You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Record plunge for the Dow
I was shocked to see you know so much about it, so my only conclusion is that your a belgian too
Your right , we buy with the money we have , what we can afford . Everything i have i own and bought with my own money...I do have a credit card that i use only for emergencies.
Indeed I am. For what it's worth, most Belgians don't even have real credit cards. Most of these so-called credit cards are actually Visa's version of a debit card, where the full amount used is deducted from your checking account at the end of the month. No partial payback, no debt, no interest, just a handling fee.
Re: Record plunge for the Dow
TheMole wrote:And for you US citizens, let me tell you something: Clinton didn't destroy your country, he tried to get it more in line with the rest of the Western world (which in my book, is a good idea - it's time you guys catch up).
I know Clinton is thought of as some God overseas, but he most definitely played a role in our collapse. Majority of bills signed that led to this mess were signed by him.
I have no desire to "catch up" to the rest of the western world. You guys are heading towards collapse as well and have a saber rattling Russia licking its chops. That's not something for the US to aspire to.
Besides, we used to be the leader of the free world, not play "catch up".
Ok, I might not be in the best position to gauge Clinton's national policies, so I withdraw that comment. However, don't discount the method based on it's execution. With all due respect to you and your country (there are definitely a couple of things we could learn from you - military unity for one), but not counting some exceptions there are no western countries that look up to the US as an example to follow. Especially not on economic matters. Welfare in the US is continuously lower than that of the EU, why not learn from that? You are borrowing money from god damn China, and that sure as hell isn't the fault of the democrats, is it? Those poor bastards only had one president since the 80's.
Furthermore, FDR had to pick up the pieces after the Great Depression. He served 4 terms, so the American people must've thought he did something right. Time to give this to the dems again - I just hope Obama can sustain his position for two terms and is followed by another democrate. Time to be progressive. In most other countries, "conservative" is a derisive term - almost a synonym to old fashioned. Kinda like those who don't like CD for the mere fact that it's a new band and new direction.
Re: Record plunge for the Dow
I wouldn't compare Obama to FDR. FDR had balls and made tough decisions. You're not going to see that from Obama.
We're staring into the abyss, and whats Obama's tax policies gonna add to the debt?
$5.4 trillion
Not subtracting from our debt. Adding to it, and we haven't taken into consideration all the spending programs he's foaming at the mouth for.
What's McCain's? $7.4 trillion. Shows that not only is Obama not the savior that the liberals make him out to be, but that neither of these men are going to take the job seriously. Its just spend spend spend even though there's nothing to spend.
Not sure if I would call runaway deficits(projected to reach around 800 billion a year in either admin and potentially a bit higher under Obama) and a 15-17 trillion dollar debt "progressive".
I know that no one looks up to us anymore. That's why I said we "used" to be the leader of the free world. There's nothing to look up to. If you want to see us, you have to get a telescope and hope to see us at the bottom of the cliff.
I honestly don't know what we're gonna do. The partisan bickering in this country is comical now because neither of our presidential choices is gonna do anything to help us.
Re: Record plunge for the Dow
Oh and a highlight of this election season was during the debate when Lehrer asked Obama what he was going to cut, and Obama's answer had no mentions of any cuts but he mentioned an extra 25 billion in spending.
Neither answered that question, and I found that annoying, and both missed an opportunity to be straightforward. I mentioned that in the debate thread too. Obama should just come out & say his healthcare plan is on the backburner & in planning mode for the first two years, at least.
Anyway, I have a feeling this country is going to go into a BADDD recession for the next 12-18 months. 2009 is going to be a terrible year eeconomically & I bet alot of layoffs will occur between now & the end of the calendar year as companies forecast & prepare.
Re: Record plunge for the Dow
Yeah they both dodged a bit, but McCain did mention a spending freeze. Thats insane and it will never happen.
I agree that Obama needs to say how a lot of his plans aren't feasible right now. He wont though because he is afraid of losing votes. If he would do it though, he'd probably gain some votes.
This might sound insane, but the country needs a recession. Like Flagg said, we need a correction and as long as we throw money at it we're just delaying it and gonna make it worse. We're also destroying our dollar. Do this main bailout, then sit back and let the economy puke its guts out from the Clinton-Bush hangover. If we're lucky, we might recover rather quickly like we did during Reagan's recession, although obviously it wont be as quick as that.
Re: Record plunge for the Dow
Yeah I think unemployments gonna hit 10% & this years holiday spending is going to be really slow. Then all of 2009 will be very bad as well, problem is while more people are collecting unemployment while less people with paychecks are paying for it, putting the gov't in the red. On the bright side it may pick up in 2010. Like you said, it's a shake-up in the economy, kinda like when the earths fault lines shift. Big noise now, then it settles down.
Wouldn't surprise me if it affected my office or even me. I'm thinking of things to do if it goes down. Mostly odd & end jobs & try starting up my own business slowly. Maybe it's what I need, I'm sick of working for The Man & Corporate America.
Re: Record plunge for the Dow
Senate passes bailout
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Senate on Wednesday night passed a sweeping and controversial financial bailout similar in key ways to one rejected by the House just two days earlier.
The measure was passed by a vote of 74 to 25 after more than three hours of floor debate in the Senate. Presidential candidates Sens. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and John McCain, R-Arizona, voted in favor.
Like the bill the House rejected, the core of the Senate bill is the Bush administration's plan to buy up to $700 billion of troubled assets from financial institutions.
Those assets, mostly mortgage-related, have caused a crisis of confidence in the credit markets. A major aim of the plan is to free up banks to start lending again once their balance sheets are cleared of toxic holdings.
But the Senate legislation also includes a number of new provisions aimed at Main Street.
The changes are intended to attract more votes in the House, in particular from House Republicans, two-thirds of whom voted against the bailout plan.
The House is expected to take up the Senate measure for a vote on Friday, according to aides to Democratic leaders.
The legislation, if passed by the House, would usher in one of the most far-reaching interventions in the economy since the Great Depression.
Advocates say the plan is crucial to government efforts to attack a credit crisis that threatens the economy and would free up banks to lend more. Opponents say it rewards bad decisions by Wall Street, puts taxpayers at risk and fails to address the real economic problems facing Americans.
"If we do not act responsibly today, we risk a crisis in which senior citizens across America will lose their retirement savings, small businesses won't make payroll ... and families won't be able to obtain mortgages for their homes or cars," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., moments before the vote.
In a press briefing after the vote, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. R-Ky., said, "This is a measure for Main Street, not Wall Street. [It will help] to unfreeze our credit markets and get the American economy working again."
Because of Senate add-ons, the bill's initial price tag will be higher than the $700 billion that the Treasury would use to buy troubled assets. But over time, supporters say, taxpayers are likely to make back much if not all of the money the Treasury uses because it will be investing in assets with underlying value.
How the Senate bill differs
The package adds provisions to the House version - including temporarily raising the FDIC insurance cap to $250,000 from $100,000. It says the FDIC may not charge member banks more to cover the increase in coverage. But that doesn't prevent the agency from raising premiums to cover existing concerns with the insurance fund, according to Jaret Seiberg, a financial services analyst at the Stanford Group, a policy research firm.
Instead, the bill allows the FDIC to borrow from the Treasury to cover any losses that might occur as a result of the higher insurance limit.
The bill also adds in three key elements designed to attract House Republican votes - particularly popular tax measures that have garnered bipartisan support.
It would extend a number of renewable energy tax breaks for individuals and businesses, including a deduction for the purchase of solar panels.
The Senate bill would also continue a host of other expiring tax breaks. Among them: the research and development credit for businesses and the credit that allows individuals to deduct state and local sales taxes on their federal returns.
In addition, the bill includes relief for another year from the Alternative Minimum Tax, without which millions of Americans would have to pay the so-called "income tax for the wealthy."
The debate over extending AMT relief is an annual political ritual. It enjoys bipartisan support but deficit hawks on both sides of the aisle contend the cost of providing that relief should be paid for. Others argue it shouldn't be paid for because the AMT was never intended to hit the people the relief provisions would protect. Nevertheless, lawmakers pass the measure every year or two.
How Senate bill mimics House version
For all the sweeteners added to the Senate bill, however, it is similar to the House bill in many key ways.
The core is the Treasury's proposal to let financial institutions sell to the government their troubled assets, mostly mortgage-related. And as in the House bill, the Senate would only allow the Treasury access to the $700 billion in stages, with $250 billion being made available immediately.
The Senate bill is also similar in that it includes a number of provisions that supporters say would protect taxpayers. One would direct the president to propose a bill requiring the financial industry to reimburse taxpayers for any net losses from the program after five years. And the Treasury would be allowed to take ownership stakes in participating companies.
Like the House version, the Senate bill includes a stipulation that the Treasury set up an insurance program - to be funded with risk-based premiums paid by the industry - to guarantee companies' troubled assets, including mortgage-backed securities, purchased before March 14, 2008.
And it would place curbs on executive pay for companies selling assets or buying insurance from Uncle Sam. One provision: Any bonus or incentive paid to a senior executive officer for targets met would have to be repaid if it's later proven that earnings or profit statements were inaccurate.
Lastly, the Senate version would set up two oversight committees. A Financial Stability Board would include the Federal Reserve chairman, the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, the Federal Home Finance Agency director, the Housing and Urban Development secretary and the Treasury secretary.
A congressional oversight panel, to which the Financial Stability Board would report, would have five members appointed by House and Senate leadership from both parties.
Differing views
Despite the Senate bill's sweeteners, the bill did not garner unanimous support because those who oppose the Treasury plan felt passionately it was the wrong approach.
Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., a champion of the energy tax breaks in the bill, said on Wednesday afternoon she nevertheless would vote against the bill because she opposes "giving the keys to the Treasury over to the private sector."
Opponents of the bill have said they resented being given a "my way or the highway" choice to address what they acknowledge is a very serious economic threat.
During the Senate debate on Wednesday, Sen. David Vitter, R-La., characterized the administration's request to lawmakers 12 days ago as "crying 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, then claiming the only [way out] is to tear down the walls when there are many exit doors."
Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said the Senate will have "failed the American people" by acting hastily. "I agree we need to do something. ... [But] we haven't spent any time figuring out whether we've picked the best choice."
Supporters of the bill say they hate the position they are in and are angry, too, but say it's better to do something now than to let the credit crunch persist.
"There's no doubt that there may be other plans out there that, had we had two or three or six months to develop ... might serve our purposes better," said Obama during the floor debate. "But we don't have that kind of time. And we can't afford to take a risk that the economy of the United States of America and, as a consequence, the worldwide economy could be plunged into a very, very deep hole."
Potential costs
The tax provisions of the Senate bill - the bulk of which come from the addition of tax breaks from other legislation - may reduce federal tax revenue by $110 billion over 10 years, according to estimates from the Joint Committee on Taxation. More than half of that is due to the 1-year extension of AMT relief.
The Congressional Budget Office said it cannot estimate the net budget effects of the troubled asset program because of the many unknowns about that piece of the bill.
However, the agency noted in a letter to lawmakers on Wednesday, it expects the program "would entail some net budget cost" but that it would be "substantially smaller than $700 billion."
Overall, the CBO said, "the bill as a whole would increase the budget deficit over the next decade."
All eyes on House
Now the fate of the bailout rests with the House.
"The reality has hit some members," said House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., late Wednesday on CNN. "The main change is reality - it's not possible now to scoff at the predictions of doom if we don't do anything."
The lead House Republican, Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, was consulted on the Senate's plans and gave his "green light," spokesman Kevin Smith said. "We believe we'll have a better chance to pass this bill than the one that failed [Monday]," he added.
The plan could attract House Republicans while simultaneously alienating bailout supporters among the Democrats because the tax cuts in the revenue bill aren't offset by spending cuts or increased revenues.
President Bush, following the Senate vote, said the bill was central to the "financial security" of the nation. "The American people expect - and our economy demands - that the House pass this good bill this week and send it to my desk."
Re: Record plunge for the Dow
Supposedly it's full of pork. Fucking idiots in Congress man.. The one fucking bill that needs to not have pork in it, & what do they do. Fuck it up. Is the system THAT broken?! Nothings ever gonna change man..
"Sleeping on the White House lawn ain't never changed a thing, look at all the washed up hippie dreams." -- Goo Goo Dolls. Flat Top
