Jump to content

The Bailout... are you watching?


MichaelSaulnier
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Members

Spokenward, You didnt say how many you wanted but here you go.

I heard 20 Billion on Fox news last night. These articles say 20% which is way higher. I'm sure theyre trying to steal our money any way they can.

 

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/25/kill-the-bailout-more-acorn-funding/

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/26/the-democratic-acorn-bailout/

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/09/lindsey_graham_tells_nbcs_mere.html

 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/26/dems-bailout-proposal-redirects-paulsons-profits-left-wing-group

 

http://tertiumquids.blogspot.com/2008/09/bailout-money-going-to-acorn.html

 

http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/what-acorn-given-20-of-bailout-money-under-original-bailout-proposal/

 

That should be enough to know My hearing wasnt off. You can googel for more including stories about Obahama working for them.

I only heard a 20 billion number by Gneut Gingrich.

Those people want it all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Spokenward, You didnt say how many you wanted but here you go.

I heard 20 Billion on Fox news last night. These articles say 20% which is way higher. I'm sure theyre trying to steal our money any way they can.



That should be enough to know My hearing wasnt off. You can googel for more including stories about Obahama working for them.

I only heard a 20 billion number by Gneut Gingrich.

Those people want it all.

 

Thanks for the links! When you reread them - I think that they are all based on the same foundation (Graham's pulling a 20% number out of the air and the bug many bloggers have up their asses about Acorn.)

 

So I want to see one of those writers put the correct number of zeros behind "20% of 700 Billion" (it's kind of a word problem ;) ) and make the same accusation. That is just a crock.

 

The wonder of this bailout is that each side can hate it for their own reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, me too. How come the commentators in the media can't measure up to that same level? They're treating the bailout as BailWatch. I expect to see Pamela Anderson explaining economics any second now.

 

Thanks Craig.

 

Now the Pam Anderson image is right before my eyes... Pam, running down the beach in slowmo... comes to a massive pile of billions in $100 bills...

 

Big leap headfirst!

 

She comes up for air... shakes the $100's from her hair... in super slomo... the camera pans to her "assets"...

 

Then she smiles and says... "C'mon in boys, the water's fine!"

 

M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Spokenward, You didnt say how many you wanted but here you go.

I heard 20 Billion on Fox news last night. These articles say 20% which is way higher. I'm sure theyre trying to steal our money any way they can.


http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/25/kill-the-bailout-more-acorn-funding/


http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/26/the-democratic-acorn-bailout/


http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/09/lindsey_graham_tells_nbcs_mere.html


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/09/26/dems-bailout-proposal-redirects-paulsons-profits-left-wing-group


http://tertiumquids.blogspot.com/2008/09/bailout-money-going-to-acorn.html


http://insightanalytical.wordpress.com/2008/09/25/what-acorn-given-20-of-bailout-money-under-original-bailout-proposal/


That should be enough to know My hearing wasnt off. You can googel for more including stories about Obahama working for them.

I only heard a 20 billion number by Gneut Gingrich.

Those people want it all.

 

Hmmm.

 

Following some of your links I find that Dodd's proposal is for 35% of 20% OF THE PROFITS, if any, following the eventual sale of assets would go to the organization that would flow them to ACORN... so it's not $20 billion and it's not 20% of the $700 billion... it's most likely zero... but looking at other info about ACORN, I hope the House Republicans make it really zero!

 

M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yes, me too. How come the commentators in the media can't measure up to that same level? They're treating the bailout as BailWatch. I expect to see Pamela Anderson explaining economics any second now.

 

It's a funny thing about modern rolling news. In theory, 24 hour news TV would lead to a more detailed focus on stuff like this. In practice, it actually trivialises it. Instead of getting a substantial update on the 10pm news, we're sat watching some autocutie going "George Bush is making a statement soon. Jim, what do you think will be in his statement?"

 

"Well, Cindy, until he makes the statement, it's hard to say what will be in the statement. But it's set to be a very important statement."

 

"Thanks Jim. Well, you heard it here first. This is going to be an important statement. Over to Jim."

 

"Thanks, Cindy. Well, as you've just heard, we're expecting an important statement soon from President Bush."

 

Etc

 

Etc

 

Etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hey, good news.

 

It looks like SOME lending to folks with bad credit is still taking place.

 

One of the provisions of the spending bill just passed by congress and expected to be signed by the president, (not the bailout, just a little 680 Billion normal spending bill), has a 25 BILLION LOAN for the AUTO INDUSTRY.

 

I figure, if someone with such a bad balance sheet can get 25 million that doesn't have to be paid back for 5 years... well...

 

Why shouldn't any of us small business people get a million or so...

 

I'll pay it back in 5 years.

 

Promise.

 

Really.

 

M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is a little technical but People need to understand what this bailout is. My buddy and attorney friend on another forum really spells it out well here:

 

http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php/topic,26278.0.html

 

"To understand just how evil this bailout is and how unfair it is to the taxpayers, one has to have a general understanding of what a CDO is. Wiki has a good overview of what a CDO is. Basically, a CDO is an entity, like a corporation, set up by investment banks offshore to avoid payment of US taxes. They then issue bonds, and use the bond proceeds to buy "assets" that produce income for people that invest in the CDO. If set up right, they are tax free under US law. Nice, but most here would not be financially qualified to invest in a CDO. These are for the big boys.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateralized_debt_obligation

 

CDOs are completely unregulated (bc the investment banks creating the CDOs fought any regulation) and CDOs, carried off books, are hard to value. They are secretive, because people trying to avoid paying taxes usually are. Investment banks like Goldman Sachs made lots of profit on these over the years using all this constant leverage and then leveraging leverage. Goldman Sachs, for example, might set up a CDO, buy liabilities of other entities, even buying its own liabilities thus moving its liabilities off its books making it look more profitable. Further, the CDO is carried as an asset on the books of GS, making GS look even better. GS is also charging an administration fee for administering the CDO. And, all these profits ARE NOT TAXED UNDER US LAW.

 

Some CDOs, instead of buying assets or liabilities, simply insured assets, like MBSs, against loss. This "insurance" is the infamous credit default swap (CDS). GS made a lot of money when its CDOs issued credit default swaps. Unfortunately, their credit default swaps assumed that people would not default on their houses. However, GS unrealistically didn't consider that these homes were bought with liar loans by liars. Now that the liars have walked away from their homes, its time for the insurance (CDS) to pay people for their losses on their MBS, which will bankrupt their CDOs, which will bankrupt people like GS who hold all these CDOs as assets. BFD (big f--- deal).

 

These guys are now crying for are not US taxapayers to bail them out and buy the MBS, so their CDOs don't have to pay, which is a crime in and of itself, because these guys don't pay taxes and moved off shore not to be regulated. It was a highly risk game and they lost. Who gives a rats ass!"

 

 

He goes on to ask that we call or fax out congressmen.

 

"I'm going to ask on this thread and most threads I post on that people please take the time this weekend to at least email their representative and senator. Its easy to do on the internet. You don't have to write a book, just send this message "NO BAILOUT!"

 

Now, I was a little stronger in my message, so you may consider "NO BAILOUT YOU MORAL COWARD!"

 

The public outcry is working and at least limiting the proposal, but the pressure needs to continue. Its more preferable to make a phone call and tie up their line, or send a fax saying the above. Best, do all three.

 

There are a few congressmen that are opposing it, like Senator Shelby. It wouldn't hurt to email them, call them and voice your support for their fight against the bankers. They need to know that Americans do appreciate them fighting back. It will give them the extra courage and motivation to keep up this fight for us.

 

This is really an important time in American history. Please act if you care, and act today, as they are trying to get this done by tomorrow. It will take you less time to email, fax and call your representatives than standing in line to vote this November. November is too late to stop this. If you care, you have to act now. "

 

This is serious people. DEADLY serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This is a little technical but People need to understand what this bailout is. My buddy and attorney friend on another forum really spells it out well here:


http://www.doomers.us/forum2/index.php/topic,26278.0.html




He goes on to ask that we call or fax out congressmen.




This is serious people. DEADLY serious.

 

Yeah, judging from the proliferation of posts, I think many here are sensing the gravity of the situation, myself included.

 

I wanted to ask you - or perhaps your friend - what he thinks of this article:

 

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/9/22/bailout-prevents-great-depression-20.html

 

Does this person have a point? Is any portion of this right? I oppose the bailout due to other reasons (bailing out irresponsible people, poor choices, and bankers' greed, done to help private but not public interests, etc.), but would like to know if this person has a point at all. I have no agenda with this article at all, but simply want to know more about the points being made and whether they are valid or not.

 

Also, here are some websites opposing the bailout:

http://votenobailout.org/ (allows you to send your letter to Congress)

http://www.nowallstreetbailout.com/

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Yeah, judging from the proliferation of posts, I think many here are sensing the gravity of the situation, myself included.


I wanted to ask you - or perhaps your friend - what he thinks of this article:


http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/9/22/bailout-prevents-great-depression-20.html


Does this person have a point? Is any portion of this right? I oppose the bailout due to other reasons (bailing out irresponsible people, poor choices, and bankers' greed, done to help private but not public interests, etc.), but would like to know if this person has a point at all. I have no agenda with this article at all, but simply want to know more about the points being made and whether they are valid or not.


Also, here are some websites opposing the bailout:

http://votenobailout.org/
(allows you to send your letter to Congress)

http://www.nowallstreetbailout.com/


Thanks.

 

That article is making the same point as Bernacke and Paulson are to congress..Bail out Wall Street or we have a depression. Problem is all this will do is stave off the Depression a bit longer but it will do nothing to prevent it.

 

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/25/business/col26.php

 

Here's what Ron Paul has to say about the Bailout..That is will cause a 10 year depression.

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-congress-has-opted-for-10-year-plus-depression.html

 

Here's one where 192 TO Economists oppose the bailout.

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/prestigious-group-of-192-economists-including-nobel-prize-winners-slams-bailout.html

 

former 2 time Nobel Prize Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz Thinks this is disasterous!

 

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=18369

 

Here's one from Counterpunch that explains that this bailout would do nothing for mainstreet but hurt us.

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/adler09262008.html

 

Here's one explaining that this bailout gives the Treasury Dictatorial powers:

 

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/09/under-proposed-bailout-feds-could.html

 

This one is just a good observation on why it's a scam:

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/no-to-the-paulson-bernanke-derivatives-scam-bailout.html

 

There is so much more but basically what it comes down to for you and I is we are screwed. The regular person is {censored}ed here no matter how this plays out and they should not be bailed out from their losing high stakes poker game. However, all evidence is pointing to the fact that this is a contrived crisis and was planned long in advance. Case in point.

 

They drew this plan up months ago:

 

http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/09/white-house-admits-it-drew-up-bailout.html

 

They are pushing for a New World Financial Order:

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/former-kissinger-policy-planner-cfr-member-calls-for-new-global-monetary-authority.html

 

Bottom line, that shill who wrote that Us News article doesn't know his head from a hole in the wall. This bailout will go through because Our Government isn't our government anymore. It's beholden to the Corporations and Bankers. It's fascist and this is the final nail in the coffin for the USA. It was a brilliant Fascist Coup.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/welcome-to-the-final-stag_b_127990.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks.

 

I opposed it for the above reasons, much the same reasons as many people, but also due to the lack of oversight and possible ramifications. And quite frankly, if this must occur, I'd rather another Administration oversee it.

 

Anyway, I signed the petition from this link:

http://votenobailout.org/

 

And the other link that I provided also allows you to submit a letter to Congress:

http://www.nowallstreetbailout.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

That article is making the same point as Bernacke and Paulson are to congress..Bail out Wall Street or we have a depression. Problem is all this will do is stave off the Depression a bit longer but it will do nothing to prevent it.


http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/25/business/col26.php


Here's what Ron Paul has to say about the Bailout..That is will cause a 10 year depression.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-congress-has-opted-for-10-year-plus-depression.html


Here's one where 192 TO Economists oppose the bailout.


http://www.prisonplanet.com/prestigious-group-of-192-economists-including-nobel-prize-winners-slams-bailout.html


former 2 time Nobel Prize Winning Economist Joseph Stiglitz Thinks this is disasterous!


http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=18369


Here's one from Counterpunch that explains that this bailout would do nothing for mainstreet but hurt us.


http://www.counterpunch.org/adler09262008.html


Here's one explaining that this bailout gives the Treasury Dictatorial powers:


http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/09/under-proposed-bailout-feds-could.html


This one is just a good observation on why it's a scam:


http://www.prisonplanet.com/no-to-the-paulson-bernanke-derivatives-scam-bailout.html


There is so much more but basically what it comes down to for you and I is we are screwed. The regular person is {censored}ed here no matter how this plays out and they should not be bailed out from their losing high stakes poker game. However, all evidence is pointing to the fact that this is a contrived crisis and was planned long in advance. Case in point.


They drew this plan up months ago:


http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/09/white-house-admits-it-drew-up-bailout.html


They are pushing for a New World Financial Order:


http://www.prisonplanet.com/former-kissinger-policy-planner-cfr-member-calls-for-new-global-monetary-authority.html


Bottom line, that shill who wrote that Us News article doesn't know his head from a hole in the wall. This bailout will go through because Our Government isn't our government anymore. It's beholden to the Corporations and Bankers. It's fascist and this is the final nail in the coffin for the USA. It was a brilliant Fascist Coup.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/welcome-to-the-final-stag_b_127990.html

 

This was interesting reading...

 

Our predicament has certainly spurred considerable activity in the blogosphere...

 

If all were taken at face value, we

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have to disagree with you in principle regarding CEO salaries and bonuses in businesses like Oil. They have every right to negotiate with the board of directors a compensation package based on the success of their company... and the oil companies are doing very well... record profits. But the percentage of profit to price is actually in the low-middle of many industries. It's just the price of the raw material, crude oil has risen and therefore all the profits in all the parts of the market have too.


If you don't like the price of gas. Don't buy it.


I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but it's the business of the oil company to make a profit, and the business of the executives to lead these companies and achieve rewards based on their success.


I don't know what you do for a living, but would you reduce your salary because your clients think the price of your goods or services are too high?


Short of nationalizing the oil industry... and considering that net profits from oil production and distribution are well within the norms of percentage of profits from other industries... you have to let the market for executive compensation control how much the CEO's of successful companies make.


On the other hand, I do believe that people like the CEO of Merrill Lynch, who has apparently walked away after leading the destruction of his company, with a $130 million severance package is being rewarded unfairly.


However, that package was certainly negotiated at the time of his initial employment with the company, and was agreed to by the board... so even then... I'm not sure what can or should be done.


I'm not trying to be an apologist, I'm just pointing out that I want rewards based on my success, and so do CEO's of oil companies. And if you say THEY can't have them, then you're also saying that you and I shouldn't either.


M

 

Well, we are here to disagree then because we, the comsumer of gasoline were told the prices were high because of price per barrel of oil. I have no problem with a good exec making a decent salary. Nor do I have a problem with a Good exec getting a nice bonus. I do have a problem with them getting exorbanent bonus's by 'Raping the public" and that is exactly what this is. I have the same problem with sports figures making ungodly salaries just to throw and catch a ball. One of the greats of all times, Babe Ruth, made no more than $10,000 a year. Yes, I know that was over 75 years ago but his heart was in the game and not his pocket book. That is what I like about High School and most College games.

Also, your comment about "If you don't like the price of gas. Don't buy it". Was real useful wasn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the most ironic thing about this is that Bernake was a strict classical economist for so long, and he had an extreme fear of inflation.

 

And now he's talking about injecting $700 billion directly into the economy?? HELLLOOO INFLATIOn!! I wonder what made him take such a radical shift in policy?

 

Perhaps "doing nothing" isn't the best solution, but I'd like to see people held accountable for allowing this to run rampant. I don't see how bailing everyone out with huge sums of cash is going to send that message.

 

In addition, the market is already showing that it can work to solve this crisis. When Lehman was going under, Barclays was able to go through all their books, find the stuff they liked, and purchase a bunch of Lehman assets.

 

If there is a buck to be made, capitalists will do it. You don't need the big-G Government Gorilla stepping in to give people a free pass for their greed (or mistakes, depending on your view). *Too much* government spending creates a whole slew of problems in its own right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, we are here to disagree then because we, the comsumer of gasoline were told the prices were high because of price per barrel of oil. I have no problem with a good exec making a decent salary. Nor do I have a problem with a Good exec getting a nice bonus. I do have a problem with them getting exorbanent bonus's by 'Raping the public" and that is exactly what this is.

 

Let me be clear. I DON'T LIKE the high price of gas. I pay it just like anyone, and it irritates me everytime I stop at the pump. In fact, where I live, we have the highest gas prices in the 48 states. :mad:

 

But I don't quite view the oil companies as "raping the public" as you put it by having high compensation for their executives.

 

If I understand your point, there should be some amount, below what the oil executives are paid by their board of directors now, that would be "fair". It should be a "decent" salary and can include a "nice bonus".

 

Who, other than the compensation committee of the board of directors of the company, should decide this?

 

Why is what an oil executive makes, a "rape"?

 

Because you think it's too much? Compared to what?

Other oil executives?

Other executives who run multi-billion dollar businesses?

Just other executives generally?

Gas station owners?

Your salary?

 

Do you see that there is a "market" for executives and if the compensation committee of the board of directors of the oil companies gave their executives compensation that "raped" those companies, then they would likely be displaced by the shareholders at the next opportunity to appoint board members?

 

Heck, the CEO's of the oil companies have presided over some of the largest profits of ANY companies in HISTORY. You would think that would be worth a lot.

 

I hate to be put in the position of defending the salaries of oil execs, but it is what it is... you may not like it, but I don't think it's a "rape".

 

I have the same problem with sports figures making ungodly salaries just to throw and catch a ball. One of the greats of all times, Babe Ruth, made no more than $10,000 a year. Yes, I know that was over 75 years ago but his heart was in the game and not his pocket book. That is what I like about High School and most College games.

 

I get your point. Let's make a longer list of "overpaid" people...

 

Movie Stars

Pop Music Stars

Rock Stars

No Talent Celebrities

Talk Show Hosts

TV Show Actors

TV News Anchors

Movie Directors

Movie Producers

Sport Team Owners

TV Network Executives

Movie Industry Executives

Recording Industry Executives, (well they don't make as much as they used to.)

Screenwriters

 

Well. I could go on and on here...

 

So what do all these people have in common?

 

They are entertainers.

 

Their pay is related to how many eyeballs they can attract.

 

So are the stars of the major sports.

 

They get paid because they can "put butts in the seats" and their skills are of a level that they are better than almost everyone at what they do. It's extremely competitive to reach that elite level, and the minute you are no longer competitive you lose your job.

 

Some would argue that the team owners get too much and the players should be paid MORE... I don't know.

 

I wish people played for the love of the game... If that's your main desire, I'd say keep watching amateur sports.

 


Also, your comment about "If you don't like the price of gas. Don't buy it". Was real useful wasn't it.

 

Sorry if you didn't see that was part joke, part reality. There are alternatives to using gasoline... but I understand that most people can't or won't use them.

 

I chose a few years back to close my physical office, about a 10 min commute time each way, and work from a "home office". Not everyone can do that, but it saves me a ton of money on gas, and I get to be around my family a lot more. So to a certain extent I changed my life so that "I don't buy it"... at least as much as I used to... YMMV

 

Sorry if I offended you. :D

 

M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oil companies make $.08 a gallon profit for everything they do to get the gas in your car including the refining and transport. Government takes an average of $.49 a gallon which at $4.00 a gallon is $1.96.

Government does nothing but take a chunk and has no expence producing the product.

I dont see them fixing many highways with this money.

 

This page has a chart of what people pay in taxes per gallon. California has the highest tax of nearly $.80

 

http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/

 

Heres an older tax chart per state. It doesnt include the hidden taxes

 

http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...