700 Billion Dollar Question

The Republicans have already spent $472 Billion without congressional approval, now they want $700 Billion, with congressional approval, now they are spending again, WITHOUT Congressional approval:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aP5hzUWla7Jg&refer=home

Sept. 29 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve will pump an additional $630 billion into the global financial system, flooding banks with cash to alleviate the worst banking crisis since the Great Depression.

The Fed increased its existing currency swaps with foreign central banks by $330 billion to $620 billion to make more dollars available worldwide. The Term Auction Facility, the Fed's emergency loan program, will expand by $300 billion to $450 billion. The European Central Bank, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan are among the participating authorities.

The Fed's expansion of liquidity, the biggest since credit markets seized up last year, comes as Congress prepares to vote on a $700 billion bailout for the financial industry. The crisis is reverberating through the global economy, causing stocks to plunge and forcing European governments to rescue four banks over the past two days alone.


YEP I CAN SEE ITS ALL THOSE DAMN DEMOCRATS FORCING THE REPUBLICANS TO SPEND, SPEND AND SPEND.

Lets see:
$472 BILLION
$700 BILLION
$630 BILLION

ANYONE WANT TO BET IT'S STILL NOT FIXED?

 

Clinton really left the country in good shape.
What a year and half into Bush's first term he's faced with rebuilding one of the largest cities in the world, escalating national security to protect US citizens and over turning a foreign government. Yep, all real cheap and real easy to do. Bush has spent most of his 2 terms being a reactionist.

I doubt Clinton could have kept that pace,.being he was so preoccupied with chasing ugly women.

 

The over turning foreign gov't is part of the problem. It was/is extremely costly and completely unnecessary. As for the banks, the ending of Usury laws at the end of the Carter administration is at the heart of the problem. Subsequent deregulation and lack of oversight torpedoed the ship. While there were some democrates complicit in all of this it's the failure of the republican economic philosophy that's at the core of this problem.

Bush's handling of Katrina was incompetent, probably any other president in our history would have done a better job. Bush has certainly faced difficult times, certainly more difficult than Clinton. However, his handling of these times has been quite poor. You can only judge a president by his actions in his times and W just doesn't pass muster.

I'm really pleased to see that Congress didn't just roll over. In time we'll see how this all pans out. We live in interesting times.

 

Way to go guys this ride should be interesting..

I could never understand how democrats could be so quick to jump on the bailout train after having spent the past 2 years throwing rocks a Bush's economic policies.

 

So now the on-again/off-again bailout is off again. Betcha the smart players are making a killing in the stock market with all the wild swings.

 

God this is good, so now that Democrats have been told that this has to happen, and they set conditions, and are following Bush's economic plan, they shouldn't do it now?

Make up your mind, either they should follow it or not. ound:

You seem to be saying that he is an economic master. OMG, I can't stand this, I'm laughing so hard.

 

Where did I ever endorsed Bush's economic policies?

You were quick to point out how much money the Republicans have spent the past 7+ years. I only reminded you of all the disasters Bush has dealt with during his term (911, Home land security, Iraq, Katrina, Ike and now a financial bailout). Bush hasn't had any time to work proactively to develop his own economic policies. His administration has been purely in a reactive state for the entire time. Although I don't agree with all his decisions I'm willing to cut him a little slack.

Obama's platform has been, do Americans want another 4 years of Bush's economic policies. Given that is current opinion of most democrats and even Pelosi said she couldn't be tricked by Bush again, she 2 weeks later is pushing Bush's bailout.
I also found it odd back when gas prices where going above $4, liberals were hoping prices would go even higher to wean the country away from big cars and fossil fuels, no matter the consequences.

I don't get it.

I'm a conservative and I've never been for the bailout.

 

That's the first I have heard of that theory, and while I think usury laws do go against "pure" capitalism", you have a point. Surely the elimination of usury laws was not the sole contributor to our current economic problems, however, by not having usury laws in place encourages lenders to loan money to individuals who are more unlikely to pay back such loans which undoubtedly contributes to unstable markets.

Amen! Personally I believe if no bailout is passed (and I hope one NEVER is) the stock market may correct a few thousand and the days of "free" credit will be over for the foreseeable future. Big deal... Another Great Depression, I doubt it. If you have lived your life responsibility and have not invested substantially in risky investments, stock market included, then you will be fine.

Oh sure, we'll see by the Media plenty of sob case stories of "everyday normal" Americans who will be affected by an economic slowdown (which, of course and goes with any question, is the sole blame of Bush and spiteful Republicans...). I say tough luck. Deal with it and move on to something else. Sell apples on the street corner, start a small business. Want "cradle to grave", then immigrate to a cradle to grave country where housing is the size of college dorms, automobiles are only for governmental officials and their friends, etc... Your entire life is planned. All you need to do is punch a time clock five days a week. Plenty of folks immigrate to the USA instead of cradle to grave countries... Hmm, wonder why...

Rick
#4 2006

 

OK, gotta lighten things up a little bit here... I just got this in an email...it's a hoot!



MY DEAR AMERICAN FRIEND:

I AM NEEDING TO ASK YOU TO SUPPORT AN URGENT SECRET BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH A TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF GREAT MAGNITUDE.
I AM MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY OF THE REPUBLIC OF AMERICA. MY COUNTRY HAS HAD CRISIS THAT HAS CAUSED NEED FOR LARGE TRANSFER OF FUNDS OF 700 BILLION OF YOUR DOLLARS (US). IF YOU WOULD ASSIST ME IN THIS TRANSFER IT WOULD BE MOST PROFITABLE TO YOU.
I AM WORKING WITH HIGHLY REPUTABLE MR. PHIL GRAM, LOBBYIST FOR UBS, WHO WILL BE MY REPLACEMENT AS MINISTRY OF THE TREASURY IN JANUARY IF MY POLITICAL PARTY WINS UPCOMING ELECTION, WHICH WE CERTAINLY WILL BECAUSE WE ARE IN CONTROLING OF THE HIGHEST SUPREME COURT. YOU MAY REMEMBER HIM AS A SENATOR AS LEADER OF THE AMERICAN BANKING DEREGULATION MOVEMENT IN THE 1990S.
THIS TRANSACTIN IS 100% SAFE. YOU MUST TRUST ME COMPLETELY AND NOT ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TRANSACTION. YOU HAVE MY WORD NO ONE WILL DO ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE MONEY.
THIS IS A MATTER OF GREAT URGENCY. WE NEED YOUR BLANK CHECK. WE NEED THE FUNDS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. WE CANNOT DIRECTLY TRANSFER THESE FUNDS IN THE NAMES OF OUR CLOSE FRIENDS BECAUSE WE ARE CONSTANTLY UNDER SURVEILLANCE. MY FAMILY LAWYER ADVISED ME THAT I SHOULD LOOK FOR A RELIABLE AND TRUSTWORTH PERSONAGE WHO WILL ACT AS A NEXT OF KIN SO THE FUNDS CAN BE TRANSFERRED. YOU ARE THAT PERSONAGE.
PLEASE REPLY WITH ALL OF YOUR BANK ACCOUNT, IRA AND COLLEGE FUND ACCOUNT NUMBERS AND THOSE OF YOUR CHILDREN, GRANDCHILDREN AND THOSE YET UNBORN TO [email protected] SO THAT WE MAY TRANSFER YOUR COMMISSION FOR THIS TRANSACTION. AFTER I RECEIVE THIS INFORMATION I WILL RESPOND WITH DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT SAFEGUARDS WE PROMISE WILL BE USED TO PROTECT THE FUNDS AND PRODUCE A LONG-TERM RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR YOU AND THOSE YOU LOVE.
YOURS FAITHFULLY
MINISTER OF TREASURY H. PAULSON

 

I have read several opinions here, and I am sorry by saying you guys have a really distorted view of your reality...

This problem has not relation with world peace or any kind of issue, it was not affected by 911 and it was grown only by the greed of few ones...

It is a pity how manipulated your way of thinking is...

 

I was replying to numerous posts from neo-cons blaming the crisis on liberal laws against redlining. These neo-cons have claimed (falsely) that the bad loans which underlie the present crisis were made as the result of government demands that they loan more money to minorities. The loans were made, in violation of present laws, to people who clearly could not pay, regardless of their race or color, in order to satisfy the greed of reckless investors who were offering to buy mortgage-backed securities at high prices.

I don't know what universe you are living in, but discrimination, though illegal, is alive and well in housing today.

I suggest you read a few posts over in the political forum. Pretty much all our resident neo-cons are blaming Obama.

Now we're on the same page. I am honestly confused by the fact that 2/3 of Dems voted in favor of Bush's bail-out plan, and 2/3 of Repubs voted against it. I'd sure like someone to explain that to me without resorting to assertions that one side or another wants to destroy America.

 

Ditto.

 

I haven't read any of the rest of this thread (and don't really care to), but this is how I feel about the subject, sent in the form of an email to my Congressman today (dramatized for effect, of course):


"Today Congress had a chance to restore enough confidence in the market to allow time to effect repairs, and may have even made money to boot. Instead, you made the problem so very much worse. Are you prepared for the snowball effect you may have started today?

Restrictions on executive compensation for corporate leaders? How about restrictions on compensation for the governmental leaders that allowed the situation to develop? Proper regulation and oversight gets removed from the market, then what should have been the obvious outcome gets amplified by the government into what could become the next great depression. 

Kudos. I know I will be voting in November."

 

Amen!

 

OK, hold on. I gotta get popcorn and a beverage, this one's gonna be good.

I'd love a good explanation of this one myself, especially if it meets your criteria. The best I've been able to come up with is "shameless grand-standing" on both sides. I don't know that there was really enough detail in the plan for anyone to have said much intelligent about it. Conversely, there seems to be real failure to understand the need to act quickly and decisively.

The bottom line is that we're following the one course that most economists I've seen have warned against; we're doing nothing. Unfortunately, we can't even say that we "decided" to do that. We've wound up on this path because the overgrown children we've sent to Washington can't seem to learn to play nicely with each other, even for a little while. Somehow, some way, that failure needs an explanation.

 

Had to look at the vote. Those seeking re-election voted nay.

Haven't found the list yet.

 

I'll take a crack at Daniel's question why the majority of Dems supported the bailout while the majority of Repubs opposed it:

First, elections are but a few weeks away, and this bill, unlike almost every other one, felt the will of the people. I read today that of the 19 races considered at risk for the incumbent, 13 of those pols voted NO.

The Dems have been agitating for a government bailout for a year now; from their standpoint they finally got it. There is a strong pupulist (sp?) current in Dem politics. As much as they would like to be seen as the saviors of the poor hoodwinked homebuyer of 2004 - 2006, they are driven that much more by an awareness that a nationwide depreciation of homevalues emanating from the foreclosures of idiot loans is leading to a vicious cycle that is collaring evermore homeowners who had nothing to do with the housing bubble. This is the middle class the Dems want to protect and adopt.

The Repub side is more guessing here. Although the rich and the connected determine Repub politics on most days, the party has a huge demographic of lower middle class people who do not own stocks they want to protect in a financial downturn, and don't really see a great depression as a palpable threat ; they just see 700B going to banks. These people made their voices heard very loudly. I haven't seen the breakdown of how each pol voted, but I expect to see the majority of the dissent was from the US south. Certainly the loudest rhetoric against the bailout tended to be pols from that region. Even without the voter anger, a small number of repubs would have voted NO to remain consistent with their free market and small government ideologies. More were pushed to walk the walk, since they talk the talk.

 

Are you kidding me? Do you actually believe that? Buying out wall street banks is not something a populist or democrat would want to do.

So before the actual crisis started about a year ago you are saying the Democrats where trying to cause interest or debate having a bailout?
agitating

.
ag·i·tate (j-tt)v. ag·i·tat·ed, ag·i·tat·ing, ag·i·tates
v.tr.1. To cause to move with violence or sudden force.
2. To upset; disturb: was agitated by the alarming news.
3. To arouse interest in (a cause, for example) by use of the written or spoken word; debate.

 

Of course I believe it; I wrote it. But thanks for pointing out unclear writing on my part:

I meant the Dems wanted to use Fed money to solve the housing crisis, not that they have any particular interest in helping banks.

 

Zildjian,
I would like to know how you (in Spain) think the U.S. should handle this and why? I think we need more of an independent and unbiased opinion.

Thank you