Bank bailout and US economic woes

[Astor]

We sell out all to the Europeans. America is for sale it's like. Companies outsourcing all because it's cheaper than to keep jobs here. Before you know it we won't be able to remember how to make a sock because it will be made in China.

 

Our economy needs fixing and we need to change the amount we are spending on frivolous stuff.

 

Outsourcing isn't solely an American problem - it's happening all across the western world.

 

But I do hope the US can sort out this before it gets worse - what happens on Wall Street affects most of the world.

[SD Nihil]

Outsourcing isn't solely an American problem - it's happening all across the western world.

 

I never said it was. I said it's one of our problems though that is contributing to the problem. It's one of the factors.

 

Yes I hope we can fix it too. I agree with you Astor.

[Web Rider]

Honestly, I think this bailout should operate in the same manner that happens when any other company buys a failing company. Because thats what we should be doing, we shouldn't just give the money, we should BUY them.

 

Any company who can't make it and needs the government to help(not minor help, but massive help like this) should become property of the government. The people who ruined it would be fired and prohibited from working in the new business, it would be set up so it could NEVER be deregulated. And the government would fix it.

 

Look at Japan, why can they undercut our prices? Because the government subsidizes everything they produce, and in turn, the government has a say in how they operate. if you need government money, then just like if a private person/company gave you money, they now will have a say in how you operate that company. And the first thing they will tell you is to stop being stupid.

[Yar-El]

Obama rejects McCain call to delay debate

Republican plans to return to Washington to help deal with credit crisis.

 

What is more important? The race to become president? Or, the financial crisis that will affect our very existance?

 

What would you have done?

 

-------------

 

I believe McCain is dead on this issue. He is making his way to Washington, and Obama is sitting pretty on the campeign trail. We don't have 40 days. We need to act quick, responsible, and now!

[Web Rider]

I believe McCain is dead on this issue. He is making his way to Washington, and Obama is sitting pretty on the campeign trail. We don't have 40 days. We need to act quick, responsible, and now!

 

We need to be responsible, yes, and responsibility does not happen on a 3 page plan that says "Give us ur monies and wez be breaking teh lawz and not having teh oversite."

 

Giving them the money on the terms they want is everything BUT responsible.

[Yar-El]

We need to be responsible, yes, and responsibility does not happen on a 3 page plan that says "Give us ur monies and wez be breaking teh lawz and not having teh oversite."

 

Giving them the money on the terms they want is everything BUT responsible.

I agree with that. Caution is definitely required.

 

My extension (not Web Rider's) --

Heading back to Washington would be a wise move for two reasons. 1 - To show everyone that Democrats and Republicans can join together in a crisis. 2 - To get the details of what is going down. Why? If there is a piece of legistlation that is shortsighted and faulty, we have to stop it before anything happens.

[Web Rider]

Yeah, in that respect I do agree that Obama should join in 'cause ever democrat needs to fill his seat and grill the Secretary of the Treasury on this fail-full plan. I dunno what Obama gains except maybe for saying that he's not complicit in giving out the money.

[mimartin]

What is more important? The race to become president? Or, the financial crisis that will affect our very existance?

The next president without a doubt is more important than anything one senator can do to affect this crisis. 50 years ago I'd agree with you, but with today's communication technology I don't see it is important to be in Washington except when it is time to vote. Can’t a senator go out drinking with lobbyist in Dallas just as easy as Washington?

[SD Nihil]

It kinda is both. We are wanting to elect a president to help us get out of our problems with the economy. It's really up to the person who thinks which will be best.

 

But if you are voting for a president mirely on say race or that he looks good and care more about that rather than getting us out of our mess in my opinion your decision making process is flawed.

[Astor]

Okay, I saw this this morning, and I think it sums things up pretty well -

The State of the Economy...

 

[Lance Monance]

Only in America can you run a company into the ground and then expect a golden parachute.

 

You can take solace in the fact that this is common practise over here too (Austria).

[Web Rider]

I've got a general question for you all: You all have savings of some kind I assume and some of you probably have investments, are you planning to pull out your money before the "crash" or do you think that it will get fixed soon enough to not make that necessary.

 

I just got my paycheck for the mid-month and I'm tempted to just cash it. Yeah, that's a lot of money to have on my person at one time, but I don't want to suddenly find that all the money I've saved is gone come monday.

[Achilles]

I don't have enough in any one account to exceed what's covered by FDIC, therefore I'm not too worried. What will absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt sink us would be if everyone made a run on the bank (i.e. withdrew all savings and took their money out of circulation). The economy is the free flow of cash and credit. If that stops, the economy stops.

[Web Rider]

of course, running and taking it all out is bad, and that's not something I intend to do, even though something is "covered" by the FDIC, that's sorta like Katrina checks, in the 5 years it takes for it to get to me, I am long since screwed.

[Achilles]

Since you have it all figured out, why did you bother to ask?

[Jae Onasi]

The likelihood of someone breaking into my house to steal my wad of money taken out of the bank is a lot higher than the chance of the entire banking system collapsing and the FDIC not covering what I have in my accounts. I'm not worried about it not being covered. While the banking situation is very serious and needs to be addressed immediately, I don't think individuals' funds are in any danger.

[SW01]

The Times, today (26.09.08)

 

'it is thought that the Treasury will have the right to seize stakes in banks that benefit from the bailout in order to protect the interests of the American taxpayer.'

 

A step towards nationalisation?

 

The same article gave an interesting statistic - the cost of this $700 billion deal to the individual American taxpayer: $5300

[Web Rider]

Since you have it all figured out, why did you bother to ask?

 

because I wanted to know what other people thought. That's why it's a QUESTION. And not everyone may agree that keeping the banks going is a good idea, there are people who would like to be rid of the banking system we have an would do something to contribute to our collapse.

 

There are people who are the opposite of Jae who think their bank is more likely to steal their money or somebody rob their bank than for somebody to break into their home.

[Jae Onasi]

I'm not saying it _can't_ happen, Web Rider, but I think the probability is that the safety of my money in the bank is far greater than at my home.

[Web Rider]

I'm not saying it _can't_ happen, Web Rider, but I think the probability is that the safety of my money in the bank is far greater than at my home.

 

I know, I only said that some people think the opposite. I was curious if anyone here did. I imagine though due to our general knowledge of politics and how economics works, I find it doubtful many will express disparate opinions, still, I was curious.

[mimartin]

of course, running and taking it all out is bad, and that's not something I intend to do, even though something is "covered" by the FDIC, that's sorta like Katrina checks, in the 5 years it takes for it to get to me, I am long since screwed.

1. The homes in Mississippi and Louisiana that suffered flood damage and had flood insurance did not have to wait 5 years to receive their checks from FEMA. The problem with most the homes in Mississippi was they were in a preferred flood zone (zone X or zone B) those zones do not require flood insurance by the mortgagee companies. Therefore, the mortgagee companies (the same people we are bailing out here) and insurance agents told some of these homeowners they were not in a flood zone. This is not true everyone eligible for flood insurance is in a flood zone. If you are not in a flood zone then either your community has not been surveyed or you are already knee deep in water. Homes that flood so often that the government offers a buyout are no longer in a flood zone and cannot purchase flood insurance. The people who had to wait five years for their check did not have flood insurance and either had to sue the insurance agent, their mortgagee company or are getting a low interest loan from FEMA. If you do not have insurance FEMA may still help, but you have to pay them back. They also tried to sue the insurance companies, but since flood is an excluded coverage (court tested), they had to look elsewhere. I offer flood coverage to every homeowner I write coverage for and make them sign a rejection if they do not wish to purchase the coverage. I did this long before Katrina.

 

2. Keep large amount of cash in your home is unwise. Most states insurance policies cover $500 to $1,500 for cash or gift cards and is subject to the homeowner’s policy deductible.

 

3. If I have large amount of cash in hand…Well let us just say a fool and his money soon will part.

 

4. The bank is safer. I'm not really worried about my money disappearing. I'm worried about the actual buying power of that money being devalued.

[tk102]

House of Representatives rejected the $700 billion bailout plan today. The Dow Jones has lost dropped almost 7% as a result. This is getting scary. Not really sure why Congress feels like playing chicken with this crisis at the moment with 10%+ unemployment and crippled GDP. I'd rather not see this turn into another depression.

[Jae Onasi]

Why did they reject it?

*Jae would grumble about missing the news if she weren't grateful to have the job even if that's causing limited net access*

[ChAiNz.2da]

Why did they reject it?

*Jae would grumble about missing the news if she weren't grateful to have the job even if that's causing limited net access*

 

here's an excerpt from CNNmoney. Of course, it's more "play the blame game" semantics.

 

The measure, which is designed to get battered U.S. credit markets working normally again, needed 218 votes for passage. But it came up 13 votes short of that target, as the final vote was 228 to 205 against. About 60% of Democrats and fewer than 33% of Republicans voted for the measure.

 

President Bush, who earlier in the day said he was confident the bill would pass, is "very disappointed" by the House vote. He said the administration would continue to attack the nation's economic problems "head on."

 

The Treasury Department, which will work with regulators and "use all the tools at our disposal, as we have over the last several months, to protect our financial markets and our economy," according to a Treasury spokeswoman.

 

Paulson will be consulting with Bush, Bernanke and congressional leaders on the next steps, the spokeswoman said.

 

Republican leaders who had pushed their reluctant members for the bill blamed Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., saying that her speech during the floor debate drove away about a dozen Republicans they thought they could get to support the measure.

 

"I do believe we could have gotten there today if it had not been for this partisan speech the speaker gave on the floor of the House," said Boehner.

 

Speaking to reporters, Pelosi said that both Democratic and Republican leaders had pledged to get more than half their members to support the package and that only the Democrats had lived up to that promise. She said the lines of communication with administration and Republican House leadership to try to pass the measure.

 

"The legislation may have failed, the crisis is still with us," she said.

 

Earlier, speaking on the House floor, Pelosi said "$700 billion [is a] a staggering number, but only a part of the cost of the failed Bush economic policies - policies that were built on budget recklessness ... combined with an anything goes economic policy, [that] have taken us to where we are today."

 

- Source

[Yar-El]

BREAKING NEWS: Dow Plunges 777.68 Points

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3683270/

 

Sarcasm - I would hate to be the next president.

 

Other related links -

Bailout bill defeated

 

Bailout failure throws banks into disarray