Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/03/2008 @ 01:27:39 PM
I wish I knew enough about all of this to have an opinion on it one way or another. I do understand that the effects of this would likely trickle down, thus the cries over bailing out rich "fat cats" on Wall St with "Main St money" are a little too simplistic. What I don't like is the same people who wanted government out of their face when times were good, now want to fall back on the government when times are bad. Also, sure people can't get loans and whatnot now, but wouldn't someone fill that role? If there's a demand, someone would step up and take their money. Sure, these specific companies might have gone under, but it's not like the whole concept of investing and banking would go with them. "Confidence in the market" seems to be the important talking point, but how much confidence can people really have right now? Is it just that the time period between these banks folding and someone else stepping in would have huge ramifications? It's also important that Americans realize their role in this. The politicians have to talk about consumers like lenders ousted them from their one bedroom apartment at gun point and forced them into a $300,000 home, despite the fact that they couldn't afford it. We all know that wasn't the case. Sure, banks could have shown some restraint, but it's also their right to give a risky loan. The consumer should have to deal with the consequences of buying a home they have no business buying, and the banks should have to deal with the consequences of a risky loan backfiring. It's sad to me that it can't just be that simple, and instead the rest of us living responsibly within our means have to step in.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - Knuckle Sammich 10/03/2008 @ 01:31:22 PM
Man, only three days into FY 2009 and I'm already getting hosed.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 10/03/2008 @ 02:04:08 PM
Also, where I say "banks should have to deal with the consequences of a risky loan backfiring" I know that the bank you actually sit down at isn't really the bank, in the end, that are on the hook for it. They package them up and sell them off to bigger banks. Who package those up and sell them to even bigger banks, and so on. (Which may be part of the problem, 90% of the chain was playing with "house money".) At any rate, somewhere along the line someone knew the risk of what they were getting into. Instead of bailing out everyone, and letting so many people off scott-free, why couldn't there be a program started up to move people into homes they can actually afford and "transfer" their mortgage over to that. That way the taxpayers own the big house, which can be sold off at some point much more easily than bad IOU's, and even if it can't be sold for a while, property is a very solid investment.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Jeremy messed with this at 10/03/2008 2:07:38 pm

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 10/03/2008 @ 02:44:20 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 01:31:22 PM Man, only three days into FY 2009 and I'm already getting hosed. I didn't know you were a fiscal filer. And all I can say is woot! The AMT Patch is already final, whereas last year we had to wait until the very end of December and then they couldn't finalize tax forms until like February! Now, everything will be up to date with the first run of forms!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted. 10/03/2008 @ 03:25:18 PM
Sarah Wrote - Today @ 02:44:20 PM Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 01:31:22 PM Man, only three days into FY 2009 and I'm already getting hosed. I didn't know you were a fiscal filer. And all I can say is woot! The AMT Patch is already final, whereas last year we had to wait until the very end of December and then they couldn't finalize tax forms until like February! Now, everything will be up to date with the first run of forms! Company and Military (government) wise, yes.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - You've got to trust your instinct, and let go of regret 10/03/2008 @ 05:28:46 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:27:39 PM The consumer should have to deal with the consequences of buying a home they have no business buying, and the banks should have to deal with the consequences of a risky loan backfiring. It's sad to me that it can't just be that simple, and instead the rest of us living responsibly within our means have to step in. It could be that simple if the federal government didn't go around sticking its nose in places it was never intended to and playing the role of the CEO of the USA. Vote Libertarian! Down with Socialism!		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Alex - Who controls the past now controls the future 10/03/2008 @ 05:34:19 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:27:39 PM I wish I knew enough about all of this to have an opinion on it one way or another. You really think the people pushing this bill can actually predict its impact? Maybe better than you and I, but the bottom line is the total equation deals with millions of unknown variables and this bill is just somebody's "educated guess". Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:27:39 PM What I don't like is the same people who wanted government out of their face when times were good, now want to fall back on the government when times are bad. I really think this is how the country has gotten to where it is. When times are bad, people look to the government to make things better, which means giving more control to the government and creating more government positions and programs. Then when things are good, no one really says anything or a few people make talk about reducing government but it never actually happens. Let that cycle repeat for 200 years and you end up with the massive federal government we have today.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	craig - 132 Posts 10/03/2008 @ 11:25:58 PM
Carlos44ec Wrote - Today @ 01:31:22 PM Man, only three days into FY 2009 and I'm already getting hosed. Finally. This is going to be the best Fiscal New Year party ever!		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/03/2008 @ 11:39:39 PM
You know what makes me even more mad. This. http://seekingalpha.com/article/97269-today-s-other-bailout-25b-for-auto-makers 700 billion is a lot, but we there's a lot inter-tanglement of every day life of all of us, and the financial markets. I've personally lost 17% of my Roth IRA this year. Bailing out these institutions out isn't just bailing out the fat cats. Bailing out car companies and airlines on the other hand is preposterous. If these companies are failing, let them go under. Set up something for the people that depend on the pensions if you have to, though those people had to realize the company going under was a possibility. (Fun fact, roughly $1500 for every GM car goes to paying people who don't work at GM anymore.) America needs cars. Someone would step in, and it would probably make sense to take over the plant that was just emptied, or build a new one in the same area to take advantage of their experience. Either way, we can't keep dumping money into these boondoggles just because a lot of low to semi skilled workers might be out of a job. I don't mean to sound like a dick, but it's almost looking like someone needs to be. If we want to create mindless make-work jobs for people just for the sake of having jobs then lets pay them to mow our lawns and wash our cars while we're working our productive jobs. At least the taxpayers would get something out of that deal. As I said before the demand for cars isn't going anywhere. Likewise, people need to fly, one trip to the Minneapolis/St. Paul airport can tip you off to that. Hundreds of businesses manage to turn a profit on the folks at the airport. Everyone, except for the airlines, that is. This isn't a reason these companies are so important, it's the exact opposite. We are paying to subsidize companies that are so incompetent that they are fucking up an un-fuck-up-able situation. When is this going to stop? You know what's really sad? Obama's health care proposal is 50 billion. Hillary's was 110. I read somewhere that to pay for a no strings attached, everyone walks into a doctor whenever they want for whatever they want system would cost $180 billion. Those were staggering, unthinkable, numbers not that long ago to a lot of people. Now we're just handing out money left and right that approaches or exceeds these numbers, with very little hope of recovering anything. I'm not necessarily advocating any of these, I know a person could see those as improperly spent money as well (or, I guess I should say, money that should never have been collected in the first place). Still, I think we can all agree that it's sad to sit back and wonder what we could be getting for all this money.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 4 times, last at 10/09/2008 1:51:29 pm

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 10/04/2008 @ 12:56:55 AM
While incompetence in the auto and airline industries are certainly part of why they always seem to be in trouble, government involvement in the markets through regulations and other policies (CAFE standards, support of the powerful UAW, policies that contributed to high fuel prices, etc.) are also to blame (how much of the blame it deserves is another debate, but it certainly deserves some). This is not to say, however, that because the government may have inadvertently harmed these industries, that they are now entitled to bailouts. Rather, the government should reexamine these polices and remove the ones that do more harm than good. Then, the companies that still fail don't deserve to be in the game, and as Jeremy mentioned, can then be replaced by others who are more efficient and better able to make money while giving the public what it wants.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 10/04/2008 @ 01:16:47 AM
Alex Wrote - Yesterday @ 05:28:46 PM Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 01:27:39 PM The consumer should have to deal with the consequences of buying a home they have no business buying, and the banks should have to deal with the consequences of a risky loan backfiring. It's sad to me that it can't just be that simple, and instead the rest of us living responsibly within our means have to step in. It could be that simple if the federal government didn't go around sticking its nose in places it was never intended to and playing the role of the CEO of the USA. Vote Libertarian! Down with Socialism! Here is a pretty good article that echoes some of Alex's feelings on the matter, as well as mine in the post above. As an added bonus, the author (unintentionally, I'm sure) sort of plugs what could be a hit movie next spring.		Rate this comment Yours: Total: Rated 1 times.

	Jeremy - Pie Racist 10/04/2008 @ 02:05:47 AM
If the government ditched all regulations would that help when they went out of business, or would the companies still be asking for money? They couldn't have it both ways. In exchange for our money the government wants some oversight, and some amount of control over one company getting "too big to be allowed to fail". I don't think this is an inherently flawed concept. Now if the regulation itself makes no sense, that's another story. I guess in my mind regulations like "You 3 banks can't form into one super 'all our eggs in one basket' bank" are different from things like "You have to give people a home loan, even if they want to move into a $500,000 condo and work the register at McDonalds" which I would consider more of an "initiative" than a "regulation." I don't think you have to be a Libertarian of any sort to think the government has no business dictating "initiatives" such as that.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Nutcan.com's MBL 10/04/2008 @ 03:41:29 AM
While I'm not quite sure what you're getting at in the first part of your post, I'll just say that companies will always ask for money (whether they are "over-regulated" or not), and that the government will meddle wherever they want (whether they have or would ever consider them for a "bailout"). As for regulations (or policies/taxes/etc.), while they will always distort the market, I'm not one to say that they can't be worthwhile or beneficial. The problem, though, is that anytime you tax something or regulate it, these actions will have side effects and cause unintended consequences that may raise the true "costs" above the "benefits". Of course, most of the public never gives a problem this much thought and most of the people in the government are either as ignorant as the public or they just want to score political points by looking like they are doing something about perceived problems. It would be nice if we could actually think things through first and get a true sense of the "costs" so we could have a real debate whether any action is worth it or not. Alas, this is not how things work and we end up with "uneven" debates where discussions on raising the minimum wage are more about class warfare and less about whether it is better to have many, lower paying jobs for low-skilled workers; or fewer jobs, but higher paying ones. It's also the reason why we get new knee-jerk regulations when any new crisis shows up (like SOX, which I think has something to do with A. J. Pierzynski), whether they are worthwhile or not. P.S. I hope this tirade comes across as being somewhat coherent.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt edited this at 10/04/2008 3:42:19 am

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/04/2008 @ 04:00:16 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:39:39 PM 700 billion is a lot, but we there's a lot inter-tanglement of every day life of all of us, and the financial markets. I've personally lost 17% of my Roth IRA this year. Bailing out these institutions out isn't just bailing out the fat cats. Assuming that it works out better than if the bill hadn't been passed. Plus besides that 17% you just paid some sum of money that hopefully will get paid back to you someday. And by you I guess the payback on the bailout money would just go right back to the government, so really you just kissed it goodbye and best case scenario the government uses the eventual return to pay off the country's debt to China. Obviously I'm not an expert on the details here but that's how I see it the moment. As far as what that sum was, I found various estimates depending on how many of the recent and possibly upcoming bailouts you want to group together. Here's $3,300 for every man, woman and child in the United States, which may or may not make more sense depending on the payout plan. I'm assuming the money will be paid out more or less in a lump sum so it probably affects current taxpayers more than future taxpayers? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26840904/ This one says $4,147.00 per taxpayer, but that's the $700 billion only http://www.247wallst.com/2008/09/usa-per-capita.html This guy seems to have a better explanation of the potential costs (guessing at some of the variables) and went with $1 trillion for a per taxpayer cost of $7, 451. But he also breaks it down somewhat by income level although I have no idea where that 50% line is in dollar terms. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article6545.html		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/04/2008 @ 04:26:13 PM
Also I'm not really in favor of getting rid of all government regulation, it's just that there needs to be a trend toward less I think. Think of it like the history of the Nutcan. It started with a different name, Jeremy pieced some stuff together, new features and things were added but eventually it was becoming almost impossible to maintain. The solution wasn't to just keep piling more and more chunks of code together while everyone crossed their fingers and hoped for the best. The site was rewritten, keeping the good ideas, dropping the bad ones, and making everything run smoother and easier to maintain. That's what the government needs, massive refactoring. Maybe it's already so ginormous of a mess that nothing can be done, in which case the country's eventual downfall has already been sealed like that of all the previous world superpowers. That wasn't really the point I set out to make here. My point was going to be that even if the Libertarian party seems to be too far in the other direction, any Republican or Democrat that gets elected will never make any real changes in this day and age. And probably the first modern day 3rd party president will have difficulty pushing the agenda as well. Electing a 3rd party that advocates "less" government would at least be a statement to all political representatives of the people that the people are not real thrilled with the way things have been going, and if the established parties won't make changes they will fail (unless of course they manage to pass a bailout bill for themselves, and at this point I wouldn't put that past them).		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - I was too weak to give in Too strong to lose 10/04/2008 @ 04:46:06 PM
This guy claims that despite the bailout, things will be bad until housing prices rebound http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown_credit I guess I don't really get how everyone keeps saying that the solution is for consumers to spend more money. Isn't that what caused the problem in the first place, people spending money that they didn't have (and/or on things they don't need)? Isn't the credit market tightening up kind of a good thing? Sure, I went into debt to get through the school but my first goal once I graduated was to get back out of debt right away (I almost think maybe too soon considering that I probably could have kept my tuition loans at like 2% and invested that money instead). It wasn't to buy a $30,000 vehicle and $180,000 house, rack up a couple thousand more in credit card debt and then spend the next 30 years of my life living in the red. And that's why I feel no sympathy for people who did take that path. You had your fun, now deal with the consequences (and sell me your home for $90,000). Edit: or do this to get out of your mortgage http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081005/ap_on_re_us/foreclosure_woman_shoots_self		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Alex perfected this at 10/05/2008 12:53:05 pm

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/04/2008 @ 11:35:09 PM
Wanted to see how Wisconsin reps voted: http://www.htrnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081004/MAN0101/810040437/1984 Herb Kohl voting for it and Russ Feingold voting against it Democrat Steve Kagen and Republicans Tom Petri and James Sensenbrenner voted against Republican Paul Ryan and Democrats Tammy Baldwin, Ron Kind, Gwen Moore and Dave Obey backed the bailout plans		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - Ombudsman 10/06/2008 @ 04:08:04 PM
Here is one more article that talks about the absurdity of "home ownership for all". http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122325772150706655.html		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Matt messed with this 3 times, last at 10/06/2008 4:09:39 pm

	Carlos44ec - Knuckle Sammich 10/06/2008 @ 04:42:04 PM
I think most Americans have forgotten that there will always be poor people. It's a guarantee... not everyone can or should own a house.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - 9475 Posts 10/06/2008 @ 05:11:50 PM
Houses really should be the least of our concern for poor people. At least houses are a good investment. Somewhere along the line it became acceptable in America to have a $70,000 Hummer in the driveway of a rented shit-hole apartment/duplex with $30 grand worth of the latest/greatest electronics in it. It really isn't terribly unreasonable to think that most people should eventually own a property of some sort. Though, I don't consider it a goal either. Outside of huge expensive cities it really isn't even all that more expensive to own. You just "need" to have a decent hunk of money to put down, but even that shouldn't be something someone who is already living on their own shouldn't be able to set aside for. Ironically, a lot of the time "poor" people wouldn't be poor if they didn't spend so much time and money trying to act like they weren't poor.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Carlos44ec - 2079 Posts 10/06/2008 @ 06:57:28 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 05:11:50 PM Houses really should be the least of our concern for poor people. At least houses are a good investment. Somewhere along the line it became acceptable in America to have a $70,000 Hummer in the driveway of a rented shit-hole apartment/duplex with $30 grand worth of the latest/greatest electronics in it. So you've seen my new place, eh?		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Carlos44ec messed with this 2 times, last at 10/06/2008 6:58:24 pm

	Alex - 3619 Posts 10/09/2008 @ 01:20:41 PM
Not only did you purchase a couple thousand in bad mortgage loans, you also apparently signed off on allowing the Federal government of the U.S.A. to take ownership of private companies. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/meltdown_paulson "Citizens, times are tough, but don't worry the federal government is here to make it all better. Just give us control of, err I mean "oversight responsibility", of some of things that really we know how to handle better than anyone else. And give us a crapload of tax money. Really, it's for your own good. Just trust us." Edit: That's a great url. We should meltdown paulson.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.
Alex messed with this at 10/09/2008 1:21:45 pm

	Jeremy - Broadcast in stunning 1080i 10/09/2008 @ 02:37:28 PM
Alex Wrote - 10/04/2008 @ 04:46:06 PM I guess I don't really get how everyone keeps saying that the solution is for consumers to spend more money. Isn't that what caused the problem in the first place, people spending money that they didn't have (and/or on things they don't need)? I think in general they mean that "putting money in your mattress" doesn't help anyone. Though, buying stuff also obviously helps the economy. It would also be fair to say that the credit industry itself is an important part of our economy. Thus, if everyone "only bought what they could afford" we might be in bad shape as well. As per almost everything else in life discipline, reason, and balance are key.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 12/22/2008 @ 01:42:25 PM
A little late in a response, but I still disagree. When 90% of people and companies are surviving on borrowed money it's only a matter of time before the economy collapses. Putting money in your mattress helps you because then when you need to buy something you have funds. Think of it as your own personal insurance company, except that there is no actually insurance company taking a cut. To clarify, if you make $25,000 a year, you spending $5000 dollars to "keep the economy going" is probably not as helpful to you as saving most of that money. If you make $500,000, then yes, spend it like it grows on trees. Anyway, I just wanted to post this link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081222/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/meltdown_secrets		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - Cube Phenomenoligist 12/22/2008 @ 01:53:41 PM
You can save money AND have it not be under the mattress/in a cookie jar/etc. People not trusting banks and not putting their money into the system is a big problem. Giving that $5000 to a bank makes you money and the bank can now loan that $5000 to a small business which employs a couple people. There are many options between "spend every cent you have on shit you don't need" and "save every cent you make in a piggy bank on your dresser."		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 12/22/2008 @ 05:29:56 PM
Well, by "putting money in your mattress" I assumed we meant putting it in the bank, so it can earn .0000001% interest. Is there really an issue with people literally putting money under their mattresses? I'm not saying there aren't multiple options, I'm saying that it seems like too many people are way too far towards the "spend every cent" end of the spectrum, which makes it seem odd to me that the recommended solution for the "crisis" is to tell people to spend more. The pendulum needs to swing back.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Matt - 3875 Posts 12/22/2008 @ 06:26:36 PM
Jeremy Wrote - Today @ 01:53:41 PM Giving that $5000 to a bank makes you money and the bank can now loan that $5000 to a small business which employs a couple people. Don't forget about reserve requirements.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Sarah - 4605 Posts 01/08/2009 @ 08:59:10 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Radical-cheap-1000-cnnm-14005833.html Good investment property? I went to realtor.com and there are a ton of houses for sale for $5000. Wow.		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Jeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?" 02/13/2009 @ 12:03:55 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wTE4e4sSXU		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.

	Alex - 3619 Posts 12/02/2011 @ 08:06:13 PM
http://www.hulu.com/watch/306318/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-americas-next-tarp-model?c=0%3A0 Umm...WTF? Ron Paul 2012. http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/02/ron-paul-and-company-vindicate		Rate this comment Yours: Rated 0 times.