|
|
Brian
Posts:2210
 |
| 09/30/2008 11:21 AM |
 Alert
|
Let me ask a simple question here.
The banks are being bailed out here... so why not heavily tax their future profits to repay the taxpayers for our largesse?
Seems to me like the banks are getting money for nothing, chicks for free.
|
|
|
|
|
lurknomore
Posts:270
|
| 09/30/2008 11:24 AM |
Alert
|
Well, jp, we disagree, and will continue to disagree. I don't think many individuals can avoid being adversely affected by a serious financial collapse. I want my kid (metaphorically speaking) to continue going to school, not to be kept away from kids who might have measles. I want the society I live in to be successful, not to relegate a segment to "loser" standing. I can tolerate isolated examples of CEO compensation excess (although I would prefer stronger stockholder protections against it) without making decisions on the basis of anecdotal "worst cases." Of course, I also don't think the media conspire against us, don't think most realtors lie (other than the usual advertising/marketing distortions we find in all selling), don't think government is bad, etc. I have been a progressive-liberal for decades and much prefer to believe in (and support) the world as I would like it to be. I can afford not to be overly-influenced by short-term economic interests.
I am not a rental property owner, not a renter hoping to buy some day, not a RE speculator. I am in a different position from many people who participate in these message topics. That's not by itself good or bad. But you (collectively) need a reminder that your interests and circumstances are not aligned with the majority of Americans, many of whom are well-housed, responsible people and many of whom are economically unable to afford to own a home under any likely scenario.
And I am leaving this site to those of you who think you benefit from it. Good luck!! |
|
|
|
|
Brian
Posts:2210
|
| 09/30/2008 11:30 AM |
Alert
|
>>>>> the majority of Americans, many of whom are well-housed, responsible people
That is why most Americans reject his bail-out. It's an immediate give-away to Wall Street and a power grab by the government. Under this bailout, 20 years from now, we'll have a socialist government that decides who gets mortgages.
|
|
|
|
|
jpinpb
Posts:1450
|
| 09/30/2008 11:35 AM |
Alert
|
Brian - thanks. I guess I needed someone to make it clear. Let the banks be responsible. If we have to help them, they should pay for it. This country is based on opportunity, not handouts. 700 ++ billion is a handout - to a business - a big business - a wealthy big business that now from their own negligence is suffering a financial loss. How can people be so blind and brainwashed to think it is our obligation to help them? I repeat. If I fail in my business, the government will not come to my rescue. I will have to deal w/my failed business decisions.
If your child has the measles - or any sick infectious child - that child should be kept from school. Not the healthy. That's how it works. When the child recovers, then the child can return to school. |
|
|
|
|
ownhomeinSD
Posts:163
|
| 09/30/2008 12:04 PM |
Alert
|
| Current situation is like you got flu or other disease from someone. You hate him/her to let you get it. You compalin why no law to forbit a flu patien to stay with you in the same room. But you have to take care of yourself and pay medical bill for recovery. No one like flu and we do need a law to avoid flu spread. |
|
|
|
|
jpinpb
Posts:1450
|
| 09/30/2008 12:05 PM |
Alert
|
As Emmi posted on another board:
"We are at the end of our foreign credit line. The End of it. Asia has been signaling they will not give us any more. Every tax dollar thrown at the thieves on Wall Street will devalue the dollar the same amount. It's a zero sum game, with nothing to show for it except concentration of wealth to those who don't actually make anything, just send money in circles.
Basically the consumer gets to pay twice (once in taxes and once again in run-away inflation) and the bankers go away even wealthier."
Anonymous said:
"Here's the truth: your local gas station can't buy their gas on credit - except for the credit cards that the owner still has. Because those lines of credit are all still functioning, simply being sold to a solvent institution who has no problem buying an account that will earn 15%. Oh, and if his business line of credit is refused by Wamu, he'll be able to go to his local credit union, who is still completely solvent and has plenty of capital, because THEIR financial institution didn't sink their entire future into ridiculously bad loans.....
Not ALL financial institutions have imploded, remember - just the ones that completely mismanaged their business. And due to that amazing thing called COMPETITION, someone else will be looking to make money by lending it to you."
Duncan said:
" would like to hear just one bailout supporter explain how turning the Treasury into an enormous hedge fund/pawn shop would avert the credit crisis.
Not even Paulson claimed that it would. The closest anyone comes is the absurd claim that taxpayers would make money on these "undervalued" securities."
I cannot be happy to pay the bill of the greedy and financially negligent corporations.
|
|
|
|
|
jpinpb
Posts:1450
|
| 09/30/2008 12:07 PM |
Alert
|
| But some of us don't have the flu. We are fine and healthy b/c we already immunized ourselves when we saw others were eating the virus. |
|
|
|
|
ownhomeinSD
Posts:163
|
| 09/30/2008 12:24 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By jpinpb on 09/30/2008 12:07 PM
But some of us don't have the flu. We are fine and healthy b/c we already immunized ourselves when we saw others were eating the virus.
Flu is just an example. It could be SARS. You didn't have it now doesn't mean you won't have it late. We need govement to provide flu or SARS shots for those waeker persons to protect them and limit flu or SARS spread widely. |
|
|
|
|
airplanedad
Posts:131
|
| 09/30/2008 12:34 PM |
Alert
|
I agree that rejecting a bailout could have disasterous financial and social costs (at least in the short run).
Call me cold-hearted, but here is what I am starting to believe: Sometimes for "real" change to happen, you have to hit bottom. So far, I doubt that this current crisis will be eye-opening enough to cause structural changes in our socio--politic-economic system and I don't think it is severe enough (yet) to encourage people to change their mindsets about personal responsibility.
I am not normally a fire and brimstone type, but maybe a nice hot fire burning under our collective butts will be like some kind of socio-political-economic pasturization process. I realize this is an extreme view and a risky experiment, but bail outs are band aids. I am tempted to say we need to hit the control/alternate/delete button on broad segments of our culture.
|
|
|
|
|
Betty
Posts:147
|
| 09/30/2008 1:14 PM |
Alert
|
WE need to regulate the financial institutions and we need to hold them accountable for their actions.
The $700 billion bailout didn't even address the foreclosure crisis, it only dealt with Wall Street and financial
institutions. We need to look at this crisis bank by bank and assess further interventions.
The market is up over 400 points today, Wall Street will regulate itself, for everything else, we need to
dissect the problem one by one.
lurknomore,
just like you, I have virtually no debt, not even a mortgage on my house. I live within my economic means,
and I will be damned if I would be bailing out the ones who live above and beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
tpc
Posts:498
|
| 09/30/2008 3:14 PM |
Alert
|
Finally back on line-
Think of this as the tidal wave that hit myamar (Burma). The citizens of burma didn't cause the problem-but all of them will be affected by it.
Heard some info on cnbc. If banks don't have money, credit card limits will be reduced and your card could even be refused when you go to pay you restaurant bill or fill up with gas. The banks would rather take care of their important customers with the limited amount of money that is available to lend.
If you don't understand how virtually every business is interconnected in some way or other with bank credit then you will never understand and stop trying. It is not that my business needs bank lines (loans), but if the customers who buy my products use bank loans, then guess what, my business is adversely impacted by the lack of bank lines because my customers are no longer in a position to borrow money to pay me. If you don't get it-quit trying. |
|
|
|
|
Brian
Posts:2210
|
| 09/30/2008 3:29 PM |
Alert
|
tpc, how do you know that credit is so constrained other than Paulson saying so?
People are still able to get mortgages and credit cards are working just fine.
The stock market is functioning and moved up today.
The banks don't need a bailout.
The reason that the banks need $700 billion is to recapitalize them because they had to mark-to-market the value of their paper. The Federal government could recapitalize them by buying equity/warrants in those companies to protect taxpayers interest and so that taxpayers get the upside of a bailout.
Why would we, taxpayers, want to buy their junk for $700 billion and let the banks get off scot-free?
There are other ways of putting $700 billion into the financial sector without giving away the money.
Hell, with $700 billion the Federal Gov't would start a new bank and lend (not give) money to those who need it.
This bailout stinks and you know it.
|
|
|
|
|
ownhomeinSD
Posts:163
|
| 09/30/2008 4:12 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Brian on 09/30/2008 3:29 PM
tpc, how do you know that credit is so constrained other than Paulson saying so?
People are still able to get mortgages and credit cards are working just fine.
The stock market is functioning and moved up today.
The banks don't need a bailout.
Glad to see Brian is positive in this part. However, the stock market moved up today is partialy or mainly due to investers are confident for the bailout bill will be passed eventually. When the bailout was first announced, the Dow rallied roughly 800 points in two sessions. But when the bailout appeared to be off the table, the Dow gave back almost all of that. |
|
|
|
|
tpc
Posts:498
|
| 09/30/2008 4:38 PM |
Alert
|
[quote]This bailout stinks and you know it. [/quote]
Brian-why would i be promoting the bailout???? If anyone has been anti-wall street, it has been me. You have come up with what you think are alternative ways to finance these banks-do you consider yourself to have a greater insight into the mechanics of the market than Hank Paulson. Do you think that the congressional negotiaters aren't getting professional advice.
But the real answer to your question will become evident as the news covers that this credit crisis has on businesses across this country. WATCH AND WAIT.
Hell-I am retired other than looking for investment opportunities. All of my cash is in liquid CDs. Have my present home on the market and have had two contracts fall thru. Think it will be $100K less valuable next year. My intent was to put my home equity, 401k and savings to work in the stock market and believe i will do so over the next 6 months. Will rent and buy a condo in carlsbad and maybe one or two rental condos when the timing is right. I think we are headed for a real turbulent time over the next 2 years and want to be as liquid as possible to exploit every opportunity. |
|
|
|
|
showboat
Posts:67
|
| 09/30/2008 6:44 PM |
Alert
|
| tpc, I think most of us feel that Paulson, Bernanke and others of their caliber know more about economics than we do, BUT we do not know who they are really trying to benefit foremost with their plan (we do actually), the tax payers or the corporations and are they really being 100% honest with what they know? That is at the crux of the issue for me at least. We have heard other possibilities come up over the past weeks, but the bailout is still at the forefront of the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
tpc
Posts:498
|
| 09/30/2008 7:26 PM |
Alert
|
Show-by bailing out wall street, we are also bailing out main street. Business needs banks to survive. If the banks are not in a position to lend money in the short or long term then many viable businesses will go under causing a snowball effect that will cause other businesses to fail.
The tough part of this deal is that you need someone with a strong wall street background to be able to differentiate between serious and not so serious problems. Paulson has that background. It is impossible to know if he will favor wall street over the taxpayers so there is an element of trust.
When i did commercial property loans, there was a lending crisis in the early 1980s when mtge interest rates went to 16%. Some borrowers who had a viable development project leased to major tenants, had their loan disbursements stopped in mid construction. Imagine being this developer knowing that you have a construction loan deal with a lender and all you have to do is complete the building. It is only a viable deal if the construction lender lives up to their part of the bargain but they choose not to or are unable to. It happened in the late 80s and early 90s with the saving and loan crisis (RTC). Created all kinds of lawsuits and destroyed many, many viable real estate deals at great cost to the taxpayers. |
|
|
|
|
wilson
Posts:541
|
| 09/30/2008 8:18 PM |
Alert
|
tpc,
most people would rather blame and punish someone without seeing that it will come bak to bite them in the a$$ and hurt everyone. That's the herd mentality. Don't try to swim against the tide of 95%. |
|
|
|
|
airplanedad
Posts:131
|
| 09/30/2008 8:40 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By wilson on 09/30/2008 8:18 PM
tpc,
most people would rather blame and punish someone without seeing that it will come bak to bite them in the a$$ and hurt everyone. That's the herd mentality. Don't try to swim against the tide of 95%.
I disagree that holding those accountable is "herd mentality." The reactions of people could be it could be reflexive anger, it could be any number of things... A diagnosis of herd mentality has poor empirical support and borders on insulting.
I believe a fair number of people do realize that a bail out will not be painless and that everyone will suffer. That is one of the very great risks. Does anyone dispute that some serious change needs to happen? How do we get serious change? If you have cancerous brain tumor the size of a grapefruit do you undergo surgery knowing the surgery could kill you? Big painful problems "might" demand big painful solutions. Certainly, chose the less painful of the options and carefully weigh risks vs benefits, but I don't believe that running from pain will not solve any problems. Avoidance will just kick the problem down the road--maybe for someone else (our kids) to deal with. I don't like that option.
I do not know the answer. I do feel comfortable saying that the populist masses rejection of the bail out is unlikely simply herd mentality. The american people who are fed up are most likely those who have been the most responsible and prudent and to accuse those groups of being victims of "herd mentality" is, IMO, insulting and overly simplistic. |
|
|
|
|
showboat
Posts:67
|
| 09/30/2008 8:41 PM |
Alert
|
| If Paulson and clan throws trillions of dollars away in a bailout they still may not save their Wall Street cronies, but they will have given the tax payers a double whammy! I'll take my chances with letting those greedy and arrogant banks fail... but I realize that won't happen since they are going to push for another bailout bill to go for a vote in the Senate on Wednesday night. That will pass and the House will likely pass this one because it adds tax cuts into the mix which will allow many Republicans to vote for it... |
|
|
|
|
wilson
Posts:541
|
| 09/30/2008 9:01 PM |
Alert
|
| Congress knows that some sort of "bailoiut" bill is the only option. |
|
|
|
|