No Bail out. Let the strong survive

wooo hoioo just watching the hearings:

"Lawmakers raised doubts Monday about what would be the largest government bailout in American history, but a bigger, more terrifying question lurked right under the surface: What if it doesn’t work?

Failure, says one insider, is not an option.

“The alternative is complete financial Armageddon and a great depression,” said a former Federal Reserve official. “Where do they go after this? Well, the U.S. government could nationalize the banking system outright.”

Let is all day go down. the quality businesses who arent leveraged to the hilt will survive

there should be no bailout of mortgagors who took on too much house either. Why the hell should people who are current on their mortgages not only receive nothing but have to subsidize not only the banks but also a slew of deadbeats.

What impetus is there for anyoen to stay current on their mortgage?

Call Rangel and tell him that mortgage contract and rate modification for deadbeats is absurd and unAmerican. There is already recourse. Its called foreclosure.

TA - you are forgeting that the bail out is taxpayer money. If any money goes anywhere it should go back to the tax payers not corporations or execs of corporations.

Taxpayers are entitled to their money if the government sees a need to send it back to them in the shape of a bail out.

petrfitz, I agree with you. Let the banks & insurance companies fail. Then the economy will really go into the dumpster, as people pull their money out, banks stop lending and insurance policies are sold off, depriving states of billions of dollars in lost revenue.

Oh, and companies will go bankrupt as they won't be able to get cash. So the bankruptcy lawyers & accountants will be the only ones employed. Then China will have to come in and buy up what's left over. The US will default on its debt and we'll turn into a third world country overnight.

But we should bail out the homeowners who overextended themselves. Yeah, that makes sense.

What about the taxpayers who are current on their debt obligations? What the fuck do they get? A big dick in the ass. thats what.

IMHO, if you're a deadbeat who cannot pay his debt obligations, file bankruptcy. Same applies to corporations.

This "bailout" is meaningless unless the taxpayers, all of us, share in the reward, via lump sum payments.

This idea being bandied that courts should be able to rejigger mortgage rates and debtor obligations is ridiculous. If you cannot pay your mortgage, you should be foreclosed upon. If its too bad, file bankruptcy. Thats what bankruptcy is for. Its a fresh start.

I remind you that this incessant push to advance home ownership, and the current push to preserve it, has largely been a Democratic issue. At some point, we have to realize, some folks simply cannot handle their finances. And it should never be incumbent upon the folks who can handle their finances to PAY for the ones who cannot. We pay enough here. And you can blame Republicans alone for this debacle, but I find a lot of blame with the average idiot who signed on for a mortgage where the down payment was in excess of their net worth. I of course also fault the greedy little cocksucker investment bankers and think some of them should do jail time. Yes, jail time.

uptowngal - its funny how you republicans have cried for "free markets" and wailed how your tax money goes to poor and "entitlement" programs and now you are all crying that big government MUST save us.

What happened to leting the free market play its course? Or is your position that the freemarket is good when it benefits you but when the freemarket bankrupts itself the taxpayers must bail it out.

Let it burn. Burn baby burn.

ah TA there you go - blaming hte problems that happened on the Republicans watch on the dems. Nothing like the party of accountability.

No, none of this ever would have happened under Al Gore or John Kerry. I remind you that the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 was signed by President Clinton. That law was directly responsible for what we have on our hands. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were propelled by your butt buddy Barney Frank.

You people who are so invested in one party over the other are the real blind ones. Politicans are all useless, I just like my government uselesness to come at a lower cost to me directly, which now is out of the question.

You should be very happy about the "bailout". We now have true socialism in this country.

has anyone thought of another irony in this?
borrower A and B both have ARMs
borrower A knew the risks and pays the reset
borrower B for whatever reason can't handle the reset
borrower B gets converted to a 6% fixed rate
borrower B didn't qualify for a 6% fixed rate, nor
did borrower A, but now B gets the 6% fixed they
never qualified for, but borrower A keeps making
good on his/her obligations under the original terms

I don't agree the home ownership at all costs is strictly
a Democratic Party ideology. It crosses party lines.

I urge you to call your Congressman about this. Its patently unfair that some douchebag deadbeat could possibly obtain relief from their contracual obligations while the rest of us get douched.

TA -says "none of this ever would have happened under Al Gore or John Kerry" you are correct becuase they are both intelligent people and not morons like Bush.

wonderful retort. problem solved.

"never argue with a drunk or a fool".

when perfitz is reduced to just name calling, I think its time to end the discussion. There are far better folks to represent Obama and Democrats than the guy who doesn't seem to know much about either of them.

TA - why didnt you refer to that act in its real name? Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

Actually, its the Financial Services Modernization Act. GLB is whats its also known as. Please try again.

who wrote McCains economic policy? Gramm

what party is the party of deregualtion? the Republican

What caused this worst mess since the Great Depression? Republican deregulation

so TA you are sayihng that Clinton is responsible for an act that was written by republicans, approved by the republican congress that had numbers to over turn a veto? that Clinton wrote the act himself?

If you mean deregulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then its your beloved liberal Democrats at fault. Why can you not acknowledge this? Likely because you are some 18 year old kid working for StreetEasy sent to promote endless comments. Enough already.

i think that the world would stop if just 1 Republican actually accepted blame for what took place on their watch, or if 1 republican stood up and said " i am proud of my party's performance and policies over the past 8 years and they are a direct result of the economic performance we see now!"

by the way, the FSMA/GLB was passed by something like 90-10 in the Senate.

Yes, they should be more like the Democrats, who invented the Internet.

petroputz---Can you come out and say Charlie Rangel should resign his Committee Chair? I mean, the guy has sway over the United States Internal Revenue Code, so you'd sorta think he could tell the truth on hix income tax returns. That and holding 4 rent controls while there's countless homeless roaming the streets. Or is that the kind of Democrat you look up to. The kind that talks out of both sides of his mouth and clings to his ethnicity when confronted with actual corruption. Thats the guy you want running the Code?

Waa haaa great comoeback NYC - fight facts with more lies! Al Gore was crucial int he birth of the internet in America - total fact.

George Bush and the Republicans created the worst economy since the Great Depression - fact.

John MccCain invented the Blackberry! Srah Palin commands the Alaska National Guard overseas! both lies told over and over again. Oh yeah - Palin said Thanks but no Thanks to the bridge from nowhere! - Another total lie! She supported the bridge and then kept the money!

charlie rangel should resign his committee chair.

TA - can you come out an admit that Republicans are responsible for this economic disaster?

petro putz, admit it, you think 9/11 was in "inside job", right? Do you also believe in alien abductions?

waiting for you to admit the above??????? or dont you take repsonsibility for your party's performance?

Politicians are responsible for this situation. Dems voted for GLB just the same. You've got to know that regardless of who wins, this thing isn't going away anytime soon. Frankly, the markets do better with split parties running the country, so if you'll vote out Charlies Rangel, Carolyn Maloney (one of the richest members of Congress) and Hillary, I'll vote for Barry.

So TA you will not admit that Republicans are responsible for what took place while they ran the country?

this is the 4th time I have asked and you wont answer.

The congress has been split for part of Bush's term . . .not sure I see how that has played out well. ..yet.
Anyway - the irony is that many dems and many conservatives oppose this bailout.

This is quite tricky given Paulson was quite recently a complicit member of those who may benefit from this aid. I can't believe he doesn't have conflicts of interest if this goes through.

I may not be a fan of giving a free ride to defaulting parties on the homeowner front - but I am also not a fan of letting wrongdoers ride on the corporate front. Once you give one a break, you have to consider the other wrongdoer as well. The moral hazard issue though is loud and awake though. . . .and certainly wall street will invent another bubble without learning.

I believe I heard that Paulson/Bush added all types of securities (non-mortgage related too) to the bill now (i.e. auto loans, credit card debt etc.). . . .

So TA you will not admit that Republicans are responsible for what took place while they ran the country?

this is the 5th time I have asked and you wont answer.

Good article -

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

Paulson's doing what he can to address the economy. The bozos in Congress were the ones who allowed this situation to escalate by propping up Fannie & Freddie. And these folks happen to be Democrats who received more donations from F&F than the Republicans, including Obama. These are facts.

I'm nonpartisan but I used to work at one of these agencies.

Paulsens is doing what he can to protect the $600 million + of GS stock that he has in his blind trust.

I love how you repubs say your not partisan but blame the things that happened under republicans, based on republican policies - deregulation - on the dems. Its absolutely hilarious.

pf, you obviously know little about regulation. This whole 'republican deregulation caused this' claim is election year hogwash.

A few months ago Paulson actually proposed a new regulatory structure that would have addressed the issues at AIG and Lehman, but Congress didn't want to act until after the election.

And it's not as if these banks are being 'bailed out' and can get off scott free. AIG, for example, has to pay a huge amount of interest and will probably be subject to government oversight, not something any company wants.

The current regulations are neither republican nor democrat - they are what they are. And if you're going to misrepresent things you know absolutely nothing about then you have no business posting.

"Paulsens is doing what he can to protect the $600 million + of GS stock that he has in his blind trust."

petr - first off, it's Hank PAULSON, not as you repeatedly spell it "paulsen". It's only on the cover of just about every website and newspaper! Second, he had to sell all of his GS stock when he took office - albeit in a sweetheart tax-free deal.

Special K please send a link that shows he sold his stock.

this was well known at the time of appointment...

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/43xRFhd1RRlnqg1H1BkmTP4?siteid=google&dist=TNMostMailed

"One fringe benefit was the capital gains tax exemption given to federal appointees who have to sell holdings before they take office: When Paulson sold his $500 million of Goldman Sachs stock, he saved tens of millions of dollars.) "

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/newsmakers/gunther_paulson.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008091911

I was waiting for absolute proof that petrfitz was an anarchist, and we got it:

petrfitz
about 2 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse
uptowngal - its funny how ...
What happened to ...
Let it burn. Burn baby burn.

--
Yup, you read it right petrfitz wants our economy and country to burn.

this is news to you? you haven't read enough of these threads then

where does it say he actually sold?

saneinsane you are wrong - i dont want the taxpayers to bail out corporations of bad risks they took.

i dont want profits to be privatized and the losses to be socialized.

I have also read that Paulson sold his Lehman stock as a prerequisite for the position. Pick your battles pf.

petr - spend 1 minute on google and you'll find a huge number of articles where it said he sold. you can also look up goldman's ownership disclosure filings.

he is supposed to sell his stock, and has filed to, there has never been proof that he did. He could also have decided to put his holdings into a blind trust that may or may not have liquided dated the stock.

There is also all sorts of funkiness you can do with such holdings - like the crap that Cheney did with this KBR stock - a shame charitable trusts. Cheney also made more money each year from KBR salary than he did as VP - he continued to take pay that was deferred in the past.

ok, if you say so

one more time... "never argue with a drunk or a fool".

prove me wrong - shouldnt there be a public filing of the actual sales of his stock?

why don't u look it up yourself? i already know i'm right so no need to do anymore work on your behalf. it's your perogative to go around saying things that are obviously wrong - things which only further serve to undermine what little credibility you have left.

According to the linked article that Special_K posted, Paulson only filed to sell 3.23 shares in GS. As well as the 3.32 shares he filed to sell, he also has almost 5k ordinary shares and options to sell almost 7k shares.

The 3.23 shares filed for sale probably just stop him from being a major shareholder in GS but doesn't mean he no longer owns shares in the company.

sorry, i meant to type "...and options to BUY almost 7k shares."

5-7k shares was, what, under a million even at peak. Is that really all we're talking about?

That guy made tons more than that... each month.