Hello:

I've not yet digested the recent moves by the government to save a meltdown on Wall Street. The question occurs to me, however, why perhaps a trillion dollars — TWICE the amount spent so far in Iraq — is suddenly available to help Wall Street, but there's NOTHING to help your neighbor who just got thrown out of his house.

Why is it that YOU, the taxpayer, winds up with these bad debts, but the guy's who made the loans ride off into the sunset with golden parachutes? I'll tell you why. Because the dufus in chief has a printing press, and the guys on the pony's are his friends.

Not only has George Bush spent our money like a drunken sailor, THIS plan is more socialist and more liberal than anything Franklin Roosevelt ever did. Nope. THESE Republicans AIN'T fiscal conservatives. Oh, they talk the talk, but when it comes time to walk the walk, they turn pink.

Buy gold.

excon

This is one of the most critically dangerous times in our history... we are facing the collapse of our economy caused by non-regulated Wall Street greedmongers who are the power brokers of the Republican Party.

Bush is trying to SOCIALIZE the corporate debt so that the American taxpayers rescue these large banks which are in so much trouble. The same middle class whose jobs are being sent overseas!

The fat cats have almost destroyed America... time will tell if we an stabilize our banking system.

This is one of the most critically dangerous times in our history... we are facing the collapse of our economy caused by non-regulated Wall Street greedmongers who are the power brokers of the Republican Party.

Bush is trying to SOCIALIZE the corporate debt so that the American taxpayers rescue these large banks which are in so much trouble. The same middle class whose jobs are being sent overseas!

The fat cats have almost destroyed America... time will tell if we an stabilize our banking system.

Glitch, sorry for doubles.

Hello:

I've not yet digested the recent moves by the government to save a meltdown on Wall Street. The question occurs to me, however, why perhaps a trillion dollars — TWICE the amount spent so far in Iraq — is suddenly available to help Wall Street, but there's NOTHING to help your neighbor who just got thrown out of his house.

Why is it that YOU, the taxpayer, winds up with these bad debts, but the guy's who made the loans ride off into the sunset with golden parachutes? I'll tell you why. Because the dufus in chief has a printing press, and the guys on the pony's are his friends.

Not only has George Bush spent our money like a drunken sailor, THIS plan is more socialist and more liberal than anything Franklin Roosevelt ever did. Nope. THESE Republicans AIN'T fiscal conservatives. Oh, they talk the talk, but when it comes time to walk the walk, they turn pink.

Buy gold.

excon

Hey, bro.

You bring up some good questions. But please keep in mind that Bush and McCain have been trying to work on this since 2003. Bush and McCain both supported legislation to try and fix the problem BEFORE the crap hit the fan. It was guys like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer and others who stopped the legislation from passing. I don't disagree with your basic premise, but it is who in specific you blame that I take issue with.

Personally, I am against the idea of ANY bailouts. Just as I was against ANY government intervention in creating Fannie and Freddie, and against messing with their regulations back in '96. I'm against ANY government interference in the economy, period. And it has been proven time and again that any time the gov't gets involved, we end up getting screwed eventually.

I'm against the government bailing out private corporations, government-run entities, and individuals. Such bailouts keep the people at all levels from feeling the full consequences of their actions. It's as if a baby kept putting its hand in the fire but never felt the pain... it would never learn to stop putting its hand in the fire, and it would eventually receive 3rd degree burns. If Fannie, Freddie and the banks never get burned, how will they ever learn to stop doing this stuff? That is a major reason that I'm against any bailouts.

However, since the government has decided to do the bailouts, the question becomes who should be bailed out.

Should we bail out individuals who borrowed the money?

Should we bail out government entities and banks that made and held the underlying mortgage loans?

Should we bail out the investors who bought the securities backed by the underlying mortgages?

Which would have the greatest positive effect on the economy as a whole (or at least prevent the worst negative effects)? That should be the determining factor.

If we bail out a borrower/homeowner, we help that borrower/homeowner.

If we bail out Fannie, Freddie and the banks, we help Fannie, Freddie, the banks AND the homeowners, as well as the investors/bondholders.

- Fannie and Freddie get the liquidity they need to keep from foreclosing on the bad loans,
- The borrowers/homeowners get a grace period to help them refinance or sell,
- the investors' get the guarantee on their securities.

IF there has to be a bailout, this is the best way for it to happen from a macroeconomic perspective.

Now... where is the money for this bailout going to come from?

Where do you think?

And yes, the whole thing is socialist, which is another reason that I disagree with it. Taking over Freddie and Fannie was bad enough, but at least they started as government entities. For the government to take control of 71% of AIG's stock shares is a very scary precedent. The question we need to watch out for is when will the government decide that it is in "the best interests of the American economy" to take over other companies? This is an Orwellian nightmare, from my perspective.

And it is one more reason that I don't want an avowed socialist in the White House... I don't want Obama using the AIG bailout deal as an excuse or precedent to nationalize any other businesses.

I think we're in overall agreement on this one, excon. Someone go check Hell to see if they are selling ice-skates. :)

Elliot

Hello:

I've not yet digested the recent moves by the government to save a meltdown on Wall Street. The question occurs to me, however, why perhaps a trillion dollars — TWICE the amount spent so far in Iraq — is suddenly available to help Wall Street, but there's NOTHING to help your neighbor who just got thrown out of his house.

Why is it that YOU, the taxpayer, winds up with these bad debts, but the guy's who made the loans ride off into the sunset with golden parachutes? I'll tell you why. Because the dufus in chief has a printing press, and the guys on the pony's are his friends.

Not only has George Bush spent our money like a drunken sailor, THIS plan is more socialist and more liberal than anything Franklin Roosevelt ever did. Nope. THESE Republicans AIN'T fiscal conservatives. Oh, they talk the talk, but when it comes time to walk the walk, they turn pink.

Buy gold.

excon

Hey, bro.

You bring up some good questions. But please keep in mind that Bush and McCain have been trying to work on this since 2003. Bush and McCain both supported legislation to try and fix the problem BEFORE the crap hit the fan. It was guys like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer and others who stopped the legislation from passing. I don't disagree with your basic premise, but it is who in specific you blame that I take issue with.

Personally, I am against the idea of ANY bailouts. Just as I was against ANY government intervention in creating Fannie and Freddie, and against messing with their regulations back in '96. I'm against ANY government interference in the economy, period. And it has been proven time and again that any time the gov't gets involved, we end up getting screwed eventually.

I'm against the government bailing out private corporations, government-run entities, and individuals. Such bailouts keep the people at all levels from feeling the full consequences of their actions. It's as if a baby kept putting its hand in the fire but never felt the pain... it would never learn to stop putting its hand in the fire, and it would eventually receive 3rd degree burns. If Fannie, Freddie and the banks never get burned, how will they ever learn to stop doing this stuff? That is a major reason that I'm against any bailouts.

However, since the government has decided to do the bailouts, the question becomes who should be bailed out.

Should we bail out individuals who borrowed the money?

Should we bail out government entities and banks that made and held the underlying mortgage loans?

Should we bail out the investors who bought the securities backed by the underlying mortgages?

Which would have the greatest positive effect on the economy as a whole (or at least prevent the worst negative effects)? That should be the determining factor.

If we bail out a borrower/homeowner, we help that borrower/homeowner.

If we bail out Fannie, Freddie and the banks, we help Fannie, Freddie, the banks AND the homeowners, as well as the investors/bondholders.

- Fannie and Freddie get the liquidity they need to keep from foreclosing on the bad loans,
- The borrowers/homeowners get a grace period to help them refinance or sell,
- the investors' get the guarantee on their securities.

IF there has to be a bailout, this is the best way for it to happen from a macroeconomic perspective.

Now... where is the money for this bailout going to come from?

Where do you think?

And yes, the whole thing is socialist, which is another reason that I disagree with it. Taking over Freddie and Fannie was bad enough, but at least they started as government entities. For the government to take control of 71% of AIG's stock shares is a very scary precedent. The question we need to watch out for is when will the government decide that it is in "the best interests of the American economy" to take over other companies? This is an Orwellian nightmare, from my perspective.

And it is one more reason that I don't want an avowed socialist in the White House... I don't want Obama using the AIG bailout deal as an excuse or precedent to nationalize any other businesses.

I think we're in overall agreement on this one, excon. Someone go check Hell to see if they are selling ice-skates. :)

Elliot

Excon- that is why I'm voting for Obama
It's sickening I know

You know my position on this .However I think there' some chicken-little stuff going on. I am opposed to these bailouts but I do think that the potential of panic justifies them. We can take hope in the fact that the Resolution Trust Corp.(which I think the bailout will be modeled after after Congress flaps their gums this week) actually was a profitable enterprise and a net gain for the taxpayer.
Should their be some debt relief for the 2% of the shaky mortgages ? No ;but I think there will be . My only hope is that the applications for the bad home loans get scrutinized for instances of falsification because there were a number of people who lied on their application . They ;and the broker who reviewed the applications should be held to account.

And speaking of being held to account;I will know that is happening when I see Charles Rangel ;Chris Dodd ;and Barney Frank frog-marched out of Congress. I still think an independent prosecutor need to be appointed.If there was any Democrat or Republican malefeasance then let the prosecutor find it as we know any Congressional inquiry will be a cover-up and a kangaroo court.

This is not a true bailout in the meaning of the word. It is a "dip your hand into the cookie jar" and take money that does not belong to you. This was planned a long time ago. Trust me. They knew what they were doing. Who better to buy out or help out or bail out big companies who shouldn't be filing bankruptcy in the first place than the US? The Fed essentially prints money out of thin air. The US lets the Fed do it. Remember, the Fed is NOT owned by the United States. It is a foreign owned entity that essentially holds the US hostage. JFK tried to disarm it and died. The opponents in the early 1900's died aboard the Titanic in 1912. They didn't want it. They died. Get the picture here? Any opponents magically disappear and will keep disappearing.

Somehow this insidious creature overtook American finances and can essentially do anything it damn well pleases with NO CONSEQUENCES.

I think that Hank Greenberg, who was ousted from AIG, is now taking control again of AIG through the US Fed bailout and he's making a killing on doing it as well.

Some people are so greedy nowadays they'll go along with whatever agenda makes them the most money regardless of what harm it does to the "little people". Why shucks, the little people don't matter do they? Of course not. They just do as they are told and keep their mouths shut.

The witch hunt of Greenberg by then NY State AG Spitzer probably caused AIGs problems.

It is simply a well laid plan to place global banking, all banking, into the hands of a few.
To centralize the central bank.

The opponents in the early 1900's died aboard the Titanic in 1912. They didn't want it. They died. Get the picture here? Any opponents magically disappear and will keep disappearing.


So the"foreign owned entity " (I'm guessing you mean the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations )drove the Titanic into an iceberg ? Or pehaps steered the iceberg into the ship ?

This is a last hurrah for the fat cats to get what they want, ALL THE MONEY. Kiss tax cuts, and good paying jobs good bye.

So the"foreign owned entity " (I'm guessing you mean the Trilateral Commission or the Council on Foreign Relations )drove the Titanic into an iceberg ? Or pehaps steered the iceberg into the ship ?

That would be a "Dirty Rupert", as in Murdock tom. Whether anyone had anything to do with the sinking or not doesn't matter. The fact remains that the worst opportunistic disease on the planet, the Rothschild Banking Cartel, capitalized upon the tradgedy, as they are well known for, among other crooked angles.

By April, 1912, all opposition to the Federal Reserve was eliminated. In December of
1913, the Federal Reserve System came into being in the United States.

Oh brother ! Now I've read it all! So the Jesuits are the problem?? “The creature from Jekyll Island”?? lol
You wonder why no one takes this stuff seriously ?

But tom, there was a creature from Jekyll Island. It just morphed into the Monster from Wall Street... or have you not noticed?