Should the US toss the life preserver (to the tune of $700B)?

benjy

Rarely wrenches
Supporting Member
Location
Moab
I recently read (and would highly recommend) a well written, unbiased article from the London times regarding the US takeover of the failing financial institutions bad debt. I have heard all too often in the last few days regarding the large sum ($700B) that will be authorized to be used in this saving effort. It seems that many fail to see that this money will not merely be thrown away, but will provide a return (granted, a lot of this bad debt will be expensed), it's not as the money that we've been throwing at the war.

That seems to be the superficial argument against the bailout. Those who understand it more thoroughly and oppose, feel that we can't bailout institutions that made these decisions in the first place. We can't reward the stockholders and owners of a failing entity. While I understand this concept, the consequences of letting them come crashing down would have a much greater negative affect on the economy. So essentially it comes down to an ethical decision, nobody knows or understands the consequences of either decision.

Anyone else following the financial crisis? What are your thoughts?
 

RockMonkey

Suddenly Enthusiastic
I've been following along closely. It irritates me too, that all you hear is that this is going to cost the taxpayers 700 billion dollars. Nobody seems to report that we will be buying these debts at well below face value (although the actual percentage is still unknown), and we will recover much of it. Most people are still making payments on these debts that we will be buying, and part of the package will be restructuring many of the loans that we buy so that people can continue to pay their mortgages (or resume paying them) and stay in their homes. For the debts that do not get paid, we will foreclose on the property, and sell it to recoup our cost. Many financial analysts are predicting that we will MAKE money on this deal. It will certainly not (in the end) cost the taxpayers the full 700 billion (or more) that is the initial investment.

Emotionally it irritates me to no end that irresponsible people who borrowed money that they had no reasonable chance to pay back, and institutions that loaned money to people who could not pay are going to be bailed out by me.

Logically, I can see that we are going down a road that will lead us off a cliff. We can not drive ourselves off the cliff, regardless of how much it hurts emotionally. I do not know if this bailout is the best solution. There is another much less expensive idea floating around out there that involves just suspending an accounting rule temporarily. I have not looked closely at the merits of that plan though, so I will not comment on it.
 

soda blaster

Active Member
Location
Saratoga Springs
I personally think that if the federal government does this bail out thing then they should go all the way and not just take the bad debt they should take all the debt and then we as taxpayers would be making a good investment with a nice return Which in turn could lower our taxes not raise them.

On the other hand I don't really think we should be bailing these companies even if they fail completely other banks and companies will buy them out repo the houses with bad debt resale them and we will move on. When Regan took over he stopped all federal aid and over 20 banks failed, we came back from it stronger than before.


I also think that anything that someone is telling me this needs to be done now now now, needs to be looked into a lot further This is not a small amount of money and homework should be done first. This situation did not come about from people being honest in there dealings.
 
Last edited:

JeeperG

Well-Known Member
Location
Riverdale
I have been following it but not nearly enough and NO we should not have to pay for their mistakes.

From Ron Paul's site.
Action Alert

Congress.org
Capitol Hill Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

“Dear Senator/Representative:

You MUST reject the Paulson/Bernanke plan for bailing out and propping up reckless banks at taxpayer expense. This is madness to ask us, the taxpayers, to cover the liabilities of Wall Street. We are tired of being fleeced. If you vote to support this plan, I will do everything in my power to remove you from office before you can give away any more of our money to failed businessmen.

Thank you, [Your name]”

For those that listen to the Dave Ramsey show have probably heard him talking about it for the last few days. Listen to this it makes a lot more sense to me.
 

SICK99TJ

Well-Known Member
Location
Bluffdale
i have not followed this enough to know what is right but for some reason 700 billion dollars is a **** pot of money and that does not sound right to me. i already have 650000.00 of my own shizzz to worry about..:eek:
 

JeeperG

Well-Known Member
Location
Riverdale
And if that listen link doesn't work or you would rather read it. :)
How We Can Clean Up A Lot of the Economic Problems

Remember Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, and other companies had artificially put assets on the books? They'd say something was worth $10M when they bought it, but eventually it decreased in value, and they never updated the value in the books. That was part of the fraud. Under current laws at that time, they were all convicted and put in jail for fraud.

Then we got all mad and made all these new laws that are coming out the wazoo called sarbanes oxley. It's a huge, massive law but the idea is that we were going to mandate ethics to corporate America because apparently they didn't have any, according to the Enron failure. It's now a total pain in the butt to execute it in a publicly traded company.

It didn't work because you can't cause ethics to happen. However, it does make each company each day restate what their assets are worth if sold on the market. This accounting procedure is mark to market accounting--you need to remember that. It's a good concept and keeps companies from having loaded balance sheets.

How This Affects Us Today

However, it's part of what's caused this in the news now. Merrill Lynch was sitting with $30 billion tied up in sub-prime loans with houses. Stupid! They get what they deserve for doing that, and I'm with you on that. Those houses didn't become worthless all of a sudden because those people couldn't sell their bonds. Since they couldn't sell them, they basically gave them away for 22 cents on the dollar. Now do you think all those houses lost 80% of their value underneath that deal? No, they didn't, so they gave them away for 22 cents on the dollar (about $6 billion total) because there was no market for them. Nobody wants to buy sub-prime bonds because they suck. They're junk bonds. But at 22 cents on the dollar, it's a bargain because even if you foreclosed on every one of the houses in there, you'd probably get $20 billion back out of $30 billion, and so the company that bought those for $6 billion got a deal! But there's no market for them. That's where these companies are stuck. They can't sell this stuff, but accounting-wise, they've had to mark it down to market and it's frozen the marketplace.

Economist Wesbury is saying that if we change that one rule and don't force them to mark down to market value and just let them hold on to all the stuff, and say just on sub-primes for this period of time you can change that rule -- a temporary change -- that'll free the market up. It's seized right now; it's frozen. This will thaw it out and get it going again. He says that'll solve 60% of the problem ... and I think he's right.

That one accounting rule is what made Merrill Lynch sell out. That one accounting rule is what's driving other ones into the dirt. Would you rather let them change their accounting rule or loan them $700 billion for us to buyout their bad paper?

I'd rather them work their own crap out than have us bail them out with $700 billion of our tax dollars.

I don't like giving them any money or any help with my tax dollars. But I'd rather see that than see the whole thing turn completely upside down in a fruit basket turnover than have a whole meltdown or something and freak out here in the middle of the election season. Why don't we just take the FHA insurance program and extend it across these sub-primes? What that means is that you and I are guaranteeing the lender that they're not going to lose as much or any money on those mortgages. Now I don't like guaranteeing them, but I like it better than buying them. In other words, instead of $700 billion in tax-payer debt going out there to bail out these companies, just extend the insurance out. You could probably do that for less than $40 billion. It's like a 95% savings!

If the government insured those mortgages, they would then be marketable. And could sell them. And the companies would stay afloat. And we, the people, don't have to get into the mortgage business. Now we're going to get in there a little bit because of the insurance on those getting foreclosed on. But foreclosures aren't causing this. This is being caused because these companies are frozen and seized up. We've got to let some of the steam come off and put some oil in there to get this thing moving again. We can do that without going into debt $700 billion.
Here's Your Plan

Call your Congressman. Call your Senator. Tell them to change the mark-to-market accounting law and to extend insurance but extend no loans. If they extend loans - if they borrow the money on the national debt in order for us to all go into the mortgage business a trillion dollars - you're going to fire their butts and send them home.

I've talked with several people today, and it's on the tables in Washington, but it's not something you're going to see on TV. If you'll let your Congressmen know you know about this and that you'll vote against them if they don't vote to change the mark-to-market law and you'll contribute your money to make sure they never serve in office again. That's what you need to tell them early and often.

If you're pissed, this is the time to step up and do something about it, America! You can stop this! It's being railroaded down your throat, but you can stop them if you call them in mass starting now. READY ... SET ... GO!
 

Slangy

Sgt. CulPepper
Location
Utah
I have not followed it close enough to say my opinion. But I can say that it pisses me off that people were allowed to buy $500,000 houses only making $15 bucks an hour just because all they had to do to get the loan was say yeah I make enough. Why should us the taxpayers have to bail all these people out. I bought a house I could afford, I own property I can afford why should my taxes go up to bail out idiots who don't know how to manage their money.
But on the other hand if we don't help them out what would it do to our country in the long run, would it put us in financial ruins? Who knows, so I guess if it is going to help and they think it will help and my property values don't become worthless then I guess that is what they have to do. Who Knows, I sure as hell don't.
 

StrobeNGH

no user title
Location
WB
Ramsey hit the nail on the head.

The housing market is OVER VALUED. You think it's bad in Utah, go to CA. It is absolutely ridiculous.

If the bailout proposed by Bush passes, it will support these overinflated prices.

We've been VERY greedy for the past decade, and the chickens are coming home to roost. We'll either pay for it by losing value in houses and seeing some companies who jumped into the market with both feet, without looking, go under, or we'll pay for it through taxes and over valued property values.
 

JackKeslerCustoms

Active Member
Location
Herriman
Can we really come up with a good solution in the next couple of days? The last few peices of legislation that were rushed through, (Invade Iraq on the grounds of WMD's and The Patriot Act,) turned out to have major flaws.
 

Bart

Registered User
Location
Arm Utah
The response from Ron Paul is predictable and wrong. Letting AIG fail would put the US in a recession, the likes of which hasn't been seen since 1930. The "bail out" is buying real assets at below value prices. It just takes an entity the size of the government to put up that kind of money. The real scary part is the oversight and management it's going to take after the acquisition to make this come out profitable. It can be done, it should be done, it needs to be done, and the sooner the better.
 

kbjames

Active Member
Location
Sandy, UT
Holy hell, how does that stupid crap keep making it into these threads.

Its not $425,000 per person, its $425 per person. Stippnz... quit posting stupid **** like that without checking the math first.
 

Stephen

Who Dares Wins
Moderator
I’m an ardent free market capitalist who favors as much deregulation as possible and as little government intervention in the economy as possible. Obviously, the SEC and FDIC and other New Deal institutions put in place During the Depression make sense, but beyond that, I just don’t see the need. That being said, I’m no economist (fortunately my wife is!), I’m merely a historian and my observations on the current situation probably mean jack.
By offering a bailout to Wall Street, or Detroit for that matter, we set a dangerous precedent. We are saying that it is OK to take stupid risks because Uncle Sam will be there to prop you up when it all goes wrong. Yes, it may be an ‘investment’ on the part of the US, but I think its a bad investment for the future. Wall Street knew the risks, you can lose your shirt in 10 minutes on the trading floor. So tough ****! If a company goes under, its because the company made bad decisions. Perhaps the people involved will learn from their mistakes.
As for the people who are losing their houses because of the sub-prime crisis, most of them couldn’t afford them to begin with. They either got the mortgage through stated income or got a variable rate that went through the roof. So I say screw ‘em, you took a risk and you lost. If that means you lose your house and have to live in your parents basement for the next two years, oh well. It’s not my fault and its not the governments responsibility because you were an idiot.
Thats my two cents.
 

Bart

Registered User
Location
Arm Utah
I also hate to see government subsidies and intervention, but it goes way beyond bailing out the idiots that caused this. If the collapse happens, companies will fail, jobs will be lost (not thousands, we're talking millions), and the dollar will hit the toilet. At that point it will take government intervention to step in and create jobs like the CCC in the 1940s, and work programs, and food programs and government health care and the list goes on and on. It will cost more down the road than this bail out.

The silver lining here is there will be regulations passed, no matter what happens, that will regulate Wall Street and banks, like the ones passed on the Savings and Loans in the 70s so this does not happen again.
 

STPPINZ

Registered User
Location
Utah
Holy hell, how does that stupid crap keep making it into these threads.

Its not $425,000 per person, its $425 per person. Stippnz... quit posting stupid **** like that without checking the math first.

RELAAAAAAX - Its only an internet forum......I usually look into things, but skimmed over that this morning and thought it was kind of funny. I guess I forget that some take these forum conversations quite serious...
 

kbjames

Active Member
Location
Sandy, UT
Gee,

I don't know Stippinz, perhaps the thought of welfare for uber-millionares who play with house money, blow it all, get bailed out, and then get a massive bonus before they're "fired" with thier 8 figure golden parachute all being funded by John Q taxpayer doesn't exactly put me in a cheery mood.

And yes I understand, they'll eventually sell those assests back and the govt may even get "our" money back, but then again how does this benefit me because Uncle Sam has it not me.

We'll all still be struggling to find jobs to pay for bloated health care and mortgages. And in the meantime that corporate schmuck who ****ed it up will be drinking mai tais, playing golf, and eating caviar in Hawaii in his retirement mansion with our money.

God bless ****ing America...ain't it just grand!! What fan-****ing-tastic idea this bailout package is.
 
Last edited:

benjy

Rarely wrenches
Supporting Member
Location
Moab
We'll all still be struggling to find jobs to pay for bloated health care and mortgages.

God bless ****ing America...ain't it just grand!! What fan-****ing-tastic idea this bailout package is.

So say the bailout plan gets rejected, what happens then? You think we're struggling to find jobs now... unfortunately there isn't a better option (that will actually work) :-\
 
Top