Bailout that I agree with

[Coil Coyle]

http://sanders.senate.gov/petitions/?petition=Financial_Crisis_1

        I read it, then I signed it

$0.02
;)
Coil

[Aelwulf]

For that one I actually agree with, for the most part.  I'm not sure about that equity part in sub-section 3 as it could provide false hope to people expecting money, and I could see money-managers talking people into relying on it for retirement etc now as it's "set up by the government" which would be a bad idea.  While I agree that those who are able to make money should be able to keep it (ie, no 50-60% tax on the wealthy) I also believe that there should be at least somewhat of an equal share of the burden vs income when needed.  The trick would be keeping out loopholes, the uber-rich mentioned often make a lot of their money utilizing those.

As for the decent wages part we're already making more than decent wages on the global playing field.  IMO they just need to keep prices from inflating just because they're in the U.S.  That would keep away a requirement to keep raising minimum wage, ie hurting small businesses, and prompting large companies from additional lay-offs, even if they can afford the higher pay, to satisfy stockholders.  On the flip side despite said prices our price vs wage problems aren't as bad as in, say, Europe.  Our problem is with a lack of proper financial education in the country and allowing predatory and irresponsible financial products in the market and advertised (the current mortgage problem with sub-prime loans being a prime example, along with credit cards in general).  We as a people need to wake up and claim responsibility for our lives and country, and not just in a financial means.

And no, this doesn't mean I go along with the conspiracy theories, just this petition for the most part. ;)  The per-person cost is closer to $5,000 each from what I've been hearing.  Not much over time, but a huge amount to some.

[GT @ oh.]

They finalized the $700 billion bailout :o If people don't think that we are being fleeced now they are brain dead ......there is what 250 million americans  you do the math a billion plus for every man woman and child I can't wait for my check that will bail me out how bout you's

[Brian Moffet]

They finalized the $700 billion bailout :o If people don't think that we are being fleeced now they are brain dead ......there is what 250 million americans  you do the math a billion plus for every man woman and child I can't wait for my check that will bail me out how bout you's

Umm, 3000 dollars per person.  Not a billion plus.  A billion per person would amount to only 700 people.

Brian

[GT @ oh.]

I stand corrected

[inanecathode]

Plus its not like the money is purely just flying out the window. Its conceivable that some of the money will be recovered later when the securities are sold.

[Aelwulf]

Aye, and from what I was watching they pretty much stated there's provisions that if it doesn't get covered by the economy improving as planned that it'll be made recoverable from those who have benefitted from the bail-out.  I.e., it's more like a loan with a potential 'repay in full' clause.  If it's the full facts that's a good provision to include.  Now the trick would be to find out how many loopholes around that companies that get hit with it are able to find.

[GT @ oh.]

Don't get me wrong I still believe we are being fleeced by this most corrupt administation ever.....a bailout for the rich who don't want to lose there millions to this economy.......they didn't do shit when enron lost/stole all those regular peoples money.....while ceo's walk away with milllions......this is socialism not capitalism .......plus I love the way they use the scare tactic of impending doom....with the war now the bailout to get people behind them....seems to work every time for them.

[kwells]

Fear is how you get things done.  That was learned long ago by politicians. 

[YellowJacket!]

I was watching the news last night and heard that there have been on average 1300 forclosures PER DAY in just California alone!!  Bailing out the financial institutions isn't going to fix the glut of hundreds of thousands of forclosed hoses sitting empty.  In fact the rebound from that will further damage the new home market and all will suffer.  THe homeowners - those that are losing homes and those that are suffering the severe devaluation of their property - home builders, the real eatate business's, and the bankers.  Why not have the banks review the credit standing of the ones they are going to forclose on and see what they are capable of paying (within reason to the bank) rather than forclose and get nothing? 
For instance; someone buys a house that they can't afford and has a 2500.00/month house payment.  The cant afford it and are being forclosed on.  Rather than forcloseing, half the payment and extend the terms of the loan...with conditions of course.  That lets people stay in their homes, banks continue to get income, people don't move away to look for jobs where they can afford to live and the government doesn't have to give the banks a reward for doing bad business.
Sounds fair, right?

David

[Rick G]

That makes sense , so of course the banks wouldn't go for it.

I'm really amazed that I got a signature loan, for 1500. , a month ago. We went bankrupt in '04  and haven't established much new credit. What we have is paid on time tho.

[Brian Moffet]

It appears that the banks are playing a serious game of chicken with that plan.  It would be better for the consumers if the banks did just that.  However, the thinking seems to be that if all of the banks did just that except one, that one bank would come out ahead because it could easily turn the properties around. There wouldn't be a huge surplus of houses on the market. 

So, the banks are all waiting for the others to blink.  If a bank can hold out long enough, then they win.

Unfortunately, too many banks are holding out long enough that the credit crunch hits.  Then banks are no longer willing to loan to anyone, including other banks.  They also are not willing to loan to businesses that need temporary loans to make ends meet (because people are feeling the crunch.)  This means that the people who work for those companies have to be laid off because there isn't enough money to pay for them.  That means they can't make their housing payments, which leads to more foreclosures..

Or something like that.  And I'm not even getting into the whole dice-and-slice of the mortgages, I certainly don't understand that...

Too many people didn't blink, and now their eyes are frozen open in fear.

Ar least this is what I can gather from listening to economists like Paul Krugman, etc...

[arfa vmax]

here in the uk we reached a trillion pound of debt a few months ago,that was not including mortguages.That is a trillion pounds worth of things that have been sold but not paid for.at some time someone is going to want the money but its not really there only on in theory.As for the banks they take massive risks giving loans,pay themselves huge bonuses on theoretical profits and expect to be bailed out when it all crashes.no lose situation for them.If they want capitalism they have to take all,huge profits when it works and death when it fails.we have lost the majority of our coal mines and now pay a fortune for imported gas.ship yards have gone,steel works,car industry,textiles and most other industries were allowed to fail in the name of compertition and profit so why save the rich few who produce nothing and live off the rest.Stocks and shares,comodities and the money markets are the ruin of the world and ordinary people.

[Tiger]

...we have lost the majority of our coal mines and now pay a fortune for imported gas.ship yards have gone,steel works,car industry,textiles and most other industries were allowed to fail in the name of compertition and profit so why save the rich few who produce nothing and live off the rest.Stocks and shares,comodities and the money markets are the ruin of the world and ordinary people.

Coming from the NorthEast of England, coalmining, shipbuilding and heavy engineering where the backbone when I was a young lad....It all went to the dogs when Maggie Thatcher and her crew got in!!! Part of the reason, at 42 years of age, I moved here to Canada. I just couldn't see any future in staying ::) Never been back in the 12 years since I landed. I'm a Canadian citizen and proud of it 8)

                      8).......TIGER....... 8)

[kwells]

Could someone explain to me why the SENATE is voting on a bill before the House of Representaves?

It is the House's duties to initiate and vote on a bill.

Am I remembering the way our government is supposed to work wrong?

[h2olawyer]

Bills often get introduced into both chambers at nearly the same time.  Each chamber adds it's own touches, pork and such then votes on it.  Then the two bills are resolved in a conference committee.  Bills can also originate in either chamber, go through the legislative process, then get sent to the other chamber.  Not a rare or even uncommon occurrence.

Bills raising revenue - new or increased taxes must originate in the house.  The House will often cite Federalist 77 to try to say any spending bill as well.  In Federalist 77, Hamilton used the term 'money' instead of revenue, creating some confusion on the issue.  Supreme Court rulings have upheld spending bills originating in the Senate as they do not violate the Origination Clause of the Constitution.

Don't know if "Schoolhouse Rock" made that clear or not- maybe a bit too advanced for that target audience.

H₂O

[kwells]

I guess my haphazard attention on our governmental process has caused me confusion.

[h2olawyer]

Bills that originate in the House have an "H" in front of the number, those that originate in the Senate have an "S".  After the bill goes through the conference resolution & gets signed into law, those origin identifiers & numbers go away.

H₂O

[kwells]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ