (-5.68%)
Nasdaq 2,020.62 -162.72 (-7.45%)
S&P 1,121.16 -92.11 (-7.59%)

I expected a larger drop. So far it doesn't look significant.

Quote

In a couple of hours my retirement funds were decreased by over $10,000 and there will be many in much worse condition.

Well, there is something for all of us to learn. A lot of people seem to forget during 2004-2007 that investment in stocks, real estate and mutual fonds is not a CD, and the phrase "can lose value" in your brokerage account does not describe a non-existing case. But if you're taxpayer and want a bail out, it would probably be much cheaper for you just to bail out yourself than yourself AND those in much worse condition; what do you think?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am watching live the vote for the financial bailout and the no vote had been given! More to come!

it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises

i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading.

Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis.

what facts? that McCain tried to stop this with a bill in 2005, but in 2006 the dem controlled congress kick it out. Yes this problem went unchecked under bush but that doesn't mean that the clinton era didn't start filling the baloon. The blame falls across the board but it is time for the dem's to start pointing fingers at themselves also.

this bailout failure is totally on the dem's. they can't even agree with themselves on this issue. i guess we shouldn't expect anything of value from the DO NOTHING CONGRESS.

Mark,

Please produce evidence that loans to low income people (as defined in that article) are the cause of THIS crisis.

No-one forced investment banks to buy "securitized" loans as a result of those changes. No-one forced ratings agencies to give those packages AAA ratings when they were full of junk. No-one forced mortgage brokers to push loans on people who couldn't pay (often fraudulently). Nothing in those 1999 changes made high income people overextend on 2nd and 3rd homes, huge homes, or investment properties. They weren't being snapped up by the low income folks.

That article is a transparent attempt to shift blame from where it is due.

if the questionable loans were not given, the mortgage backed securities would be stronger, thus relieving some of this mess. so yes this is part of the problem. greed and presure caused this problem and it does not only include wall street greed. the greed on main street is partially to blame along with those that made it possible by putting presure on those that gave out the loans.

for someone that is strong on facts you really are trying to exclude some of the most important ones.

Mark - provide EVIDENCE that defaulted loans to poor people had any significant contribution to this fiasco.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,400]

>I don't think anyone is sure it will work.

I agree. But do you think it _might_ work?

>I think it does set a bad precedent.

I agree. That's perhaps the worst part of this.

>All of it is very complex and not something I think should be rushed into.

I wonder about that.

99% of this is intent. Notice that the stock market plunged when they heard that there would be no bailout today. Now, even if they had approved it, it is very likely that companies would not see any of that money for months. Why, then, did it have such an immediate effect?

Because it is perceived intent, not actual transactions, that drives speculation in the market. The news today made people think they would not be able to sell their instruments for more money in the future, so they sold them at today's (low) prices to avoid them dropping further. And, as always, that caused the price to go lower still.

So an alternative I see is to very rapidly pass a bill that says "our intent is to authorize $700 billion - right now we are authorizing $70 billion and will do another $70 billion once a month for the next ten months." Has the same basic effect (making people think their debt instruments will soon be worth more, so they increase in value) but can be truncated at a moment's notice once the economy does start to recover.

> I am not a big fan of big government and I am not a big fan of messing with the
> natural market forces. . . .I don' t like the idea of fat cats getting golden parachutes
> for bad performance.

Here's an example of running into that problem of regulation vs. free market. It certainly seems like it would be a very good idea to not spend that $700 billion giving golden parachutes to "fat cats" and we should include some regulation in the bill to that effect. But that's where all government regulation comes from - from a very good idea that has only the best intentions.

All in all, do you think that it was overregulation or underregulation that contributed the most to this problem?

[diverborg 0]

Quote

>I am soooo happy this got shot down.

Why? Is it that you think the bailout will not work? Do you think that it will likely work, but sets a bad precedent? Do you think that federal funds should not go towards fixing the economy? If it were a smaller sum would you be less against it?

Can I give a shot at this? Ok thank you.

Well first of all I do not have the knowledge to know whether this will work or not, and I don't think anybody truly does. If it never passes and all hell breaks loose, then maybe I'll look back on this wishing it did pass. With it getting shot down, there is obviously a majority of in congress that think it's a bad idea. So its fair to say that it might not work. So what do we have now if it fails and we just blew $700billion. Now we are waaaaaay worse off than we would have been if we just let it go. So yes I'm not so sure it will work, as well as the amount bothers me too. When its obvious this is a gamble, I think $700billion is a little too much to be gambling with. Not to even mention the precedent it is setting where we are bailing out a few failing companies that brought this on us all in the first place because they have the biggest influence on wall street.

I would rather see these companies go under, go into a recession and let it work itself out and recover better than before with some lessons learned. I could be very naive on this and overly optimistic, but who knows yet. This bill may just prolong the inevitable and leave us worse off than before, and there are plenty of knowledgeable economists that would agree with me, as there are plenty that don't. Nobody really knows.

I can't help but feel this bail-out is like a hold-em tournament where we are just few hands from being blinded out and were dealt a king and a deuce and going all in pre-flop. Thats a foolish move IMO and we need to at least see the flop or accept losing a few more blinds till things turn around for us and we get some good cards to invest on.

[marks2065 0]

it's in the article from 1999. were it says

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.


Oops! And that is exactly what has happened nine years later. And who were the "killjoys" at the time warning against Fannie Mae easing the credit requirements? That answer is also provided in the NY Times article:

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''


is this enough proof?

[billvon 2,400]

>Well first of all I do not have the knowledge to know whether this will work or
>not, and I don't think anybody truly does. If it never passes and all hell breaks
>loose, then maybe I'll look back on this wishing it did pass.

Of course. But based on your best judgment, is there a good chance it will work?

>So what do we have now if it fails and we just blew $700billion. Now we are
>waaaaaay worse off than we would have been if we just let it go.

Well, yes and no. Bad things:

-We are out $700 billion.
-We foster the approach of "invest in risky stuff! The Feds will bail us out if we screw up."

Good things:

-The economy may be helped significantly. This makes us money.
-We get the money back when the value of the instruments rises again.

So short term bad and good things, long term potentially some good (i.e. we get the money back.)

> When its obvious this is a gamble, I think $700billion is a little too much to be gambling with.

Fair statement. So how about $70 billion?

>I would rather see these companies go under, go into a recession and let it
>work itself out and recover better than before with some lessons learned.

That's also fair, but you also have to accept all the consequences of that (higher taxes to offset lower company earnings, reduction in employment, unavailability of housing etc.)

[Ron 7]

Quote

I agree. But do you think it _might_ work?

Short term it might keep the markets from falling. But the long term (Years not mths) I think an adjustment has to happen.

And it seems we both agree that it sets a bad precedent.

So, is the potential benefit more than the guaranteed loss in the growth of Govt control of the markets? I don't think so.

Quote

Why, then, did it have such an immediate effect?

Like you said....Intent. The market moves on speculation. It rises on the promise of growth and drops on the fear of losing money.

But in the end it is the real value that matters. Much like the housing bubble or the internet bubble that preceded it. People think that the market is going to continue to grow and bid up the values...till people realize that the commodity has become overvalued. Then people sell trying to keep from them personally getting hit by the loss.

But this is all speculation. This bill would only prolong the fall at the cost of a real impact on the National Debt and taxes, IMO.

Quote

All in all, do you think that it was overregulation or underregulation that contributed the most to this problem?

I think it was greed and failure to follow basic economic ideas.

But given only the two choices you have given me....I'd have to say if I had to pick one....Tough question. I'll go with, underregulation caused most of it. But only due to greedy investors investing in commodities they did not understand....A major no-no in investing.

But that does not mean the answer is more regulation, and that never means over the top regulation is the answer.

And I think this bill is over the top.

The markets tend to fix themselves...Even if that means it is painful for a while.

Case in point...you know all those people that blame Greenspan for artifically keeping rates low? How could they disaprove of that, but approve of this?

Both, IMO, would be artificially keeping the market inflated.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[diverborg 0]

Quote

>not, and I don't think anybody truly does. If it never passes and all hell breaks
>loose, then maybe I'll look back on this wishing it did pass.

Of course. But based on your best judgment, is there a good chance it will work?

My best guess by my own judgement is any good effects will only be temporary, and $700billion seems like too much money for a temporary patch. In all honesty, I hope that this is the answer and this will fix our problems because some form of this will eventually pass.

Quote

> When its obvious this is a gamble, I think $700billion is a little too much to be gambling with.

Fair statement. So how about $70 billion?

I would feel a lot more warm and fuzzy if its only $70 billion.

Quote

>I would rather see these companies go under, go into a recession and let it
>work itself out and recover better than before with some lessons learned.

That's also fair, but you also have to accept all the consequences of that (higher taxes to offset lower company earnings, reduction in employment, unavailability of housing etc.)

Of course, but this is all relative to how much of a recession we really see without the bailout, which is really being disputed. Some think that the bailout will do more damage than leaving it alone. Some of the disagreements are bipartisan, but not as much as the media is playing it up to be IMO, there were 95 democrats that voted this down too. I think when that amount of people in both parties shoot this down, this may not be the answer.

We have no choice but to accept the consequences of either decision, take responsibility for ourselves and try and move on with life.

[diverborg 0]

Quote

Short term it might keep the markets from falling. But the long term (Years not mths) I think an adjustment has to happen.

And it seems we both agree that it sets a bad precedent.

So, is the potential benefit more than the guaranteed loss in the growth of Govt control of the markets? I don't think so.

Quote

But in the end it is the real value that matters. Much like the housing bubble or the internet bubble that preceded it. People think that the market is going to continue to grow and bid up the values...till people realize that the commodity has become overvalued. Then people sell trying to keep from them personally getting hit by the loss.

Quote

But that does not mean the answer is more regulation, and that never means over the top regulation is the answer.

And I think this bill is over the top.

The markets tend to fix themselves...Even if that means it is painful for a while.

I think these few quotes pretty much sum up what I've been trying to say in my last few posts. Well said!

[billvon 2,400]

>But the long term (Years not mths) I think an adjustment has to happen.

I would tend to agree. The question becomes - is it worthwhile to use the Fed's purchasing power to make it a longer, shallower adjustment rather than a deeper, more painful one?

>So, is the potential benefit more than the guaranteed loss in the growth of
>Govt control of the markets?

Not sure what you mean. If you mean - "the potential benefit is not worth the additional government control of the markets" I would agree IF the bill is set up such that the government retains significant control over the markets after the instruments are bought back. That would be a mistake long term.

>I think it was greed and failure to follow basic economic ideas.

Well, the primary cause was certainly greed. Although as greed is our basic economic driver, I would also argue that it was our _following_ of our basic economic ideal as opposed to a more conservative, less profitable path that led to this. It is one of the basic problems of capitalism - greed is rewarded. Indeed, I bet there are a lot of new billionaires who had the greed to get into this market heavily and the intelligence to get out near the top.

>But given only the two choices you have given me....I'd have to say if I had to pick
>one....Tough question. I'll go with, underregulation caused most of it. But only due
>to greedy investors investing in commodities they did not understand....A major
>no-no in investing.

I tend to agree. Both were problems, but the loss of regulations on things like the CDS market was, I think, the bigger issue.

>But that does not mean the answer is more regulation, and that never
>means over the top regulation is the answer.

The answer is certainly not _just_ more regulation, but I think additional regulation (or, to be more accurate, the repeal of some deregulation legislation) will be part of the solution. And as in your example, some short term regulation (like a restriction on golden parachutes for any bailout monies) would definitely make sense too.

[Misternatural 0]

>>....i am very interested/concerned/worried about the current economic situation.

Not sure if you've been helped, anyway
Yes the financial situation is showing signs of unravelling in the last hours of trading on the stock market anyway, but that's Wall st. not Main st. But if you are interested in the stock market then CNBC is a good place to visit on the tube and web also MSN money on the web is good as well but for the most part your local news or the News Hour with Jim Lehrer is an excellent resource. I recommend telling people I talk to that despite the triple seven Dow drop today to CALM THE F DOWN! Maybe I shouldn't yell but
Some folks are making a run on their local banks and removing cash...not good! notttt gooood! it'll be a rough ride for a few more months and
People need to take a deep breath and relax-I hope you feel better & stay informed good citizen.

Beware of the collateralizing and monetization of your desires.
D S #3.1415

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

it's in the article from 1999. were it says

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.


Oops! And that is exactly what has happened nine years later. And who were the "killjoys" at the time warning against Fannie Mae easing the credit requirements? That answer is also provided in the NY Times article:

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''


is this enough proof?

No - because you HAVE NOT shown that these particular loans are the cause of this particular crisis.

Your logic is faulty.

If I say "this winter will be cold because my furnace needs replacing"...

and in 4 months time January is indeed cold, does it mean January is cold because my furnace needed replacing on Sept 29?

THAT is the logic you are using.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

the quantity of subprime home loans just doesn't add up to a value that should be bankrupting long standing companies like Merrill or Bears.

It's ridiculous to blame people who overreached to buy a home in the sticks, rather than those who overleveraged their company for an extra 50 basis points.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

I asked a friend that does finance for a living to explain why he supports the bill:

Quote

1) The US Treasury is buying mortgages and other loans from distressed companies that can't fund them anymore. Period. They are desperate to sell. No lender will give these firms credit because several big players have been wiped out in distressed fire-sales (note: the purchaser of companies like Wachovia and WaMu made out like bandits, hindsight will prove those deals to be amazingly profitable). This is further exacerbated by a panicky public who seems to think FDIC doesn't exist and their sub $100K deposits are going to be forfeit if their bank goes under. When people start pulling their deposits, you need to borrow from someone else as a bank. When no one is going to lend to you, what do you do? You can't sell the perfectly good loans you have, you can't borrow. You are over a barrel, hogtied. Your assets exceed your liabilities, you have no cash to pay the depositors with. If you've ever seen "It's a Wonderful Life" the scene where George is giving people only a small part of their deposits is exactly what is happening now to banks. It's a run on them.

2) As long as the Government can sell the homes that these mortgages are written for, the government cannot lose money. CANNOT. The loans are going to be sold at a discount to par value (meaning there is no bail-out, the companies who originated/held these loans will sell them at a loss), so even if the mortgage borrower doesn't repay the original balance of the loan, you can still take the property which has some value. Do you agree that value is more than $0.10 per $1 of loan (I gave you $1MM for a house, I'm going to sell that loan for $100K)? Because that's what some of these securities are trading at and that's what the purchase price of these things is going to be.

Why would the banks sell at such a steep loss? Well, they can't hold the assets anymore. Balance sheets need to balance, they've marked these securities down to an extremely low value and they can't hold them on balance sheet and still have an adequate debt to equity ratio (losses hit equity). Losing assets means they can shed liabilities and de-lever. There is a regulatory limit as to how much of your balance sheet can be funded with liabilities when you're a bank holding company. The reason they are failing is because they are exceeding that limit. Lose the assets, you no longer need to carry as many liabilities and your Debt to equity ratio is restored. The pressure to sell into that decreases and you're going to see the value of securities stabilize. Until that point, you're going to have banks desperate to sell so that they aren't in a position where they are approaching their regulatory limits. It's a case of supply and demand. Too many people trying to sell to too few buyers.

3) The problems caused here are largely a result of leverage. Leverage is "great" until you need to de-lever, which is what everyone from GE to GM is being forced to do right now. That's not just Wall Street, that includes industrial firms.


If the US Gov't isn't going to purchase these assets, I can pretty much guarantee you that private equity and sovereign wealth funds will. Congress may want to play chicken, but they aren't going to like what the end result of that is going to be.

You look at how railroad barons were created in the late 1800s or how people like J.P. Morgan got his start, it's situations like this. Do we want consolidated, almost monopolistic control of our financial system? Do we want foreign countries owning a large chunk of our financial system? I know I don't.


With the US government holding the mortgages, you could literally refinance all of these mortgages to 3% interest over 30 years and still almost break even. That means fewer foreclosures, an improvement to housing prices, and less pressure on the economy as a whole.

If you want to go headhunting, fine. Do it. I really do want to see people who committed fraud in jail and I want to see others held liable for negligence or willful dereliction of fiduciary duty. However, you have to shore up the financial system first. Don't try and do it all at once. There's no reason you can't go after these guys in civil suits after the rescue package is final.

I'm extremely disappointed with both political parties on this.

Paulson wanted something simple, easy to enact and bereft of political earmarks and other assorted bullshit. Yea, he wanted autonomy, but mostly because he knew what would happen if every purchase had to go before congress. What he got was a hearty "fuck you" from both sides of the aisle after working with them the past couple days to get a workable plan in order.

Golden parachutes is a red herring. The issue here is some of the Republicans want a real bail-out where the government takes all the risk and sees none of the upside (the plan as worded was NOT a bail-out, Republicans want "insurance" which is basically a blank check for losses), and the democrats can't seem to get past the fact that they need to work with Wall Street to help the little guy. Guess what? No one on Wall Street is getting bonuses this year, there's a very good chance you'll see firms clawing back prior years awards, and it's highly likely you'll see every single one of these executives facing massive shareholder lawsuits. Wall Street was going to lose money on this deal, but they could have continued as a going concern with more regulation and less risk taken. People need to get that into their head.

Fix the problem, then go headhunting if you feel it's necessary. Watching our entire economy to go to shit while the short term credit market implodes is the height of stupidity. The DOW's decline is only part of the story here. Interest rates are the real problem, but you won't see that in a ticker on CNN.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

No - because you HAVE NOT shown that these particular loans are the cause of this particular crisis.

Just an FYI, the default rate on loans across the board was less than 50% which is still less than what it was during the Depression. Also, I'm being told by some friends that the loans during that era war much higher in risk than any of the subprime/ARM stuff we have right now.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Golden parachutes is a red herring. The issue here is some of the Republicans want a real bail-out where the government takes all the risk and sees none of the upside (the plan as worded was NOT a bail-out, Republicans want "insurance" which is basically a blank check for losses), and the democrats can't seem to get past the fact that they need to work with Wall Street to help the little guy. Guess what? No one on Wall Street is getting bonuses this year, there's a very good chance you'll see firms clawing back prior years awards, and it's highly likely you'll see every single one of these executives facing massive shareholder lawsuits. Wall Street was going to lose money on this deal, but they could have continued as a going concern with more regulation and less risk taken. People need to get that into their head.

Golden parachutes may be a red herring in the strict economic sense, but not in the psychological sense. And a financial crisis is as much psychological as anything else.

I include myself with those who don't want one penny of tax money going to any of the whiz kid assholes who created this crisis out of their own greed. They should fail.

If we need $700B of economic shot in the arm (and I suspect we do), let the wizards in Congress and the Treasury figure out a way that excludes any of the golden parachute brigade.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[livendive 8]

So rather than vote what they thought was best for America, they voted for what they thought would get them re-elected. Big surprise!

Honestly though, that's about as firm a correlation as we're gonna see, and it says bad things about the quality of politicians we elect (not that Bush hasn't been shouting that lesson from the rooftops for 12 years).

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[krabberkris 1]

190 TOP Economists OPPOSE BAILOUT. These are their statements.

1) Its fairness. The plan is a subsidy to investors at taxpayers’ expense. Investors who took risks to earn profits must also bear the losses. Not every business failure carries systemic risk. The government can ensure a well-functioning financial industry, able to make new loans to creditworthy borrowers, without bailing out particular investors and institutions whose choices proved unwise.

2) Its ambiguity. Neither the mission of the new agency nor its oversight are clear. If taxpayers are to buy illiquid and opaque assets from troubled sellers, the terms, occasions, and methods of such purchases must be crystal clear ahead of time and carefully monitored afterwards.

3) Its long-term effects. If the plan is enacted, its effects will be with us for a generation. For all their recent troubles, America's dynamic and innovative private capital markets have brought the nation unparalleled prosperity. Fundamentally weakening those markets in order to calm short-run disruptions is desperately short-sighted.

For these reasons we ask Congress not to rush, to hold appropriate hearings, and to carefully consider the right course of action, and to wisely determine the future of the financial industry and the U.S. economy for years to come.

Their Identity

http://tinyurl.com/econ190no


Damn right. NO BAILOUT. Then we SWEEP THE HILL !!

The man who smiles when things go wrong has thought of someone to blame it on.

[jamieG 0]

So, how long does it take before it goes through with a few tweaks. A few days at most I suspect.

[Ron 7]

Quote

The question becomes - is it worthwhile to use the Fed's purchasing power to make it a longer, shallower adjustment rather than a deeper, more painful one?

If you think that has a higher chance than it just making the event longer and more drawn out, Yes. But the simple fact is no one knows if this plan will work. It very well could make things worse.

Like I mentioned before, some want to blame Greenspan for artificially keeping rates low to encourage growth....Yet they approve of this?

I think in most cases the market is best left alone.

Quote

Not sure what you mean. If you mean - "the potential benefit is not worth the additional government control of the markets" I would agree IF the bill is set up such that the government retains significant control over the markets after the instruments are bought back. That would be a mistake long term.

That is exactly what I meant. But the issue is some want more regulation. To them that means permanent.

Quote

Well, the primary cause was certainly greed. Although as greed is our basic economic driver, I would also argue that it was our _following_ of our basic economic ideal as opposed to a more conservative, less profitable path that led to this.

Investing in things you do not understand is not a basic investing principal. Very few people suggest that...And those that do are often trying to just make a quick buck...Which is also not part of a basic normal plan.

The get rich quick group, yes. But that is not sound investing.

One benefit that may come from all this is a return to smart financial choices. For decades people have been living on credit. That was not sustainable.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

For decades people have been living on credit. That was not sustainable.

I said the exact same thing, using much more picturesque language.

www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2900411#2900411

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

190 TOP Economists OPPOSE BAILOUT. These are their statements.

So what? In a short time, I could probably find 250 "top" economists who support it, and then another 190 to oppose them, too.

"Get on the bandwagon" is usually not good policy. It's what got us into this mess. I'd suggest the govt stay out of it. a 700 point plunge is a good start. Maybe it'll lose another 5000 points in the next week without govt intervention, versus losing 4000 over the next year or two.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am watching live the vote for the financial bailout and the no vote had been given! More to come!

it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises

i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading.

Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis.

So you're saying that the NYT lied?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

The question becomes - is it worthwhile to use the Fed's purchasing power to make it a longer, shallower adjustment rather than a deeper, more painful one?

If you think that has a higher chance than it just making the event longer and more drawn out, Yes. But the simple fact is no one knows if this plan will work. It very well could make things worse.

Good point. I propose we all sit on our hands until a consensus is reached.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I am watching live the vote for the financial bailout and the no vote had been given! More to come!

it really sucks that the dems need to bail themselves out at our expence. if it wasn't for clinton starting this shit we would not be here today. this news article puts blame were and when it should be put.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/25/1999-ny-times-article-revealed-true-cause-current-fannie-mae-crises

i don't know how to make it a clicky sorry. but this is good reading.

Pity that theory has been totally discredited by the facts of this crisis.

So you're saying that the NYT lied?

The NYTimes article says nothing about what sub-prime loans were related to the debacle.

Annecdotal news reports have people going under on their sub-prime loans where they can't refinance at an affordable rate, while the cited article has sub-prime people automatically getting a prime rate. They're not the same loans.

Annecdotal reports have people going under when their interest rates reset to over 10% not just a percent over prime loans. They're not the same loans.