Which means they're too close to the situation to see the whole picture. I trust Chicago economists to know how this is going to affect the economy much more than I trust Wall Street bankers. Although I'm sure the Wall Street bankers better know how this is going to affect Wall Street banks.
i'm assuming there probably wasn't anyone from the texas delegation, but i'd put money that most of them will vote in support of this... i guess we'll find out.
Bush's proposal is just as much a theory. Sorry, I'm not real excited with anything this loser puts forth. I don't think that one week of "suffering" and "writing off" is nearly enough. These guys need to feel some real pain. If for some reason, everything is nice and pretty in a couple of weeks, this all goes away. No reform will happen and this viscious cycle happens all over again. The next time, people are going even more ridiculous because hey, the government will just bail us out. The evil Wall Street people deserve it and most Americans do too. There is a culture of don't give a crap, wastefulness, me first, never have enough that just disgusts me. And people wonder why the world hates Americans.
My Congressman, Ted Poe, and the neighboring congressman, Kevin Brady have both said they're voting against it. Neither of the Senators will commit to a vote yet. I've asked them to vote no on anything in similar size or scope to what's being reported.
I don't understand why people are against the .gov doing something. Doing nothing means terrible things.
No kidding. Listening to the cadre of day-traders on this board sermonize on the necessity of this action is, frankly, pathetic. Your portfolio is not the whole ****ing nation's problem.
Doing this doesn't ensure terrible things do not happen. I feel that there are ways of helping the situation without putting the taxpayers at so much risk.
There's an enormous gap between doing nothing and the government buying most of Wall Street's bad decisions over the past few years.
We don;t have that much "risk". Basically we will be subsidizing companies in bad shape AND simply giving capital to companies that are not liquid. We will know how much we are subsidizing once the assets are bought or the methodology for the purchases are known. The other option of not doing anything is the further failure of bank after bank. I thought that was pretty obvious to everyone now that they are failing about once per week.
We don;t have to actually buy them, just show that we are willing to. Once this eases peoples minds and they are willing to take on a little more credit to do business then we will be on the upturn.
Companies in bad shape need to fail. Bailing them out rewards a failed business model. Remember when we were told that American Airlines and USAir were too big to fail, and the government bailed them out? I flew AA three weeks ago for the first time in a long time, and had the worst service I've ever had travelling. It should have failed.
We are not only NOT guaranteed all of our money back, we are NOT guaranteed any rate of return. With AIG, we bought 80% of the company and get approximately 11% on our "investment".
Other banks will appear. People worried about their investments falling (further) should be equally worried what this 700BB is going to do to inflation and exchange rates.
What's funny to me is that it seems people that are usually associated with the conservative side seem to be more for this bailout and people that are usually associated with the liberal side seem to not be for the bailout. Maybe I'm getting my monikers wrong.
