True. A lot is probably bitterness as well.
Wildly unpopular bailout?
- Thread starter FUCK THE POLICE
- Start date
True. A lot is probably bitterness as well.
Im not so sure about this. Who controlled congress when they eliminated the uptick rule last July? That was the beginning of the downtrend.
I don't know if you can put 100% of the blame on any one party. I think the problem really is that those in congress cant keep up with the brains and corruption in the market. They are always one step behind and reactionary.
we need an eliot ness of the SEC!
KingCondanomation
New member
People who invest in the market are largely in it for the short term, no question this bailout is good for the short term.
Some of us are thinking about the mountain of debt we are leaving our children to deal with to pay for this generation and the last, along with the nonstop increase in government growth that will greatly restrict their freedom, rather than get a boner over making some money in the short term.
This is the problem with you and topspin, Chapdog, you love making money (nothing wrong with that) but you are unwilling to defend economic freedom for whoever comes after you.
we are not channeling money to iraq on this deal. by time our children are 30 this deal has (my prediction) 80% chance at actually being profitable (see savings and loan bail out)
BTW.. what could effect my kid more then his college investment account going down the tubes?
This is another one from your "pennywise, pound foolish" perspective. Aside from the fact that the people who will pay for most of the bailout likely have either investments of their own or 401K's, a lot of the money that is generated when the markets do well goes toward small businesses, new business & expansion for existing businesses. That, in turn, benefits huge groups of people - it creates new jobs, and improves existing jobs & income levels, to the point where the economy as a whole ends up giving back in terms of revenue without even the need for any kind of tax increase or burden for future generations.
There are plenty who think that this will end up paying for itself, if it works out. I agree it's a gamble, but the alternative isn't pretty.
yes i agree. there are a lot of things we should do.. i will list a couple that would have major impact and im just some lowly 30 something working stooge.
Bring back uptick rule
No naked shorting
Hedge fund transparency
mortgage insurance forced on lender and buyer for high risk buyers
KingCondanomation
New member
Yes I know how trickle down works (it's a little funny to hear a lefty praise it though
). But that comes from wealth generated at the top level, not from wealth confiscated and redistributed, especially on bad investments.And they will likely end up paying for it, but not in the near term. That gets heaped on the already massive mountain of debt.
The alternative is a recession, we've been through those. Even if it WAS a good deal, there is no way this is the last bailout and public support will never be for another one. So why waste the money?
evince
Truthmatters
It was the SEC its self that suspended the rule in a experiment to study its effectiveness.
It's not "trickle down." The market is actual investment in COMPANIES. That's what it is. When it does well, companies do well; we're not talking about a tax break for rich people only that we hope they'll spend in America.
And yeah - we're due for a recession, anyway. I keep hearing that; well, people are going to lose jobs, anyway, and the economy is still bad regardless. It misses the larger point; we're talking about depth & length of the recession, which may seem very theoretical now, but will be something that most people will notice when we're in it.
And yeah - we're due for a recession, anyway. I keep hearing that; well, people are going to lose jobs, anyway, and the economy is still bad regardless. It misses the larger point; we're talking about depth & length of the recession, which may seem very theoretical now, but will be something that most people will notice when we're in it.
ignore the pilot. hedge funds didnt utilize there emboldened abilities during pilot because they wanted it passed.
evince
Truthmatters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Securities_and_Exchange_Commission#Structure
The SEC consists of five Commissioners appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. Their terms last five years and are staggered so that one Commissioner's term ends on June 5 of each year. To ensure that the SEC remains non-partisan, no more than three Commissioners may belong to the same political party. The President also designates one of the Commissioners as Chairman, the SEC's top executive.
The SEC consists of five Commissioners appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. Their terms last five years and are staggered so that one Commissioner's term ends on June 5 of each year. To ensure that the SEC remains non-partisan, no more than three Commissioners may belong to the same political party. The President also designates one of the Commissioners as Chairman, the SEC's top executive.
Last edited:
Fucking nonsense. I fully understand that Wall Street and bank failures could negatively impact me. But the hyperbolic fear mongering is ridiculous. I also understand how bailing out bad investments can affect me.
LOL, you are clueless. They are not going to raise taxes to pay for this. They are not going to cut spending to pay for this. The bill now includes tax cuts and spending in other unrelated areas.
LOL, you are clueless. They are not going to raise taxes to pay for this. They are not going to cut spending to pay for this. The bill now includes tax cuts and spending in other unrelated areas.
Dano was talking about future generations. I don't see this as creating something that they're going to have to pay off. If it goes well, it could easily pay for itself; that was the point.
KingCondanomation
New member
??? Yes but as you said yourself, the wealth of companies benefits all, which is true. Here you have government investment (ie: confiscated wealth that would have been in the market on it's own had government not taxed it). That is wealth that would have been used productively by people who have a vested interest in it doing so. Instead we have government making a guess on investments that very few private entities want to take a chance on.
Japan did a bailout and they had a long term recession. Hoover did bailouts and that didn't help. I don't buy this argument.
The key thing to keep in mind here is that the people we most trust in when they say it will work are also those who had a role in the problem rising (Either governmnet officials with runaway spending/borrowing or people like Greenspan and Bernanke who kept interest rates low and encouraged borrowing) Why put so much safe confidence in them when they have ALREADY proven to be fallible?
evince
Truthmatters
Given enough time it could help pay for itself at least.
It was not the best solution but it was a solution that was done in time before the real spiral of lending tightening gripped the country.
I hope it did enough to calm the slide.
It's not going to pay for itself. The really illiquid assets (mostly the derivatives) are pretty much worthless. Those are the ones we will get stuck with. Meanwhile, we are going to hand money over to these people to prop up housing prices above true market levels. We need to let the market liquidate the bad assets and bring housing prices down to true market levels.
uscitizen
Villified User
