are you for or against the recent government financial bailouts?

[imported_Imp]

Against. These are the same people who cry fowl when government does anything, but boohoo, when they're in trouble, come save me. On the other hand, some legitimate people have their insurance and other investments with these retards. I actually have an insurance plan with AIG, so I would have been screwed if they died.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Imp
Against. These are the same people who cry fowl when government does anything, but boohoo, when they're in trouble, come save me. On the other hand, some legitimate people have their insurance and other investments with these retards. I actually have an insurance plan with AIG, so I would have been screwed if they died.

Do you have a job?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: Imp
I actually have an insurance plan with AIG, so I would have been screwed if they died.

unlikely.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
I voted against just because bailing them out sends the wrong message and only fixes the immediate problems. Sometimes you have to fall in order to get back up. Tough love so to speak. Sure it would affect a lot of people but in the end i think it would be better for the country.

Except, in order to get our "tough love", we'd have to bring down the world. Great job, instead of punishing one kid, punish them all, for the sins of one.

Teach a lesson, prevent it from happening in the future.

and they lesson they are teaching now? its ok to screw over ht epeople and run the company into the ground the govermetn will take care of you (and protect CEO bonuses!)

again, i'll quote:

[It's] like a house on fire that's threatening to spread quickly through the neighborhood, the first priority is to put the fire out - not yell at the arsonist - supporters of the bailout would contend.

its a cute saying. but it has nothing to do with the situation. there is no reason they can't do both.

Personally, I'd love nothing more than to see the CEOs go away, as a stipulation to bailing them out. CEO, CFO, CIO, COO...etc. All of the C-level cadre that had any inkling. Then I'd axe all of the people who took on a large amount of these trades.

Somebody might say that it'd leave a vacuum as far as knowledge of the bank. However, there'd be plenty of people to replace them. THis stuff isn't so esoteric as to be impossible to understand.

however, the bailout does need to happen.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Personally, I'd love nothing more than to see the CEOs go away, as a stipulation to bailing them out. CEO, CFO, CIO, COO...etc. All of the C-level cadre that had any inkling. Then I'd axe all of the people who took on a large amount of these trades.

Somebody might say that it'd leave a vacuum as far as knowledge of the bank. However, there'd be plenty of people to replace them. THis stuff isn't so esoteric as to be impossible to understand.

however, the bailout does need to happen.

i agree. nail them to the wall.

but yes more i read on it the more i beleive it needs to happen. but not punishing those that caused it and not putting anything in place to keep it from happening again won't do any good.

 

[Viper GTS]

The thing I'm either missing or totally not understanding here (and I'll admit I haven't researched this in any great detail...):

The little reading I've done indicates that the first time this was done (RTC, in the early 80's) the government ended up making money off the process.

The "OMG $700 BILLION" crowd seems to think the feds are going to buy these assets and then hold them until they are worthless, thus leaving the taxpayer with the $700 billion pricetag. Reality seems to be that yes we're buying them but we're not going to hold them, & the end pricetag will be either FAR smaller than $700 billion OR the feds might actually come out ahead.

If my understanding is correct then I'm relatively OK with it.

If I'm incorrect (and if so could someone please explain why) then I would have to have a better understanding before passing judgment.

Viper GTS

 

[thegimp03]

Against. All those millionaires on Wall Street got themselves into this mess, they should be bailing themselves out. All these companies should make all their upper management and employees who profited off these bad deals pay back all their bonuses given to them over the past 10 years. Sickening that the US population is going to have to pay for Wall Street's mistakes.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: thegimp03
Against. All those millionaires on Wall Street got themselves into this mess, they should be bailing themselves out. All these companies should make all their upper management and employees who profited off these bad deals pay back all their bonuses given to them over the past 10 years. Sickening that the US population is going to have to pay for Wall Street's mistakes.

Do you have a job?

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
I voted against just because bailing them out sends the wrong message and only fixes the immediate problems. Sometimes you have to fall in order to get back up. Tough love so to speak. Sure it would affect a lot of people but in the end i think it would be better for the country.

Except, in order to get our "tough love", we'd have to bring down the world. Great job, instead of punishing one kid, punish them all, for the sins of one.

Teach a lesson, prevent it from happening in the future.

and they lesson they are teaching now? its ok to screw over ht epeople and run the company into the ground the govermetn will take care of you (and protect CEO bonuses!)

again, i'll quote:

[It's] like a house on fire that's threatening to spread quickly through the neighborhood, the first priority is to put the fire out - not yell at the arsonist - supporters of the bailout would contend.

its a cute saying. but it has nothing to do with the situation. there is no reason they can't do both.

Personally, I'd love nothing more than to see the CEOs go away, as a stipulation to bailing them out. CEO, CFO, CIO, COO...etc. All of the C-level cadre that had any inkling. Then I'd axe all of the people who took on a large amount of these trades.

Somebody might say that it'd leave a vacuum as far as knowledge of the bank. However, there'd be plenty of people to replace them. THis stuff isn't so esoteric as to be impossible to understand.

however, the bailout does need to happen.

See my post above that quotes another one of your messages.

Isn't Wall Street always after a quick profit, regardless of the consequences? By the time regulations are passed to prevent another housing bubble/mortgage meltdown, Wall Street will have already moved on to the next loophole to exploit, and the process will begin all over again. They will always be one step ahead of the regulators. Even now, I'm sure there are teams at the remaining banks and hedge funds who are already working hard to find the next loophole to exploit.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: BlahBlahYouToo

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soulcougher73
I voted against just because bailing them out sends the wrong message and only fixes the immediate problems. Sometimes you have to fall in order to get back up. Tough love so to speak. Sure it would affect a lot of people but in the end i think it would be better for the country.

Except, in order to get our "tough love", we'd have to bring down the world. Great job, instead of punishing one kid, punish them all, for the sins of one.

Teach a lesson, prevent it from happening in the future.

and they lesson they are teaching now? its ok to screw over ht epeople and run the company into the ground the govermetn will take care of you (and protect CEO bonuses!)

again, i'll quote:

[It's] like a house on fire that's threatening to spread quickly through the neighborhood, the first priority is to put the fire out - not yell at the arsonist - supporters of the bailout would contend.

its a cute saying. but it has nothing to do with the situation. there is no reason they can't do both.

Personally, I'd love nothing more than to see the CEOs go away, as a stipulation to bailing them out. CEO, CFO, CIO, COO...etc. All of the C-level cadre that had any inkling. Then I'd axe all of the people who took on a large amount of these trades.

Somebody might say that it'd leave a vacuum as far as knowledge of the bank. However, there'd be plenty of people to replace them. THis stuff isn't so esoteric as to be impossible to understand.

however, the bailout does need to happen.

See my post above that quotes another one of your messages.

Isn't Wall Street always after a quick profit, regardless of the consequences? By the time regulations are passed to prevent another housing bubble/mortgage meltdown, Wall Street will have already moved on to the next loophole to exploit, and the process will begin all over again. They will always be one step ahead of the regulators. Even now, I'm sure there are teams at the remaining banks and hedge funds who are already working hard to find the next loophole to exploit.

Yes, but things can be capped reasonably quickly, enough so to prevent serious harm to the economy.

Everything that's transpired in the last 12 months could have been prevented in the prior 5 years.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller



Yes, but things can be capped reasonably quickly, enough so to prevent serious harm to the economy.

Everything that's transpired in the last 12 months could have been prevented in the prior 5 years.

If it could have been prevented 5 years ago, then why wasn't it? More importantly, won't we be saying the same thing in 10 years after the next loophole leads to yet another financial crisis?

How many times does it have to happen before a true solution is formed?

My feelings toward the bailout are neutral because I don't think there is any true solution to the problem. It seems regulations are enacted far too late to be of any use.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: LegendKiller



Yes, but things can be capped reasonably quickly, enough so to prevent serious harm to the economy.

Everything that's transpired in the last 12 months could have been prevented in the prior 5 years.

If it could have been prevented 5 years ago, then why wasn't it? More importantly, won't we be saying the same thing in 10 years after the next loophole leads to yet another financial crisis?

How many times does it have to happen before a true solution is formed?

you really need to ask why it wasn't? the people in charge were makieng millions. people in goverment were getting kickbacks etc.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: LegendKiller



Yes, but things can be capped reasonably quickly, enough so to prevent serious harm to the economy.

Everything that's transpired in the last 12 months could have been prevented in the prior 5 years.

If it could have been prevented 5 years ago, then why wasn't it? More importantly, won't we be saying the same thing in 10 years after the next loophole leads to yet another financial crisis?

How many times does it have to happen before a true solution is formed?

you really need to ask why it wasn't? the people in charge were makieng millions. people in goverment were getting kickbacks etc.

Then you better get used to seeing a financial crisis/bailout every ~10 years, because I don't think kickbacks and greed are ever going to go away.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: thegimp03
Against. All those millionaires on Wall Street got themselves into this mess, they should be bailing themselves out. All these companies should make all their upper management and employees who profited off these bad deals pay back all their bonuses given to them over the past 10 years. Sickening that the US population is going to have to pay for Wall Street's mistakes.

if we don't bail out these corporations now, us normal middle class folks are going to end up a lot worse than the Wall St. millionaires will .
the economy will be in the shitter, but because they are better off than us, they will weather the storm a lot easier.
sure not all of them will be able to maintain their current lavish lifestyles, but while we will lose our jobs, homes, our hard earned savings, they will still be able to live off of their accumulated wealth.

i think those people who are voting against don't understand the consequences if we just let nature run its course.
they are not choosing to do this to bail out the wall st. execs. the global economy is at stake.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: LegendKiller



Yes, but things can be capped reasonably quickly, enough so to prevent serious harm to the economy.

Everything that's transpired in the last 12 months could have been prevented in the prior 5 years.

If it could have been prevented 5 years ago, then why wasn't it? More importantly, won't we be saying the same thing in 10 years after the next loophole leads to yet another financial crisis?

How many times does it have to happen before a true solution is formed?

you really need to ask why it wasn't? the people in charge were makieng millions. people in goverment were getting kickbacks etc.

Then you better get used to seeing a financial crisis/bailout every ~10 years, because I don't think kickbacks and greed are ever going to go away.

i hate it but i think you are right.

what other bailouts have there been? only thing i can think of is S&L

but to honest i havent paid much attention to such stuff

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Necrosaro420
Against it. Its the companies own fault that this is happening for being greedy. If one goes out of business, there is another right around the corner that will take over.

Exactly. Guess what, if these giant companies fail, the smaller ones are going to swoop in and buy up all they can in the fire sale. Sure some people are going to get burned, but in the long run, The tax payer isn't getting screwed.
These bail outs are just proof that America will fail. It's is proof that the higher ups in our Government do not believe in personal responsibilities. They've set a precedence and now all these large companies will just say, but if we fail the economy will be worse.
Like the auto companies. If Ford, GM fail, then they leave a HUGE gap for the others to fill, which means that other companies will need to pick up production slack to fill the void of vehicles that are no longer being built. They could buy up the GM/ Ford assets and essentially start putting out vehicles fairly quickly by using the existing infrastructure and labor, just that they will be able to tell the UAW to fuck off.

I also think things such as debt should not be traded around. If I buy a house my mortgage should stay with the original lender and they hold on to it. I find it morally wrong for companies to sell mortgages and basically betting that the original borrower will not default.
Here's an idea. Stop using that fucked up interest calculation and charge a real 5%APR or whatever percentage. Say I buy a $100,000 house and have a 5% interest rate. I should pay $35,000 in interest, not the $205,000 i would on a conventional loan.
You lessen the risk of default as you lower the term on the mortgage, plus it helps people get out of their 1st house and buy the bigger one they wanted, and thus they get another mortgage and help pay the mortgage people again. Win win.
It's real simple on how to make money, but it has been made into a convoluted mess and they just invent new ways to run numbers to make them richer on paper, but in reality they have no money.

 

[sonicdrummer20]

SO basically what is happening is the government is taking taxes that we have paid and is putting it into a black hole that is now our economy, sound like a good idea to me, NOT!! Let the economy burn for a while, it will recover eventually, and it will be all the stronger for not having been bailed out.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: LegendKiller



Yes, but things can be capped reasonably quickly, enough so to prevent serious harm to the economy.

Everything that's transpired in the last 12 months could have been prevented in the prior 5 years.

If it could have been prevented 5 years ago, then why wasn't it? More importantly, won't we be saying the same thing in 10 years after the next loophole leads to yet another financial crisis?

How many times does it have to happen before a true solution is formed?

My feelings toward the bailout are neutral because I don't think there is any true solution to the problem. It seems regulations are enacted far too late to be of any use.

It wasn't prevented because people were heading in the opposite side.

Personally, I think we need to have more regulation at a faster pace, outside of political conflict. Similar to the Fed, but not controlled by the banks.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

Originally posted by: Necrosaro420
Against it. Its the companies own fault that this is happening for being greedy. If one goes out of business, there is another right around the corner that will take over.

Exactly. Guess what, if these giant companies fail, the smaller ones are going to swoop in and buy up all they can in the fire sale. Sure some people are going to get burned, but in the long run, The tax payer isn't getting screwed.
These bail outs are just proof that America will fail. It's is proof that the higher ups in our Government do not believe in personal responsibilities. They've set a precedence and now all these large companies will just say, but if we fail the economy will be worse.
Like the auto companies. If Ford, GM fail, then they leave a HUGE gap for the others to fill, which means that other companies will need to pick up production slack to fill the void of vehicles that are no longer being built. They could buy up the GM/ Ford assets and essentially start putting out vehicles fairly quickly by using the existing infrastructure and labor, just that they will be able to tell the UAW to fuck off.

I also think things such as debt should not be traded around. If I buy a house my mortgage should stay with the original lender and they hold on to it. I find it morally wrong for companies to sell mortgages and basically betting that the original borrower will not default.
Here's an idea. Stop using that fucked up interest calculation and charge a real 5%APR or whatever percentage. Say I buy a $100,000 house and have a 5% interest rate. I should pay $35,000 in interest, not the $205,000 i would on a conventional loan.
You lessen the risk of default as you lower the term on the mortgage, plus it helps people get out of their 1st house and buy the bigger one they wanted, and thus they get another mortgage and help pay the mortgage people again. Win win.
It's real simple on how to make money, but it has been made into a convoluted mess and they just invent new ways to run numbers to make them richer on paper, but in reality they have no money.

Do you have a job?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: sonicdrummer20
SO basically what is happening is the government is taking taxes that we have paid and is putting it into a black hole that is now our economy, sound like a good idea to me, NOT!! Let the economy burn for a while, it will recover eventually, and it will be all the stronger for not having been bailed out.

Do you have a job.

It's funny, I've asked this question of several people, yet not one responds.


Why do I ask it? Because I want to know what type of company they work for and the name of it. Then I can look up the financials and determine how that company accesses the financial markets.

let's say that company has a corporate revolver it needs to working capital during economic or seasonal downturns. Lets say that corporate revolver renews this year, or next. Lets say that that revolver doesn't get renewed, or if it doubles in price, costing the company $10MM per annum extra.

How does the company survive without working capital? What happens with that extra $10MM?

Cost cutting, or bankruptcy. What happens when the bond debt matures and can't roll? Bankruptcy. What happens if the bond debt issuance cost doubles? Triples? Layoffs.

People think this is just about mortgages, or bank fatcats. Yet, they dare not educate themselves on how companies fund themselves, normal companies. Almost every company of any size uses the capital markets to some extent. Whether its debt, equity, secured debt, revolvers, it's all the same.

People who say "let them die" have no idea what the consequences will be. 25% unemployment, within months is very likely.

 

[91TTZ]

Against it. A free market must be allowed to correct itself, that's the only way it can remain free. You can't have a market based on risk/reward and then have the government jump in when the "risk" portion of that equation wins.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Against it. A free market must be allowed to correct itself, that's the only way it can remain free. You can't have a market based on risk/reward and then have the government jump in when the "risk" portion of that equation wins.

There's no such thing as a free market inside of actual ability.

Tell me, is it a free market if we allow our system to burn and bring the world down with us? They are slaves to us because we can't fix our shit.

 

[ponyo]

Against.

I have a job.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Naustica
Against.

I have a job.

And what company do you have a job at?

Not that I expect much from an angsty failed trader, but it'd be interesting.

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: Naustica
Against.

I have a job.

And what company do you have a job at?

Not that I expect much from an angsty failed trader, but it'd be interesting.

A company with no debt and no need for debt. A highly profitable recession proof company. I would still have a job if the bailout failed. I highly doubt you would still have a job if the bailout failed.