Does America really want a change?

**homedawg** · 09-18-2008, 07:16 PM

**dananderson32** · 09-18-2008, 10:35 PM

Originally posted by homedawg

is that the same man running on the change train trying to catch obama but hes been in the senate for 26 years now?

**Billy Barooooooo** · 09-19-2008, 04:06 AM

I will say this HD Thanks for keeping it all in one thread!!!!

BB:thumbs:

**homedawg** · 09-19-2008, 04:28 PM

**homedawg** · 09-19-2008, 04:31 PM

**homedawg** · 09-19-2008, 04:34 PM

**homedawg** · 09-19-2008, 04:51 PM

**homedawg** · 09-19-2008, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by dananderson32

and foreign policy i believe is issue #4 of importance right now to the voters and i believe was 11% of those polled their #1 issue

and to quote james carville "its the economy stupid"

Dan, when you increase business in your snow shoveling and dairy queen, you will hire more people. Same thing goes in any business, when it grows, hire more people! When your earnings get to a point, where your % of net income is less, because of the tax increase, you lay off people, or you could take your business offshore! There is alot of snow to be plowed and Ice Cream to be served outside the U.S.A. :thumbs:

**homedawg** · 09-19-2008, 06:15 PM

**homedawg** · 09-19-2008, 06:41 PM

**homedawg** · 09-19-2008, 07:07 PM

Slick Willy on Palin

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nABbxEAE0X4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nABbxEAE0X4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

**dananderson32** · 09-19-2008, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by homedawg

Dan, when you increase business in your snow shoveling and dairy queen, you will hire more people. Same thing goes in any business, when it grows, hire more people! When your earnings get to a point, where your % of net income is less, because of the tax increase, you lay off people, or you could take your business offshore! There is alot of snow to be plowed and Ice Cream to be served outside the U.S.A. :thumbs:

were about to take on a trillion more dollars in debt on this so called "bail out" package if anyone thinks either candidate is going to possibly be able to lower taxes when they take a look at the situation at hand when they get in there with the national deficit, debt, and all the other things including a 6.1% unemployment rate, cutting taxes is just not an option for either candidate

**homedawg** · 09-20-2008, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by dananderson32

were about to take on a trillion more dollars in debt on this so called "bail out" package if anyone thinks either candidate is going to possibly be able to lower taxes when they take a look at the situation at hand when they get in there with the national deficit, debt, and all the other things including a 6.1% unemployment rate, cutting taxes is just not an option for either candidate

The government is already over 9trillion in debt, whats another trillion?
Americans would have ended up paying more in the long run without these bailouts. The government has a chance to profit from these bailouts. Right now, I wouldnt be looking to increase taxes, instead looking at cutting spending.

**homedawg** · 09-20-2008, 09:16 AM

Federal bailouts necessary but troubling

When is it going to stop? First, the government bails out the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It then turns around and lends $85 billion to insurance giant American International Group, which was facing bankruptcy just a few days ago. In exchange, "we, the people" now have an 80 percent stake in the company.

At a time of record national debts, it's not like we have lots of extra cash on hand to invest in such ventures.

Common wisdom tells us that the mortgage lenders were too big a part of the national economy to fail. Likewise, AIG, which insures a vast array of securities for financial institutions with operations in 130 countries, would have devastating effects on the worldwide economy if it went under.

It was a necessary evil for the government to step in. The alternatives weren't attractive. But it's still hard to stomach when you consider that AIG has been accused of making bad bets on the subprime mortgage market.

And the government bailout didn't seem to help the flagging economy, at least in the short term. One day after the Federal Reserve stepped in with the emergency loan, the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 450 points and about $700 billion in investments vanished.

It's all tied back to the mortgage lending mess, which as we know too well has resulted in declining home prices and skyrocketing foreclosures in many parts of the country.

Some analysts speculate the government actually could end up ahead with the AIG deal, as it is charging high interest on the loan. Maybe, in the long term, that will be the case.

____________________________________
The Terms of the AIG "Bailout"

The government acquires a 79.9% stake in AIG. Further, AIG has the right to borrow against an $80-85 billion credit line with LIBOR + 8.5%.

These terms are mindboggling - the government has offered AIG a LOAN of last resort, and in the process, will charge an interest rate in the area of 11-13%. AIG must pay back the money under the terms of the current agreement.

AIG was too big to let fail

AIG has $1 trillion in assets. It provided insurance to millions, including tens of thousands of companies. If AIG failed, companies would suddenly be left with no protection against their various misadventures. AIG's failure would lead to more bankruptcies.

It is regrettable that the situation is so dire. But the AIG "bailout" will not cost the taxpayer money...instead, the government is likely to make money off of it by selling its 80% stake once the markets stabilize and charging a high interest to AIG as a lender of last resort.

Update 1:Please note the terms of the agreement. AIG is getting a loan of last resort, because nobody else would loan to them. The loan MUST be repaid.

Also note that while an individual defaulting on a mortgage is very regrettable, if AIG went bankrupt, I assure you that several other financial companies (insurance, broker-dealers and banks) would go under.

Faced with the choice between (1) providing a loan of last resort at a high interest rate and likely saving the international financial system, OR (2) letting AIG fail, bringing down several other companies leading to a financial disaster that could rival the Great Depression.

**homedawg** · 09-20-2008, 09:27 AM

President Bush says bank bailout is necessary boost to financial system
September 19, 2008
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration, moving to restore deeply shaken confidence in the nation's economy, unveiled measures today to rescue banks from billions of dollars in bad debts, taking what the president called "unprecedented action" plunging the government deeply into the financial market place.

The measures, which sent the market indexes soaring, involve emergency lending and an attack on short selling of stocks to fight downward pressure on share prices. Government officials and lawmakers are also hard at work on a plan to unfreeze the credit markets by finding a way to take billions of dollars of bad mortgage-backed assets off the books of financial institutions.

President Bush, in a statement from the White House Rose Garden, called the moves "decisive" and necessary to "get our financial system moving again."

"This is a pivotal moment for America's economy," he said. " . . . There will be ample opportunity to debate the origins of this problem. Now is the time to solve It."

The administration's proposals will put massive amounts of taxpayer money at risk, a point the president and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson acknowledged.

"I am convinced that this bold approach will cost American families far less than the alternative: a continuing series of financial institution failures and frozen credit markets unable to fund economic expansion," Paulson told reporters at the Treasury Department.

Asked to elaborate on the size of the taxpayer exposure, Paulson said, "We're talking hundreds of billions [of dollars]. This needs to be big enough to make a real difference and get at the heart of the problem."

Democratic and Republican members of the Senate Banking Committee gathered in the Capitol this morning to demonstrate their willingness to work through the weekend on the Treasury plan, which is expected to be unveiled today after markets close.

"All of us are prepared to do whatever we can this weekend, working with the administration as they present their plan to fashion a proposal here that will get us out of this mess," said Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.).

Dodd and other key lawmakers had a long meeting Thursday night with Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke in which they were told that the only way to prevent a financial crisis that would cause deep losses to ordinary Americans was to initiate a sweeping Wall Street rescue plan.

Democrats are insisting that any such effort also include measures to ease the effects of the foreclosure crisis, which has affected millions of homeowners and is at the root of the financial turmoil.

"You cannot deal with the effects of this problem without dealing with the causes of it, and the causes still exist," Dodd said. "My hope is that this plan will not only allow us to deal with illiquid debt and obligations out there but also focus as well on bringing to a closure the foreclosure problems."

In recent days, the government has already pledged hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to shore up different sectors of the financial system: $200 billion for mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, $85 billion for insurer AIG and, earlier this year, $29 billion to fund the takeover of investment house Bear Stearns.

The emerging plan is in part an effort to prevent further piecemeal approaches to the financial crisis with one, big effort to unfreeze Wall Street's frozen credit markets.

"These illiquid assets are clogging up our financial system and undermining the strength of our otherwise sound financial institutions," Paulson said. "As a result, Americans' personal savings are threatened, and the ability of consumers and businesses to borrow and finance spending, investment and job creation has been disrupted."

In an effort to prevent the crisis from affecting ordinary Americans' pocketbooks, Paulson announced today that the government would start insuring money-market mutual funds, at least for the next year. These accounts with mutual fund companies had been considered as safe as bedrock until this week, when one fund suddenly lost money for its depositors for the first time.

Spooked because the funds are not federally insured, consumers began to withdraw funds, putting the mutual funds of other operations at risk. Government officials hope that the new insurance program will put an FDIC-style seal of approval on the funds, estimated to hold more than $2 trillion in Americans' savings.

In another action designed to calm the markets, the Securities and Exchange Commission imposed a 10-day ban on short selling of 799 financial stocks. Many analysts have accused short-selling traders of exacerbating the crisis by improperly bidding down the price of major financial stocks.

"The commission is committed to using every weapon in its arsenal to combat market manipulation that threatens investors and capital markets," SEC Chairman Christopher Cox said in a statement. "The emergency order temporarily banning short selling of financial stocks will restore equilibrium to markets. This action, which would not be necessary in a well-functioning market, is temporary in nature and part of the comprehensive set of steps being taken by the Federal Reserve, the Treasury and the Congress."

The ban on short selling can be extended if necessary, Cox said.

The government moves cheered anxious investors, and the stock market rallied more than 400 points in morning trading. The moves also reflected a dramatic reversal of long-standing administration policy to avoid stepping into the financial markets.

Bush said, however, that "government intervention is not only warranted, it is essential."

He defended the administration's actions as "targeted measures" required to meet "unprecedented challenges" and, in the end, "to preserve America's financial system" and the country's economic strength.

While the steps involve some risk to government funds, he said, the risk of failing to act -- to the housing market and beyond -- would be greater.

"These are risks that America cannot afford to take," he said."

Does America really want a change?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment