# No bail out!!! Republicans saying NO



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Congressman Mccotter furious about bail-out. Says neither Boehner nor rest of House Repubs are on board with this plan. Says Repubs will stand firm against this bill tomorrow.



Trying to find more news!!!


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Do find more news as CNN just had the group on saying they came to an agreement. Stabalize the markets and protect the taxpayers. Tentive deal reached last night

Hmm


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

AngieM2 said:


> Do find more news as CNN just had the group on saying they came to an agreement. Stabalize the markets and protect the taxpayers. Tentive deal reached last night
> 
> Hmm



Thats what I heard too.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

He said it live on Fox news....

Still looking for a story, The are saying the Dems. can vote for it. So all is good.


Some are comparing the news coverage to that of "Baghdad Bob".


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2008)

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&scoring=n&q=mccotter+bailout&btnG=Search
Plenty of stories there about McCotter's opposition to the bailout. He really does want to stop it, but is he going to be able to? There have been reversals over and over through this entire matter, hard to believe that its over now. These guys are really getting their 15 minutes now, and nobody wants to be left out!


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

Here is the Video......


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbkjIfBIWK4[/ame]


He is saying that the Republicans don't agree!!!!!


----------



## WanderingOak (Jul 12, 2004)

Let's just suppose there was enough stonewalling in congress that the proposed bailout agreement doesn't get passed? Would that really be a bad thing? After all, why should the US Gov't reward risky speculative investments? For a while there, my cat could have gotten a loan for a human sized Kitty Condo, and she would probably only be able to pay it back with dead mice and litterbox leavings. Anyhow, if the large banks that backed all of these risky loans did suddenly go belly up, what would be the worst thing that could happen? The small banks that didn't make subprime loans would be fine, it would be the big ones that would be in trouble. What would happen if the giants fell? Depression, and again, would that be such a bad thing? According to a blog posting I just finished reading, a depression might be just what this country needs right now. It would put an end to globalism and adventurous foreign wars, and encourage investment in manufacturing and infrastructure here in the United States. Yes, depressions are painful, but so is hyperinflation, which is what we would get if we printed $700B to bail out the banks...


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2008)

As the GDP is now nearly 15 trillion dollars, a 700 billion cash print would only be 5%. Hardly runaway inflation.


----------



## WanderingOak (Jul 12, 2004)

zong said:


> As the GDP is now nearly 15 trillion dollars, a 700 billion cash print would only be 5%. Hardly runaway inflation.


Yes, but a bailout would just encourage more of the exact same behavior that got us into the mess to begin with. The rascals that got us into this mess would be free to get us into an even bigger mess the next time around. Nobody in their right mind would invest in American corporations or infrastructure because the exact same thing could happen again. The banks that screwed up need to fail in order for our free market system to keep working.


----------



## Watcher48 (Aug 30, 2007)

The republicans just got their A** handed to them. After watching (while drinking enormous amounts of Pepto) Pelosi and clan fawn all over each other they have just given wall street what they want while making the republicans responsible when it all goes to earth. And it will

A more spineless no backbone bunch of republicans I never seen.


----------



## BTO (Feb 7, 2007)

Let them eat cake! If it means a depression, so be it. Socialism sucks in any form!:hobbyhors


----------



## WanderingOak (Jul 12, 2004)

If this does come to pass, we'll all know soon enough, but so far I haven't seen anything to suggest that the bill was passed. Do you have a link?



Watcher48 said:


> The republicans just got their A** handed to them. After watching (while drinking enormous amounts of Pepto) Pelosi and clan fawn all over each other they have just given wall street what they want while making the republicans responsible when it all goes to earth.


----------



## Guest (Sep 28, 2008)

WanderingOak said:


> Yes, but a bailout would just encourage more of the exact same behavior that got us into the mess to begin with. The rascals that got us into this mess would be free to get us into an even bigger mess the next time around. Nobody in their right mind would invest in American corporations or infrastructure because the exact same thing could happen again. The banks that screwed up need to fail in order for our free market system to keep working.


I don't doubt or disagree that it would encourage more of the same, BUT we've been doing bailouts for a long time. I'm sure that the first one set the precedent for the next one and so on. I equally suppose that a lot of the principals from the S&L failures 20 years ago may be knee deep in this one too. 
A short list of some government bailouts
1970 Penn Central Railroad
1971 Lockheed aircraft
1974 Franklin National Bank
1975 New York City
1980 Chrysler
1984 Continental Illinois
1989 747 Savings and Loan banks
1995 Mexico
2001 the entire airline industry, after 9/11
this year, Bear Stearns, Fannie, Freddie, AIG, etc.
As you can see, this is not the first time the federal government bailed out industries. 
How did these loans work out? Well, not all that bad, really. here's some interesting numbers. http://www.propublica.org/special/bailout-aftermaths
ETA:
Almost forgot, the original 1932 and 1933 efforts on the great depression. 
1932 â The Hoover administration creates the Reconstruction Finance Corp. to facilitate economic activity by lending money.

1933 â The Roosevelt administration creates the Home Owners' Loan Corp. to buy $3 billion in bad mortgages from banks and refinance them to homeowners to stem a rise in foreclosures. The government makes a small profit.


----------



## Callieslamb (Feb 27, 2007)

Watcher48 said:


> The republicans just got their A** handed to them. After watching (while drinking enormous amounts of Pepto) Pelosi and clan fawn all over each other they have just given wall street what they want while making the republicans responsible when it all goes to earth. And it will
> 
> A more spineless no backbone bunch of republicans I never seen.


Why did they even need the Republican vote except to make them take the blame? Aren't there enough Dem to pass any bill without the Rebulicans.


----------



## Watcher48 (Aug 30, 2007)

Callieslamb said:


> Why did they even need the Republican vote except to make them take the blame? Aren't there enough Dem to pass any bill without the Rebulicans.


Yes there are but this is an old Democratic trick. Can't tell you how many times the Republicans have been set up like this. I guess they deserve it.

Its highly unlikely that this bailout will do anything but forestall things for a few weeks. there are banks in Europe ready to collapse. Fortis the second largest bank in the world is in trouble as I write.

Not only that but the so called oversight board has some of the worst types of all on it.


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

zong said:


> As the GDP is now nearly 15 trillion dollars, a 700 billion cash print would only be 5%. Hardly runaway inflation.


Bill Gross, probably the largest bond fund manager in the US if not the world, is already lobbying for a bigger bailout:
Bill Gross: Bailout Needs to Be $500 Billion Bigger
Bill Gross hired Greenspan, former Fed Chairman. They loaded up on Freddie and Fannie debt before congress bailed out Freddie and Fannie. Rumor has it Gross's fund made $1.7 Billion in capital gains when those bonds became worth more with the explicit gov't guarantee. 

Marc Faber, a money manager who's seen the problems coming for some time, is saying it will end up being $5 Trillion before it's over.

--sgl


----------



## Gunga (Dec 17, 2005)

zong 
Regarding your post,"As the GDP is now nearly 15 trillion dollars, a 700 billion cash print would only be 5%. Hardly runaway inflation."
Is gasoline up only 5% in your area? or bread or milk or orange juice?
Everything is not absolutly correlated, so increasing the national debt by 5% of GDP can be a very big deal. The value of the dollars we use to purchase things is affected by the irresponsible fiscal policies of our politicians.

Regards,
Gunga


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

It is difficult for any one in either party to make claims to being in favor of a "free market" economy and while supporting this "bail out". Being in favor of a wee bit of socialism is like being a wee bit pregnant, or a wee bit dead; one either is or one isn't.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Whoa, Haggis, I think we agree on something.


Of course most politicians were for it, before they were against it... or vice versa.


----------



## OrganicCat (Sep 23, 2008)

The only people in a group you can blame for this are politicians who are saving their own ass(ets). Trust me, the common man conservative AND liberal are both screaming at the top of their lungs. This bill has somewhere around an EIGHTY-FIVE percent disapproval rating from the people. That's far more than a few "line crossers" here and there. Everyone in their right mind is telling them to shove that bill up their ass but it's apparently going through anyway because some rich -------s in office decides it "needs" to.

A pox on them all!


----------



## ailsaek (Feb 7, 2007)

What OrganicCat said.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

seedspreader said:


> Whoa, Haggis, I think we agree on something.
> 
> 
> Of course most politicians were for it, before they were against it... or vice versa.


It seems that most of the 537 invalids in DC are passionately for it out one side of their mouth and vehemently against it out the other side of their respectives mouths.

The end result is the same, they are supporting socialism and government ownership of business.


----------



## OrganicCat (Sep 23, 2008)

Sorry, I'm getting giddy, it's voting time right now with like 5 minutes left and the NAYs have suddenly come out of nowhere with a 1 vote lead! GO NAY! GO NAY!


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Well, let me know- I have no radio or sound on this computer, and I am INTERESTED.

Angie


----------



## OrganicCat (Sep 23, 2008)

The time for voting has ended and they are tallying up the last minute voters. It appears to have failed as of this writing by about 20 votes! WOOOHOOO!


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

right now its down by 25 points from passing


----------



## OrganicCat (Sep 23, 2008)

The vote has now passed the point of no return (not enough voters to pass it even if they all voted yes). It has now failed unofficially!


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

199 yea 223 nay


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

the dow is down by almost 700 pts


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

203 YEA 228 NAY

and the dow is recovering to 500 pts down


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Wow, I didn't know there were that many people that would stand up and say no.


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

sorry i didn't lock it in my memory who was who, but there were 5 not voting, obviously they have decided to try to help and there is only 1 not voting and that is a republican. the democrats not voting have now voted but its not enough to pass.


----------



## Beaners (Feb 23, 2005)

They didn't have to stand up, it was electronic voting. (I know what you mean though.)

I can't even find the words to say how glad I am this did not go through.

Kayleigh


----------



## OrganicCat (Sep 23, 2008)

Vote tally finished:

Democrat - 140 YAH, 95 NAH (Surprising number crossed over and vote nah)
Republican - 65 YAH, 133 NAH (Surprising number voted yah, I didn't expect any)
Total 205 YAH, 228 NAH (1 NV)

The bill has FAILED!

That was a close one, in the begining it was looking like it was going to go, but then the Dems started to cross over in droves and it rallied up and inched above in the last 3 minutes of voting. Temporary sigh of relief, but maybe we can get something else in order now instead of pushing again and again for this stroke of idiocy.

Also, the DOW just plummeted down over 600 points. I imagine it will shoot lower now that voting is done. Could be too late to suggest another one (thank god) now the real pain begins and we'll have to ride it out. But at least it will let us heal when it's over.


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

can they change their votes after it has started? something is odd to me as the numbers have changed.

dems 141 yea 94 nay
repubs 66 yea 132 nay
inds 1 no vote

totals 207 yea 226 nay 1 no vote

dow - 465.94


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

OrganicCat said:


> Vote tally finished:
> 
> Democrat - 140 YAH, 95 NAH (Surprising number crossed over and vote nah)
> Republican - 65 YAH, 133 NAH (Surprising number voted yah, I didn't expect any)
> ...


i am watching this on fox right now and our numbers are different, you watching cnn?


----------



## OrganicCat (Sep 23, 2008)

Yeah I was watching CNN, that's odd that the numbers are different.

Edit: CNN has adjusted it's numbers to yours, 207 to 226.


----------



## Beaners (Feb 23, 2005)

It looks like they are allowing them to change their votes, and using the markets to hold them hostage.

Kayleigh


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

well something is weird as you also typed 228 as nay and now i am looking at cnn as well and its at 226 nay................confused on that but glad its not passing


----------



## commonsense (Jun 1, 2008)

I can't see that from work, please continue to post updates regarding the votes... 

thanks!


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

the gavel came down and its a done deal, no bail out yet


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

******* said:


> It looks like they are allowing them to change their votes, and using the markets to hold them hostage.
> 
> Kayleigh


They did that with the pharmacy bill also, it's pretty common. Votes change and it's not until it's officially closed that the votes count.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

jasper said:


> the gavel came down and its a done deal, no bail out yet


So, it's officiallly done?
And as commonsense said, keep the info coming please.

Angie


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

the dow dropped 705 pts, bounced back to about 500 pts down, and now stands at 565.74 down and dropping


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

yes the vote is over now, it did not pass


----------



## Jaclynne (May 14, 2002)

Even though the time has elasped, they can keep the voting 'open' and twist arms in the back of the room till they get what they want or give up.

Either way, we will see another of some sort trying to bailout the markets, because the markets will react. I think we are in for a rough ride, but I think we were anyway. I believe the system can correct if given the chance.

Halo


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Not wanting to turn this into GC, but were the Presidential candidates there to vote?


----------



## Beaners (Feb 23, 2005)

This was the house...I believe they are both in the senate?

Kayleigh


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

just my own personal opinion obviously, but i think the american people have lost any faith at all in washington liars club. it doesn't really seem to even matter the party affiliation. thank god the house republicans listened to their constituency. 

i don't align myself with the republican party as a rule, but for once there was a group in washington listening to the people. they delayed this whole thing from getting rushed as bush would have wanted. they stepped away from party alliances and just plain did the right thing.

i am not sure if we will be better off without this bail out, but i know for sure i need more proof of how necessary it is.


----------



## Razorback21 (May 13, 2003)

AngieM2 said:


> Not wanting to turn this into GC, but were the Presidential candidates there to vote?


This was a house vote, so Senators Obama and McCain were not part of this vote.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Thanks' guys and gals - it's hard to keep up without the score sheet.:shrug:

Keep the news coming. I appreciate it.

Angie


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

HaloHead said:


> Even though the time has elasped, they can keep the voting 'open' and twist arms in the back of the room till they get what they want or give up.
> 
> Either way, we will see another of some sort trying to bailout the markets, because the markets will react. I think we are in for a rough ride, but I think we were anyway. I believe the system can correct if given the chance.
> 
> Halo


they can arm twist all they want, but this particular vote is over for now. they will have to go back to the drawing board now and present it again.


----------



## ailsaek (Feb 7, 2007)

Wow, I didn't expect that. Maybe they'll come up with a better plan now?


----------



## CJ (May 10, 2002)

The vote is still open, they haven't officially closed it yet and the votes can be changed (arm twisting). I have to say I'm floored. I did not want it to pass, but it never occurred to me that it might not!


----------



## Razorback21 (May 13, 2003)

If you break down the votes, it was approx. 2 democrats to 1 republican for and 2 republicans to 1 democrat against, so it definitely was not down party lines. My understanding was a lot of the Blue Dog Dems aligned with the Republican leadership on this one, at least as of last night they were.


----------



## OrganicCat (Sep 23, 2008)

As one person asked, yes, the vote has now officially failed, all revotes and moving votes have been set. They are now voting on other things. The bill will have to be rewritten and did not get setup for a revote despite one Republican representative seeing if they could do so (because the chair said they'd do a revote right away which wouldn't do anything). So it's likely the bill will either die now, or undergo another debate process. I sure hope they don't bother with such a waste of time though, I wish they'd just let it die along with the failed business practices of the stock wizard mathematicians.

Today's Weather: Falling stock brokers followed by a light drizzle of bad business practices.


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

well folks i wish us all well and peace to your households

as for me, i think i am on my way over to wachovia and draw out some cash. i will keep only enough for bill paying but its now time to pull things a bit closer.


----------



## chris30523 (Jun 11, 2005)

They said the bill could be changed and come up for another vote before the end of the day! Its not over yet! They want this bill passed and it will pass one way or another!!


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

chris30523 said:


> They said the bill could be changed and come up for another vote before the end of the day! Its not over yet! They want this bill passed and it will pass one way or another!!


No way, Rosh Hoshanna today... people have already left to get home before sunset.


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

seedspreader said:


> No way, Rosh Hoshanna today... people have already left to get home before sunset.


yes i did not realize it was a jewish holiday until just now, it seems there can't be another vote until thursday


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

I would like to just say this though. This didn't pass because the REPUBLICANS said no. The Democrats had enough votes to pass it if they wanted to. What happened though is the Republicans saw how unpopular it was and the Democrats knew that it would be election day fodder if they passed it.


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2008)

dow down 777. that's a big one. Everybody that cheered for them to NOT bail out America got what they wanted. BUT, they'll play it all over again tomorrow. Those congressmen love to be on TV, acting indignant on the surface, while taking all they can get on the other hand. LOL.


----------



## OrganicCat (Sep 23, 2008)

seedspreader said:


> I would like to just say this though. This didn't pass because the REPUBLICANS said no. The Democrats had enough votes to pass it if they wanted to. What happened though is the Republicans saw how unpopular it was and the Democrats knew that it would be election day fodder if they passed it.


I think beyond measure this reached to people on both sides. I don't understand why anyone has to paint "their" side as some type of victor or better than either side. The bill failed, both sides voted YAH and NAH. It was known some Republicans would vote YAH and some democrats would vote NAH. There is absolutely no reason for people to claim XXX made this happen. It honestly came across so closely it could have been anyone's game. Finger pointing is for politicians, leave it to them and political pundits. You should hear them on the news, it's ridiculous. Dems are claiming Repubs aren't living up to some imagined bargin they made late last night at great expense of their sleep (/tear) and Repubs are claiming Pelosi made some speech that made them angry.

Seriously, these things are beyond what we need to involve ourselves in, they're both little children on the inside and it's just now coming out because they have no political safe points to fall back on. Let's show we're a little better than them and we're more mature and responsible than they'd like to believe.


----------



## Razorback21 (May 13, 2003)

This is going sound most insensitive on one of worst days on Wall Street, but todays 777 point was the only time I have seen the market place at work in the last six months without Government interference. I know it hurts, but I believe getting this all shook out now will save us some pain down the road and we will hopefully come out of this wiser and start saving more and make "debt free" a cool thing instead of a "nerdy" thing.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

I just hope that as this continues, and more folks come to S&EP to get help, that we're here to encourage them and ourselves to take care of ourself (and each other as we can and as deserved).

I think this forum can help lots of folks these next days.

Angie


----------



## OrganicCat (Sep 23, 2008)

Razorback21 said:


> This is going sound most insensitive on one of worst days on Wall Street, but todays 777 point was the only time I have seen the market place at work in the last six months without Government interference. I know it hurts, but I believe getting this all shook out now will save us some pain down the road and we will hopefully come out of this wiser and start saving more and make "debt free" a cool thing instead of a "nerdy" thing.


Hear hear! I would expect the market has a ways to tumble yet before we can see the bottom. Let's see, the market was at 4k or so before the bull got into it but with actual rising capital I'd say a settle at 7k sound about right (as to what the ACTUAL value of the market is worth). I could be way off on that though, I'm no expert


----------



## Razorback21 (May 13, 2003)

AngieM2 said:


> I just hope that as this continues, and more folks come to S&EP to get help, that we're here to encourage them and ourselves to take care of ourself (and each other as we can and as deserved).
> 
> I think this forum can help lots of folks these next days.
> 
> Angie


Well put Angie...I believe my wife and I are better prepared for anything through the ideas and input generated on here...to all of you it is much appreciated. Being prepared allows me to sleep at night...even after a day like today!!!


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

AngieM2 said:


> I just hope that as this continues, and more folks come to S&EP to get help, that we're here to encourage them and ourselves to take care of ourself (and each other as we can and as deserved).
> 
> I think this forum can help lots of folks these next days.
> 
> Angie


wise words

there are going to be some people hurting very soon. obviously a forum such as this is not as good as person to person, but there are going to be some real hurting going on soon

i think its important to mindful of those who have not been able prep but need to start. those that have too much credit will be rocked to their core and need compassion to move thru the pain of it. 

i have no idea what happens in people's lives to put them in bad spots, but i know i have been there and will not soon forget hunger and poverty. it took a lot of work to change the situation, and i will always remember i didn't solve my problems alone. i depended on a willing ear to listen to me, someone wiser to pass along advise, or sometimes actually help when that car broke down...........


----------



## Beaners (Feb 23, 2005)

Razorback21 said:


> This is going sound most insensitive on one of worst days on Wall Street, but todays 777 point was the only time I have seen the market place at work in the last six months without Government interference. I know it hurts, but I believe getting this all shook out now will save us some pain down the road and we will hopefully come out of this wiser and start saving more and make "debt free" a cool thing instead of a "nerdy" thing.


While I agree, I have to question the "without govt interference" part. How much money did the Fed pump into the markets today? Didn't it end up being close to 1 trillion? I bet the numbers could have fallen a little further, given the chance.

We got rid of all of our credit card debt a while ago, including some stuff my husband had been carrying for more than a decade. We have been preparing for this, and Wall Street has known it is coming for just as long.

Kayleigh


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

OrganicCat said:


> I think beyond measure this reached to people on both sides. I don't understand why anyone has to paint "their" side as some type of victor or better than either side. The bill failed, both sides voted YAH and NAH. It was known some Republicans would vote YAH and some democrats would vote NAH. There is absolutely no reason for people to claim XXX made this happen. It honestly came across so closely it could have been anyone's game. Finger pointing is for politicians, leave it to them and political pundits. You should hear them on the news, it's ridiculous. Dems are claiming Repubs aren't living up to some imagined bargin they made late last night at great expense of their sleep (/tear) and Repubs are claiming Pelosi made some speech that made them angry.
> 
> Seriously, these things are beyond what we need to involve ourselves in, they're both little children on the inside and it's just now coming out because they have no political safe points to fall back on. Let's show we're a little better than them and we're more mature and responsible than they'd like to believe.


Well that was my point. It's not an issue of it's "xxx's" fault (the OP title could be misunderstood). If they wanted to pass it, the dems have the majority and could. They didn't because this IS all about politics in the long run. 

Everything that happens is based on politics and whether they can keep their piece of the pie.


----------



## kabri (May 14, 2002)

So I spent my lunch hour from work buying some preps at the grocery outlet. I feel better now!!!!!


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

seedspreader said:


> Well that was my point. It's not an issue of it's "xxx's" fault (the OP title could be misunderstood). If they wanted to pass it, the dems have the majority and could. They didn't because this IS all about politics in the long run.
> 
> Everything that happens is based on politics and whether they can keep their piece of the pie.


Hey, Hey, Hey..... The OP was true to the time frame. At the time it was expected to pass. :icecream:


----------



## Razorback21 (May 13, 2003)

******* said:


> While I agree, I have to question the "without govt interference" part. How much money did the Fed pump into the markets today? Didn't it end up being close to 1 trillion? I bet the numbers could have fallen a little further, given the chance.
> 
> We got rid of all of our credit card debt a while ago, including some stuff my husband had been carrying for more than a decade. We have been preparing for this, and Wall Street has known it is coming for just as long.
> 
> Kayleigh


A client of mine who is an investment banker in Memphis, TN told me on the phone this afternoon that Wall Street has seen this train wreck coming for a long time but nobody wanted to say the emporer had no clothes. I credit you for preparing.


----------



## CarolynRenee (Jan 30, 2008)

This has got to be the first time in a very, VERY long time that I've been surprised at the outcome of a vote. I'm glad that it didn't pass, but give it enough time, subtract a million or two here, change a word or two there, and I'm sure something will pass.....and probably darn near close to what "they" wanted anyhow.

I also really wonder how the stock market would have reacted if it HAD passed. Are there people out there that really believe that having this insane taxpayer funded bailout is good? I would be more inclined to pull my stocks OUT of the market if this moronic bill PASSED. (lucky for us, all our $$ is in REAL stuff...got out of the market a several years ago).

Remember, if you still feel your voice means anything, keep calling your congresscritters & letting them know that the US is a FREE Market (at least should be) and tell them NO BAILOUTS!


----------



## p1gg1e (Aug 20, 2008)

Going into debt to get banks out...not a good idea. Let them fall. It will be rough but we will make it through.

Wow Congress stuck up for the constitution...


----------



## wyld thang (Nov 16, 2005)

well, the market went down while Nancy Pelosi was talking, and when she shut up it went up again--I see a pattern here...I propose a bill to dissapear Nancy Pelosi.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

I don't know what to think about all this....


----------



## Mo-Town (Jun 4, 2008)

seedspreader said:


> I would like to just say this though. This didn't pass because the REPUBLICANS said no. The Democrats had enough votes to pass it if they wanted to. What happened though is the Republicans saw how unpopular it was and the Democrats knew that it would be election day fodder if they passed it.


This is an important point. The Democrats can easily modify the bailout plan and put it to the vote again. The outcome of such a vote would depend on why the 95 or so Democrats who voted against this plan cast their nay votes. If they voted against the bailout because they were facing a close reelection fight, they aren't likely to vote for a bailout in any form, and the bailout could be toast. On the other hand, if most of these 95 Democrats opposed the bailout because they felt it was too generous to wall street and not generous enough to people facing foreclosure, Pelosi could draft a more "liberal" version of the bill and pass it along a party-lines vote. She only needs to convince 15 or so people to change their vote. I don't think we've seen the last of the bailout plan...


----------



## FUNKY PIONEER (Sep 20, 2005)

This is not about party lines guys this about our constitution being decimated! This is a non-violent coup staged by the bankers to take control of our country. Open you eyes, our country is going down the tubes. Who cares a bit about these pinstripped bandits on wall street? Send them all to JAIL!


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

OrganicCat said:


> I think beyond measure this reached to people on both sides. I don't understand why anyone has to paint "their" side as some type of victor or better than either side. The bill failed, both sides voted YAH and NAH. It was known some Republicans would vote YAH and some democrats would vote NAH. There is absolutely no reason for people to claim XXX made this happen. It honestly came across so closely it could have been anyone's game. Finger pointing is for politicians, leave it to them and political pundits. You should hear them on the news, it's ridiculous. Dems are claiming Repubs aren't living up to some imagined bargin they made late last night at great expense of their sleep (/tear) and Repubs are claiming Pelosi made some speech that made them angry.
> 
> Seriously, these things are beyond what we need to involve ourselves in, they're both little children on the inside and it's just now coming out because they have no political safe points to fall back on. Let's show we're a little better than them and we're more mature and responsible than they'd like to believe.


Yep, that was my thought exactly. They act like a bunch of kindergartners. No wonder our country is in the shape it's in. Both parties stink.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2008)

Can someone explain this to me? I hear about hedge funds all the time, but I never understood what they are.

But the falling stock market may cause a run on hedge fund redemptions tomorrow (I think?).

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={C1F1DF32-7B00-4C8B-BA30-82A37D243614}

What does it all mean?


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

ladycat said:


> Can someone explain this to me? I hear about hedge funds all the time, but I never understood what they are.
> 
> But the falling stock market may cause a run on hedge fund redemptions tomorrow (I think?).
> 
> ...


What hedge funds do is bet.... Legal but it's betting.
For instance they will buy stock on margin in the hopes they go up in value and make a killing.

or 
They will insure a bond for instance. 

Kinda works like this....
They offer insurance on a bond pay out. then they get insured for the bond, thus bonding the bond. They make the money by charging more than they are charged. This is known as a derivative. 

To put it in easy to understand terms it's kinda like me selling you fire insurance then going to state farm and buying fire insurance on your house.

You say how can this make money? Well whats the odds that your whole neighborhood will burn? Not high right. So I buy insurance on half the houses and pocket the difference. This creates a high return.


What is happening now in this theoretical market is a forest fire is coming to your town.... 
How is my standing?


----------



## sgl42 (Jan 20, 2004)

ladycat said:


> Can someone explain this to me? I hear about hedge funds all the time, but I never understood what they are.
> 
> But the falling stock market may cause a run on hedge fund redemptions tomorrow (I think?).


hedge funds are somewhat like a mutual fund, in that they pool money from multiple sources and invest it. The investors are usually large pension funds, and wealthy investors. You have to be an "accredited investor" in order to invest in them; it's illegal for them to sell shares to anyone who is not "accredited". That used to mean a net worth of more than $1 million, and annual income of $200k/yr, but I think they've upped the number to $2.5 million. Supposedly these people are sophisticated investors, and hence do not need the same protections the SEC provides to normal investors, and hence hedge funds are not regulated the same.

Hedge funds have been around for 50-60 years, altho they've grown dramatically in the last decade, almost $2 Trillion now I think. They follow a very wide variety of different strategies: long/short paired trades, merger arbitrage, and dozens more, including the credit default swaps market that stanb999 mentioned. 

Usually they're leveraged up 10x or more (or they were; I think they've been deleveraging over the last year or so) Ie, if they have a billion from investors, they borrow an additional 10 billion, and make investments of a total of $11 billion. They account for 50% or more of the daily trading volume on the NYSE.

Usually, they have specific time periods where you can ask for your money back, often at the end of each quarter (which would tomorrow) or at the end of each month, and the money is returned within a set time after that. (not the next day, but within a month or something; varies with each of the 6,000 or so hedge funds out there.) 

If performance is bad, or people are concerned, they're more likely to want their money back, forcing the hedge fund to sell their investments to raise the cash to return the money. Hedge funds have done poorly lately, in virtually every different strategy category. 

For those hedge funds that are invested in completely illiquid markets (ie, CDOs, some of the CDS markets) they will take a bath trying to sell.

So, the concern is that if 10% of the $2 Trillion in hedge funds decides to sell, that $200 billion. However, it used to be levered 10x, but maybe it's now levered 5x, so that $200 B equity is $1,000 B (or 1 Trillion) invested in the market, and has to be sold. More sellers than buyers... markets go down. And Wall Street is a shark tank, such that when people know you have to sell, they stop buying to push the price down more to get a better deal. Hence the secrecy that hedge funds strive to attain.

Pension funds have been big investors in "alternative investments", which includes venture capital, private equity, and hedge funds. CALPERS (Cal Public Empl Retirement Sys) has something like 15-20% of their funds in alternative investments (not all just hedge funds). 

I've heard one rumor that some pension funds are taking a beating, but don't know how true that may be. But, I suspect that announcements of pension problems will arise sometime in the next year or two.

--sgl


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2008)

So...

If there are a very large number of hedge fund redemption requests tomorrow, that's a bad thing, right?


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Last I heard it didn't pass and some of the republicans said they wasn't for it cause of some rude comments Palosi stated about Bush. So sounds if Palosi would have kept her thoughts to herself we would have had a bail out plan.


----------



## Freeholder (Jun 19, 2004)

Razorback21 said:


> This is going sound most insensitive on one of worst days on Wall Street, but todays 777 point was the only time I have seen the market place at work in the last six months without Government interference. I know it hurts, but I believe getting this all shook out now will save us some pain down the road and we will hopefully come out of this wiser and start saving more and make "debt free" a cool thing instead of a "nerdy" thing.


******* already mentioned this, but the Feds pumped over $600 BILLION DOLLARS into the markets today. I wonder how much it would have dropped if they'd just left well-enough alone?? (And how much good would the $700 Billion in the bailout bill have actually done?)

Kathleen


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Well, we'll get to see for the next couple of days what happens if the bailout doesn't pass.

Most of "Main St." is stunned and waiting to see what's happening... if tomorrow is another huge loss (500+) you can bet people will start their own "hedge" by pulling out of the market... and more banks will devalue. I've never seen a bank run. I hope I never do.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

I'm all for the bailout...

as soon as I see CEO's heads on top of all the street signs leading up to Wall Street... along with every soul that ever got a six figure bonus on wall street... confiscate all assets of those who profited...

and, as an after the bailout medieval punishment, no one gets stock options, stock bonuses, no cash bonuses over the price of a turkey or ham, and no one makes more than 5 times the price of the lowest paid employee in the firm.

Take out the incentives, and they crooks in charge will search for different pastures...


----------



## Freeholder (Jun 19, 2004)

Seedspreader, believe it or not, there has actually been a bank run going on for several weeks. It hasn't gotten any press because it's been withdrawals from ATM machines and electronic transfers mostly, so there aren't any huge lines out in front of banks for the news media to shout about. But it is happening.

Kathleen


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2008)

BlueJuniperFarm said:


> Seedspreader, believe it or not, there has actually been a bank run going on for several weeks. It hasn't gotten any press because it's been withdrawals from ATM machines and electronic transfers mostly, so there aren't any huge lines out in front of banks for the news media to shout about. But it is happening.
> 
> Kathleen


It has been in the news. They've even shown videos of lines of people waiting to get their money.


----------



## Oldcountryboy (Feb 23, 2008)

Just seen on our local news. One of our state representatives said the reason he voted against the proposal was cause he had less then 24 hours to read and study what was in the proposal. Said he couldn't very well approve it without knowing what was in it. Also, a poll indicates that the majority of Americans are against the proposal. Something like 3 to 1 americans against the proposal. 

I think most americans want the big dogs to know what hardship feels like.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2008)

Reuters video:

Wall St. reacts as market plunges

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDuWsN7y8CA[/ame]


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

News (ABC Goodmorning America) was just saying that 88% people are upset with congress cause the bill did not pass. I really find that unbelievable. Maybe that's just cause I'm hanging out here.
Also, only one out of 10 or so at work even was very aware of this stuff. And 9 of them were not really interested. I said something about it not going thru, when it was posted here, and I got the "huh, I've got too much paperwork to worry about here, Why are you telling me?" I was surprised at that.

They are suppose to try again on Thursday.

Angie


----------



## chris30523 (Jun 11, 2005)

I am sure it will pass in one form or another before they are done. It has been decided that we should "save ourselves" from certain doom whether we want to or not.If you noticed as the market dropped gold went up and the value of the dollar increased? At least having to wait will show ,maybe,that it won't have the dire effect that was predicted. Those folks don't seem to realize that a portion of Americans are not in debt over their heads and are not invested heavily in the markets. I am not sure how large that portion is but I think it is bigger than they thought.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2008)

AngieM2 said:


> News (ABC Goodmorning America) was just saying that 88% people are upset with congress cause the bill did not pass. I really find that unbelievable. Maybe that's just cause I'm hanging out here.
> Also, only one out of 10 or so at work even was very aware of this stuff. And 9 of them were not really interested. I said something about it not going thru, when it was posted here, and I got the "huh, I've got too much paperwork to worry about here, Why are you telling me?" I was surprised at that.
> 
> They are suppose to try again on Thursday.
> ...


I can't talk to anybody offline about any of the stuff we talk about here. One of my brother's is interested, but everyone else (related or not), doesn't know anything that's going on and doesn't want to hear it. Everyone I know or interact with except that one brother is completely clueless and enjoys living in their cocoon.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Did anyone hear the 7:45am CDT speech/talk that the Pres was suppose to be giving? I had to come into 'no radio' land just before that.

Angie


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2008)

AngieM2 said:


> News (ABC Goodmorning America) was just saying that 88% people are upset with congress cause the bill did not pass. I really find that unbelievable. Maybe that's just cause I'm hanging out here.
> Also, only one out of 10 or so at work even was very aware of this stuff. And 9 of them were not really interested. I said something about it not going thru, when it was posted here, and I got the "huh, I've got too much paperwork to worry about here, Why are you telling me?" I was surprised at that.
> 
> They are suppose to try again on Thursday.
> ...


Yep, and just yesterday, congressmen claimed their email was running 100 to 1 AGAINST passing the bill. So, either 88 out of 100 people reversed their opinion, or, either congressmen or ABC is lying. Congressmen lie. What a unique notion.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

Three of AL's voted for it, Rep Alderhill voted against it - on all the local news today.

Found Fox news about what Pres said...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,430462,00.html

""This is not the end of the legislative process," he said. "Producing legislation is complicated and it can be contentious. It matters litte what path a bill takes to become law. What matters is that we get a law.""

Determined to get his/their own way.

Angie


----------



## Razorback21 (May 13, 2003)

FoxBusiness, CNBC and Bloomberg all had House Reps who voted against the bill and was lambasting them for it...It was though the impartial journalists were towing the party line for the Fed, Administration and Congressional leadership. I wish I could have called in and told those journalists that what happened yesterday was truly democracy in action...it didn't matter the politicians wanted this. The American people didn't want this and our elected Representives echoed our sentiment with their votes.


----------



## Guest (Sep 30, 2008)

Razorback21 said:


> FoxBusiness, CNBC and Bloomberg all had House Reps who voted against the bill and was lambasting them for it...It was though the impartial journalists were towing the party line for the Fed, Administration and Congressional leadership. I wish I could have called in and told those journalists that *what happened yesterday was truly democracy in action...it didn't matter the politicians wanted this. The American people didn't want this and our elected Representives echoed our sentiment with their votes*.


Yes!! I was very proud that both Republicans and Democrats listened to their constituents and voted accordingly! :clap:

That's how it always should be. That's how it was meant to be. And it would be that way always *IF* the constituents would pay attention to everything that is going on and let their voices be heard ALL the time, not just the occasional issue.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

I wonder if anyone has done a quick study yet to see how many of those that voted "no" are up for re-election in November. Perhaps we should hold elections every six months to keep them honest.


----------



## nathan104 (Nov 16, 2007)

The markets already back up 250 points today. I really think the economy can recover without the bailout anyways. Let those big businesses fail. There will be more to take their place and maybe they will make better decisions. Yes there will be drops in the market as they fail, but heck, we arent even below 10K on the Dow yet, so its not panic in the street time yet.


----------



## Razorback21 (May 13, 2003)

seedspreader said:


> I wonder if anyone has done a quick study yet to see how many of those that voted "no" are up for re-election in November. Perhaps we should hold elections every six months to keep them honest.


Seedspreader,
They are all up for re-election in November. House of Representives have two year terms. I'm sure that had a big effect on some of them. 

Rep. Melissa Bean was on CNBC yesterday and said she voted for it, but many of her phone calls to her office was her constituency urging to vote against it. Rep. Bean told CNBC she instructed her staffers to "educate" the electorate why this needed, they just didn't understand. I like Mrs. Bean, but how idiotic. She represents an upper middle class area of the Chicago suburbs. Those folks, if anyone, should be educated enough to make their own judgements without being "educated" from a staffer in Mrs. Bean's office.


----------



## Mo-Town (Jun 4, 2008)

Razorback21 said:


> Rep. Melissa Bean was on CNBC yesterday and said she voted for it, but many of her phone calls to her office was her constituency urging to vote against it. Rep. Bean told CNBC she instructed her staffers to "educate" the electorate why this needed, they just didn't understand. I like Mrs. Bean, but how idiotic. She represents an upper middle class area of the Chicago suburbs. Those folks, if anyone, should be educated enough to make their own judgements without being "educated" from a staffer in Mrs. Bean's office.


One of the most frustrating things about this mess is the fact that nobody in the government has taken the time to explain _why_ they believe the bailout is necessary. If our elected officials truly believe we're on the brink of economic colapse, why not buy a fifteen minute slot on all the major networks during the evening news hour and have a few well known and trusted economists (yeah ... I know ... but there really are economists who can talk about the economy without putting everyone to sleep) explain why they believe things are in danger of collapsing and how the proposed bailout will fix the problem? Nothing ----es frustrated voters off more than being told "we don't have time to explain this to you. Just trust us. It's for your own good."


----------



## OrganicCat (Sep 23, 2008)

*IMPORTANT:*

You can find who voted for the bill and who did not HERE:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll674.xml

You can find who your representative is, their office phone, address and email HERE:

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

(zip code area is on the left)

These pages are being HAMMERED harder than I've ever seen, so refresh a few times (especially the clerk.house.gov one) if it doesn't appear at first or you get an error.

I was SHOCKED to find my local representative (who is a Democrat) actually voted NO! I'm giving him a call just to make sure he knows we will continue to demand no bailout and to stick to OUR guns, not some political pandering


----------



## Razorback21 (May 13, 2003)

Mo-Town said:


> One of the most frustrating things about this mess is the fact that nobody in the government has taken the time to explain _why_ they believe the bailout is necessary. If our elected officials truly believe we're on the brink of economic colapse, why not buy a fifteen minute slot on all the major networks during the evening news hour and have a few well known and trusted economists (yeah ... I know ... but there really are economists who can talk about the economy without putting everyone to sleep) explain why they believe things are in danger of collapsing and how the proposed bailout will fix the problem? Nothing ----es frustrated voters off more than being told "we don't have time to explain this to you. Just trust us. It's for your own good."



Mo-Town:
There are a couple of reasons why the elected officials will not put an economist on to explain why we need it: Economists themselves are in disagreement whether systemic failure is imminent and some actually think failure is akin to cleansing the system of bad debt and being able to rebuild the economy on more sound footing than it currently is. 

Here is yet another problem; Some of the economists who predicted this exact scenario we are going through were laughed at by this administration two years ago when they predicted it. (Nouriel Roubini, David Walker and Lew Rockwell) Do you think our government officials are going to go these guys with their tails between their legs and ask what the solution is? Bernarke also is a disciple of Keynesian economic theory and many of the economists who predicted our current crisis subscribe to Von Mises economic theory. Think of it as Republicans and Democrats in economics. You wouldn't want the other side solving the problem for you now, would you?


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Razorback21 said:


> Seedspreader,
> They are all up for re-election in November. House of Representives have two year terms. I'm sure that had a big effect on some of them.


LOL, well I guess I can have a blond moment sometimes. that's basic government.


----------



## Beaners (Feb 23, 2005)

So now it will be in the Senate tomorrow night?

Time for more phone calls and emails.

Kayleigh


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Well, the senate can pass their version to put pressure on the house, but the original bill is dead and needs to be re-written. In essence, the senate is wasting time to some effect, but for the purpose of arm twisting, it will be effective. Because even if the senate passes, the senate will have to re-write their bill to match the new house bill (that WILL be written I am sure) and so it goes.


----------

