The bailout worked!
 

Look at the stock market go!!!

oh wait. :rolleyes:

Yay! I trust my government so much when it comes to economic matters! I bet all this dumped cash has no positive effect and, possibly, even tanks it more.

did you really think that it would not take over a course of time perhaps 6-12months before any affect would be felt?

I don't recall last time there was an instant affect when trying make changes to economy of this size.

Of course it would happen instantly Rick, you know, that's how American's are now a days. It either happens in the short term or it never happened at all... :rolleyes: instant gratification.

my bad. i thought the dow would hit 15K for sure within a week.



it's going to take time to buy back the bad mortgage backed securities and free up credit. as to how long it will take, my guess is as good as yours. my guess is min 6 to 12months.

I agree nothing is going to happen instantly but I thought more people would know that this is no panacea to the problem. It was just a step to try to enable freeing of the credit markets so business could run as usual. Chances are your predictions are right on that time span though.

I guess I was being a bit too much of a dick for On-Topic. I just don't like how we were sold that this had to be passed IMMEDIATELY OR ELSE THE WORLD WOULD COLLAPSE, when we could have probably taken a bit more time and explored more options to really find a lower cost, more proper solution to this problem.

there are multiple clauses in the bail out package

#1 the government is buying the securities, which means when the market recovers they can sell the securities and recoup the full cost and possibly extra

#2 after 5 years if the market hasn't recovered, the President has the power to forced the companies that the government bought the securities from to pay back the amount.


and you are once again being dramatic, no one said the world would collapse or even the economy. I'm not going to sit here and pretend to know better than the economists of the world/US. However, I'm not seeing the lower "cost", no one will know for at least half a decade if this was the right decision or not. I for one feel the package could have been improved. I feel the package could have been bigger and I'm not talking about all the ear7am I referring to helping "the people" The whole toxic debt is estimated to be well into 3Trillion dollars. 700B I feel is not enough to offset the toxic debt. This isn't just my opinion but also the opinion of other economists that were interviewed in the past 2 weeks on various news outlets.

AFAIK, Bush, Paulson, and several key people all said that we were at the brink of economic situation and we would have to act immediately to resolve this issue. I listened to Paulson's testimony, and yeah, there was an air of "Immediate problem, give me money, don't ask questions."

We can't, and shouldn't offset the entire toxic debt. BUT, my oppositions to the plan are as follows (This is all AFAIK):

1) There's still no oversight committee, review process, or public inquiry into how Paulson doles out the money (My biggest complaint)
2) There is no specific tax provision to establish that all funds "earned" through taking these toxic debts to be provided back to the taxpayers as tax cuts.
3) I don't think the limits on the corporate spending of companies that receive this bailout go far enough.

it sounds to me like you read into what he was saying and got what you wanted to hear.

1) there shouldn't be one! it will prevent paulson from doing his job.
2) i don't believe this should be the case, there is no way to only reward those who made the right decision (such as myself and yourself) why should those that got loans that they couldn't pay be rewarded?
3) limits on corporate spending? are you talking about executive compensation? because i'm not sure what you're referring to. if you are talking about the executive compensation, why should there be a limit? it's contract between the private citizen and the corporate entity. if that is what they agreed on when who are we to say nope you can't have what was contracted.

I'm also not saying some of those executives shouldn't have their packages slashed greatly but think of what your saying.

http://financialservices.house.gov/e...by-section.pdf look at the last word in PAGE 1!!!! I KNEW IT ALL ALONG!!!!!

:lmao:

ibifobamawinshegetspraisedforfixingeconomy

ibifmccainwinsdemsstillpraiseobama

Here's Paluson saying that we need to act quickly or else we'll head into recession: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/bu.../24fannie.html , and apparently, according to the radio this morning, Paulson urged Democrats in a conference call when the bailout was proposed to enact this within 24 hours when it was initially suggested, without provisions or controls, to save the economy.

In response though:

1) According to what I heard from Sen Boxer, the new revision of the bill does have some congressional oversight, which I will want to look into. But, we MUST have oversight, even if it hinders or slows down the process. The country and administration has proven to be hasty and incompetent when there is no oversight.

2) The tax cut would be based on how much of your income went into the bailout. If the poor, say, used $50 of their tax dollars per year to resolve this, then they should get a $50 tax break once returns are realized. If someone put a million dollars a year into this, they quid pro quo they should also receive a 1 mil tax break once the money comes back. The tax you paid in should come back to you, and not be used in any other perverse way, and I would like to have seen a provision like this.


3) Normally, if they're a private company, they should only answer to the laws of the land and their stockholders when it comes to compensation. I have no beef with private organizations paying whatever they see fit. When companies are positioned to accept millions of taxpayer dollars to save their business, they should be affected by the taxpayer's interest. As far as I'm concerned, as soon as the Gov't comes in to buy your poorly acquired toxic assets, then the gov't, and the taxpayer, has a greater economic interest in the company. In these situations, I do believe executive compensation should be cut in companies that accept this, and by corporate expenditures, I also mean things like this: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5973452&page=1

this is what you said before


this is what you're saying now.

what paulson said was that the economy would be put at risk, which it is and was. what you said before was a vast exaggeration of the facts which is what I had issue with.

also of course he would urge quick action, he knew the effects of the bail out would not be felt for months, thus delays would delay the effect felt.

lastly i would suggest instead of listening to what the democrats said or what the republicans said, listen to the actual experts in the matter. not politicians.