THE BLUFF HAS BEEN CALLED!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I stand for the bailout. I've been on record on this.

This is a sword of damocles situation. There isnt' going to be a great bill. We are going to have to hold our noses.

I'm in the Jack Welch camp.

I'm against this particular bill. We need the gov't to buy ENTIRE failing corporations and redistribute the assets. Propping up a failed business is no way to encourage better future performance. We need new players in the credit market, the ones we have failed and put us all in a worse spot for it, no need to allow them to continue as if nothing happened.

US bank in nevada REFUSED to give second mortgages for any higher than 65% of appraised value....they don't have hardly any bad loans on their books.

I'm not talking specifics...i'm just for a bailout. this is a hold your nose type situation.

The "i told you so" part says let the whole thing crash and burn, but i'm unwilling to risk how bad things would get and how many people would be financially crippled....just to prove my point.

Entire: Sounds like you are advocating socialism..am i getting this wrong?

What do you see happening--how bad and how soon--if the new bail out package--which somebody in another thread said is now up to 450 pages--doesn't get rammed through with a minimum of discussion and an all or nothing proposition?

And if, in fact, you foresee some sort of gloomy scenario for America, is that not something that appeals to you? Desire for harm to America is what your kind is all about, isn't it?

Tex,

I am unwilling to discuss this with you...perhaps you didn't notice that i'm responding to bobble. Why not you? Because you have shown little comprehension for the facts of this as presented by both liberals and conservatives. Your inability to comprehend or acknowledge the basics as presented by bobble and howard leaves little room for discussion.

I am not an economist..nor do i pretend to be one like yourself. I do know that if things go the way they are, it will get worse...worse on the stock market, worse for businesses..in that they won't be able to borrow and potentially meet payroll, worse for homeowners whose houses will depreciate in value with all the available houses, worse for apartment owners/landlords who will be in trouble because of excess inventory, worse for those who effed up and now have bad credit, etc.

Scenario: Why would i want that. If i did so, i would be against the bailout. The worse things get, the harder it will be for Obama.

If you think a bailout is wrong...great! Watch the situation get worse, and virutally assure us of an obama presidency. If you are against obama...take the poison pill and get down on your knees and pray that the ecomony is at least stable...cause that is the only chance Mac has.

[HowardRoark]

I'm against this particular bill. We need the gov't to buy ENTIRE failing corporations and redistribute the assets. Propping up a failed business is no way to encourage better future performance. We need new players in the credit market, the ones we have failed and put us all in a worse spot for it, no need to allow them to continue as if nothing happened.

This is basically what is going on right now. The FDIC figures out who is going to dance with whom and puts a gun to their head. The assets are bought of for pennies on the dollar. WaMu, Wachovia....that's what happened. With the Wachovia deal, the Feds were stuck with around $50Billion to make the deal work, but generally they don't have to get involved.

With Lehman, they went tits up and Barclays was there to buy stuff off the junk heap for nothing. The Invisible Hand is doing this already. It is rather funny when people say they are against the "bailout" because they don't want to help out Wall Street.

There is no Wall Street. Name one investment bank.

The problem is no matter who buys out whom, the stink just keeps going along with them. You can't magically get rid of this junk....it's got to land somewhere.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Is is possible for it to land on Tex's house? Like the Wizard of Oz?

[texaspackerbacker]

Very interesting!

I heard somebody on TV this afternoon, Howard, say the same as you--there is no more Wall Street--alas, all those illustrious investment bankers no longer exist--in a freestanding way, anyway. First of all, that is not ALL because of the current financial "crisis"--failures, and all. Most of the disappearance of investment bankers stems from the repeal of the Glass/Stiegel Act in 1999, which allowed commercial banks to get into investment banking and investment bankers to get into commercial banking. It seems that most of the winners these days are the traditional commercial bankers--buying out the failing traditional investment bankers. Is that a bad thing--having winners and losers in our capitalist system? I don't think so. Do you?

Tyrone, I never claimed to be an economist as such. Being my unofficial biographer, you should know that. As a finance major, I did take a lot of Econ courses, and I like to think I have kept up with things over the years. So you have been following the back and forth of me and Howard--and Bobblehead and aynrand too? And you like what they have to say better than what I have to say? OK, that's fine.

My position, though, is they--Howard, at least, I'm not sure about the others--buy into the ideas being pushed by the leftists and with the complicity of Senate Republicans--most of them anyway--to the DETRIMENT of the American people.

So you really think there would be a meltdown? And you really don't think it would come back on Obama and his crowd for voting down the reigning in of Fannie and Freddie that McCain is on record as pushing? Yeah, I suppose Obama wasn't even in the Senate in '04 and '05 when that occurred. However, you are aware, right, that the chief culprits in that scandal were Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson? And you also are aware, aren't you, that those two are now high level economic advisors of Obama? Do you really think the STINK won't fall on him? Yeah, I know his mainstream media buddies will do their best to conduct an "Obama bail out", that might just be Mission Impossible, especially if the shit does hit the fan.

In the more down to earth here and now, though, we have Obama and McCain standing shoulder to shoulder WITH the elitist establishment and IMO, AGAINST the American people. I, obviously, am not pleased about that, but I ask you, how does that translate to a big win for Obama if the Wall Street types choose to freeze up credit and harm America? And the better question is, why would the parasite kill the host--why would the Wall Street bankers deliberately increase the chances of an Obama presidency--which would harm ALL of America, but in particular, them? Or is there some way an Obama presidency would benefit Wall Street?

I actually, am in the unique position that only an optimist could be here. On the one hand, I truly don't think the doom and gloom predictions would come true at all it this "bail out" package DOESN'T get rammed through. On the other hand, I can visualize the HUGE debt increase that would occur if this package passes and all that money is injected into the system. Just imagine the Keynesian multiplied benefits in the form of economic growth from THAT KIND of stimulation!

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Tex,

You have long claimed to know economics..that is your thing. Calling you an ecomist is a joke.

As for the blame game...of course you would pin in on two dems. What a surprise that no mention of Phil Gram.

Why don't you really go after the dems and mention LBJ who let private finance into the equation...so that you and the rest of the idiots could continue fighting in Nam.

[HowardRoark]

First of all, that is not ALL because of the current financial "crisis"--failures, and all. Most of the disappearance of investment bankers stems from the repeal of the Glass/Stiegel Act in 1999, which allowed commercial banks to get into investment banking and investment bankers to get into commercial banking. It seems that most of the winners these days are the traditional commercial bankers--buying out the failing traditional investment bankers. Is that a bad thing--having winners and losers in our capitalist system? I don't think so. Do you?

Bear
Lehman
Merrill
Goldman
Morgan Stanley

All happened because of the crap on the balance sheet over the last 9 months.

There was only one "buy out" at the wrong end of gun to the head....that would be Merrill. And that's only because they have a wealth management group.

Bear is done.

Lehman is done.

The other two were able to get the Fed. to turn them into commercial banks on a Sunday......gee, I wonder how that happened (Goldman). Now they can go raise money via insured deposits because they sure could not raise money any other way.

And another thing....this is really not politcal. Virtually all of the politicians don't even understand what is going on. Paul Ryan is making a name for himself though.

[texaspackerbacker]

You're coming a little unglued, Tyrone.

Phil Gramm was out of the Senate, and the president of Texas A. & M. by the time of the Fannie and Freddie scandal--or more accurately, the McCain effort to regin them in that Dem/libs in Congress blocked even as a minority by filibustering.

And the LBJ thing? I guess you're right about the early privatization thing, but how on earth do you presume to link THAT to the Vietnam War?

[texaspackerbacker]

First of all, that is not ALL because of the current financial "crisis"--failures, and all. Most of the disappearance of investment bankers stems from the repeal of the Glass/Stiegel Act in 1999, which allowed commercial banks to get into investment banking and investment bankers to get into commercial banking. It seems that most of the winners these days are the traditional commercial bankers--buying out the failing traditional investment bankers. Is that a bad thing--having winners and losers in our capitalist system? I don't think so. Do you?

Bear
Lehman
Merrill
Goldman
Morgan Stanley

All happened because of the crap on the balance sheet over the last 9 months.

There was only one "buy out" at the wrong end of gun to the head....that would be Merrill. And that's only because they have a wealth management group.

Bear is done.

Lehman is done.

The other two were able to get the Fed. to turn them into commercial banks on a Sunday......gee, I wonder how that happened (Goldman). Now they can go raise money via insured deposits because they sure could not raise money any other way.

And another thing....this is really not politcal. Virtually all of the politicians don't even understand what is going on. Paul Ryan is making a name for himself though.

Where did the under-valued assets of those companies go, Howard? They didn't just vanish into thin air. They were bought up by those with the ability to do so a.k.a the winners in this situation--at fire sale prices. You, yourself, are describing collusion here between the government and at least, Goldman Sachs. Does that NOT cause red flags for you regarding the whole bail out in general?

Just because you have Senate Republicans complicit with the left on this does NOT mean this is NOT political. House Republicans--who are the MOST in tune with the people constititute the opposition--apparently including Ryan?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

You're coming a little unglued, Tyrone.

Phil Gramm was out of the Senate, and the president of Texas A. & M. by the time of the Fannie and Freddie scandal--or more accurately, the McCain effort to regin them in that Dem/libs in Congress blocked even as a minority by filibustering.

And the LBJ thing? I guess you're right about the early privatization thing, but how on earth do you presume to link THAT to the Vietnam War?

Right. The whole mess just started in this century.

Why don't you actually read and learn about what Mr. Gramm pushed thru in 99.

LBJ: Again, you don't know...why did he privatize?