What conditions with the 700 billion dollar bailout

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

What conditions with the 700 billion dollar bailout

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:21 am

What sort of conditions/assurances should be attached to the 700 billion dollar, American taxpayer bailout.
A blank check sounds a little scary.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA


Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:03 pm

No one will ever help you with your ignorance. Go do the research, there are a lot of strings attached. We will probably lose money on the deal, but we could actually make a profit. I'm sure you didn't realize that.

How much is it worth to stabilize the financial markets? It seems to have done that or at least settled them down.

If you were actually serious, I would go track down the articles for you, but you have no clue what we should have done other than if a Republican does it it's wrong and if the Democrats do it that it is perfect by definition. Who cares if it actually achieves the stated goal. How's that war on poverty going? We're still waiting for some success on that front :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15878
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:32 pm

The Democrats are pushing for some independent oversight, some pay limits to control the many millions of dollars in bonus's for execs of companies receiving public bailout, and some ability to directly help actual homeowners facing foreclosure.

Bush wants immediate passage with no bi-partisan input.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby rmh » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:41 pm

Pacific Fisher wrote:The Democrats are pushing for some independent oversight, some pay limits to control the many millions of dollars in bonus's for execs of companies receiving public bailout, and some ability to directly help actual homeowners facing foreclosure.

Bush wants immediate passage with no bi-partisan input.


And you would offer criticism is he wasn't fast tracking. You can't have it both ways.
The Fand F execs are not receiving buyouts, that was announced the day they were taken over. As far as Lehman, who knows, there probably isn't money for it and in this case it is probably fairly easy to nullify the contracts.
I find this whole thing funny, if theses entities had been allowed to fail-the invisible hand of the market-you would be complaining about how heartless the Republicans are, making all these people lose their money, houses, retirement, etc.
2013 Totals
1 2003 Ford Focus (harvested by a 6 point whitetail)
1 1991 Chevy Lumina (harvested by a PT Cruiser)
rmh
hunter
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: On the Chesapeake

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Sep 22, 2008 12:49 pm

It seems reasonable that the spending of 700 billion of US taxpayer dollars should have bi-partisan input rather that an administration saying no input, give us the money. Do folks here think that the current assurances in the request are enough, considering the astronomical price?
As some may recall Bush has been prone to rash decisions involving 700 billion of US taxpayer dollars in the past.

It is not as though Bush has built up a lot of political capital and trust on economic issues even within his own party.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:10 pm

Pacific Fisher wrote:It is not as though Bush has built up a lot of political capital and trust on economic issues even within his own party.
Which is odd, since we have weathered the remnents of the internet bubble, the accountant scandals, the 9/11 terrorists attacks, and the oil speculative bubble while keeping the economy rolling along nicely. We will weather the housing bubble bursting if the Democrats don't screw it up. I definitely trust Bush more than McCain on this issues. Good thing it will be over by January of 2009 so neither Obama or McCain will have an opportunity to do anything other than show their incompetence and populism.

Unfortunately this has muted the huge gains Governor Palin was making. Bad economy is always good Democrat policy :huh: :no:
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15878
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:23 pm

If Bush gets his way, receiving the money without bi-partisan input, and major flaws become apparent, the Republicans will say, well Congress approved it why did they not ask the right questions and provide input and appropriate safeguards then.

Is that the Republican's having it both ways?
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:30 pm

Glad you can see the future. Why don't you use your crystal ball for something useful? A few lottery numbers would be nice.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15878
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:41 pm

Where in the above post was I predicting the future?
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:56 pm

Pacific Fisher wrote:If Bush gets his way, receiving the money without bi-partisan input, and major flaws become apparent, the Republicans will say, well Congress approved it why did they not ask the right questions and provide input and appropriate safeguards then.

Is that the Republican's having it both ways?
Reread the post. You are saying what the Republicans will say in the future based on things that might happen in the future and then you accuse the Republicans of trying to have it both ways based on things that haven't even happened yet.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15878
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:24 pm

So no one should put forth any sort of hypotheticals as part of the discussion and decision making in the spending of a 700 billion US taxpayer dollars bail out program?

I do not think the American Public should be expected to feel comfortable rushing through a 700 billion US taxpayer dollar bailout spending bill from a lame duck President who says trust me and pass it without bi-partisan input.

700 billion here, 700 billion there and pretty soon it starts to add up to real money.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:45 pm

So you have looked into the conditions/assurances and are sure it is a bailout?

As I pointed out, the government could turn a profit. The cost is not $700 billion. The cost is $700 billion minus whatever they get paid back on the loans and profits from the sale of the business they now own. I don't follow all or even many of the details and know for damn sure Obama has no clue what's going on. I believe his response was "um, um, ahh, um, ahhh, let's hope for change and middle class handouts" Not saying McCain is any better on this one.

Bush has guided us through a number of financial crises in his term. I have confidence that he can get us through this one, but it's an election year so the Democrats are going to do everything in their power to maximize political advantage and the economy be damned. As Harry Reid said "no one knows what to do," but what he meant is the Democrats are clueless as usual, but that won't stop them from attacking Bush and insisting on government handouts to Democrat voters.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15878
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby pennsyltucky » Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:04 pm

bush want it to pass thru and apply to businesses and other important areas of the market. the democrats want to stall it and "allow some oversight" so they can earmark it all themselves. democrats see it as a 700billion dollar handout and are trying to get it to go to individuals.... bush and the gop see it as a 700billion dollar investment in the housing market, and it has nothing to do with the retarded individuals who took out the 500K mortgages on a 200K house with a 50K job.

its really no different than any other day.... just a bigger lump sum

gop=invest in business and economy-capitalism

dems=tax business and economy and give to non-contributors-socialism

how is this any different :huh:
muleskinner wrote:you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a benalli in the other.
User avatar
pennsyltucky
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: stoneboro, PA

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:02 pm

I just saw a report that McCain is coming around to the Obama position of setting up a bi-partisan commission to oversee the expenditure of the 700 billion taxpayer dollars.

At this point Bush probably could not deliver a majority of votes from his own party despite a few folks here that are so effusive about his "leadership".
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:15 pm

Why do you think conservatives didn't want McCain? He gets sucked into too many stupid Democrat ideas. It just shows he knew what he was talking about when he said the economy wasn't his strong suit. He's getting sucked into another dumb Democrat idea.

I have no clue, so let's set up a commission and kick the can down the road. Politicians at their finest :thumbsup:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15878
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby pennsyltucky » Mon Sep 22, 2008 5:40 pm

thats ok.... when the republican ticket goes into office, and mccain dies in about a week, ill mourn his death for 2 seconds, then rejoice for a week :biggrin:
muleskinner wrote:you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a benalli in the other.
User avatar
pennsyltucky
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: stoneboro, PA

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:10 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:Why do you think conservatives didn't want McCain? He gets sucked into too many stupid Democrat ideas. It just shows he knew what he was talking about when he said the economy wasn't his strong suit. He's getting sucked into another dumb Democrat idea.

I have no clue, so let's set up a commission and kick the can down the road. Politicians at their finest :thumbsup:


700 billion American taxpayer dollars are a few too many to essentially hand over to the Treasury Secretary without some formal, bi-partisan oversight in any administration.

What is it that conservatives don't like about George Bush?
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby rmh » Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:14 pm

And I'll repeat: if Bush wasn't fast tracking this you'd be on here complaining that "McBush doesn't care about people losing their savings, homes, retirements" etc.
2013 Totals
1 2003 Ford Focus (harvested by a 6 point whitetail)
1 1991 Chevy Lumina (harvested by a PT Cruiser)
rmh
hunter
 
Posts: 1693
Joined: Tue Dec 25, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: On the Chesapeake

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:26 pm

And I will repeat that 700 billion US taxpayer dollars are just a few too many to essentially hand over to the Treasury Secretary under any administration.

In Section 8 of the proposed Bush bailout plan is the sentence,

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Wake up little flock of sheep.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby pennsyltucky » Mon Sep 22, 2008 6:41 pm

Pacific Fisher wrote:
What is it that conservatives don't like about George Bush?


:help: did you hit your head today? :rofl:
muleskinner wrote:you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth and a benalli in the other.
User avatar
pennsyltucky
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 3167
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 2:21 pm
Location: stoneboro, PA

Postby Pacific Fisher » Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:05 pm

It looks as though negotiations are moving froward on putting in place some bi-partisan oversight on the Section 8 language in the bill that would have given the Treasury Secretary unchallengeable power as well as, having the US Government acquire stock in the bailed out companies (providing a stake in the risk), and some mortgage holder protection.

The negotiations are still underway.
Other important issues under consideration are;

Additional requirements for disclosure concerning conflict of interest, funding requirements and manipulating the market.

Executives current stock option rewards, and linking future compensation to averaged company performance over time.

Cessation of campaign contributions in this election, Wall street Political Action Committees, and Wall street lobbying by public money funded firms/executives.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:29 am

I watched Obama on the Today show this morning. Matt Lauer asked him which of his plans he would have to sacrifice because of this $700B. He said none. His reason: well, um, ahhhh, ummm, something about the budget process and that it won't neccisarily cost $700B. Obama's not word about having to save any money as a result of this plan. Why do you?

If you want to go find out what I don't like about Bush, there are probably a hundred threads where I have criticized different things he has done. Is there anything you think he has done right?

All of your "important issues" are secondary issues that have no impact on the fixing the root cause problems of stabilizing the financial markets and getting the wheels of the economy greased so we can keep moving forward. It shows you have no clue about the big problem and are obsessed with trivialities. You want your pound of flesh, but how does that help?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15878
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Postby DuckinFool » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:20 am

We are not talking $700 bil here. Anybody with half a brain knows that when the government gets involved in anything the actual cost goes way above and beyond the projected cost. Bend over taxpayers and grab your ankles......the tax man cometh !!! :mad:
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Postby Pacific Fisher » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:23 am

SpinnerMan wrote:No one will ever help you with your ignorance. Go do the research, there are a lot of strings attached. We will probably lose money on the deal, but we could actually make a profit. I'm sure you didn't realize that.

How much is it worth to stabilize the financial markets? It seems to have done that or at least settled them down.

If you were actually serious, I would go track down the articles for you, but you have no clue what we should have done other than if a Republican does it it's wrong and if the Democrats do it that it is perfect by definition. Who cares if it actually achieves the stated goal. How's that war on poverty going? We're still waiting for some success on that front :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Spinnerman, you were willing to recklessly agree to a bailout proposal that had virtually no guarantees for the American taxpayers 700 billion dollars. Either you did not do you homework or you are astronomically reckless.
The safeguards that are being put forth are largely being agreed to by Treasury Paulson and the bush Administration as they appropriately consider spending 700 billion taxpayer dollars.


You would have been a nice target for the Wall Street boys to sell some of the fishy paper in a nice wrapper, maybe they did thus your haste in rushing a half baked relief bill without safeguards for the 700 billion, American taxpayer dollars.
Even Treasury Secretary Paulson stated this morning at the Senate hearing that they intended bi-partisan oversight and negotiation on safeguards but got the three page document on the table for negotiations.
But you spinnerman were willing to swallow hook, line and sinker and ignorantly support the bailout without safeguards and oversight, giving absolute power to the next Treasury Secretary. No one even knows who the next Treasury Secretary will be!

Wakeup, do your homework and resist being so fiscally reckless in these dangerous times.
Pacific Fisher
hunter
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2008 9:36 am
Location: Gualala, CA

Re: What conditions with the 700 billion dollar bailout

Postby DuckinFool » Tue Sep 23, 2008 10:24 am

Pacific Fisher wrote:What sort of conditions/assurances should be attached to the 700 billion dollar, American taxpayer bailout.
A blank check sounds a little scary.


You and I are guaranteed a part in paying back this huge expansion of government and you can be assured of that condition.
Recession-neighbor loses job...Depression-you lose job...Recovery-Obama loses job.
Image
Don't blame me.....I didn't vote for him !!!
User avatar
DuckinFool
hunter
 
Posts: 1446
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 6:47 am
Location: Southern Illinois

Next

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests