Bailout question...

[4dmin]

With the bailout discussion Dem's wanted to create sometype of guidelines to limit pay for executives on this deal... Bush and some republicans didn't think we should do this...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Bush’s agreement with Democrats on limiting pay for executives of bailed-out financial institutions and giving taxpayers an equity stake in the companies cleared a significant hurdle.

Am I missing something... big $$$ execs should stand to make $$$ off of American tax payers for bailing them out . Why is there any question? Of course there should be limitations to their pay. The big execs got these companies in these messes. This is about as bad as someone taking their gov check to buy cigarettes/booze - HELLO.

discuss.

[v-empire]

they are comfortably used to golden parachutes and retirement pensions out of the extra ordinary. this is why they went to school, and work all these years and this is why they want to be CEO. aka President.

of course the elite republicans are there to protect this. thats why the rich are rich! haha..

dont hate! eat your scum you peasants! leave my money alone.

they paid congress and the administration alot of money while in office, they have to protect it for the interest of the 'investors'.

Jack Welch made me want to be a titan and CEO!!
his retirement plan is flawless.

[4dmin]

they are comfortably used to golden parachutes and retirement pensions out of the extra ordinary. this is why they went to school, and work all these years and this is why they want to be CEO. aka President.

of course the elite republicans are there to protect this. thats why the rich are rich! haha..

dont hate! eat your scum you peasants! leave my money alone.

they paid congress and the administration alot of money while in office, they have to protect it for the interest of the 'investors'.

Jack Welch made me want to be a titan and CEO!!
his retirement plan is flawless.

i understand this but i'm just wondering how people still support these people and think they are doing our country justice... ie BUSH

i actually was told by someone they think BUSH will go down in history as one of the best presidents ever

lets reward the people that f*cked up and got us in this situation... don't make sense.

[v-empire]

this is the real world. they wont cut back on their settlements, they cant.
even though its right,

you cant save the middle income even though they deserve it.

but what you can do it alter minimal aid in order to create a butterfly effect,
changing outside markets in the distance, attracting foreign investors again and creating a stronger foundation for the near future.

this administration is very unpopular and probably the same people who voted for bush, will vote bush again in the next election. its like a bulldog vs tech syndrome for these states. some of them never even went to college but roots for them for no reason just by their influences around and swears by them.

i was sad to see clinton leave, like i didnt want him to leave, even though he was almost impeached at the end, i didnt care for that. i cared for the money i was making and everybody was having a fun orgy.

even the rich was happy, mind you.

but the rich they were happier, when they saw the next bush was going to lower their high income taxes, and well the rest was happy to see them get to buy their hunting licenses easier.



$700 billion is alot. there is alot of other options they can do with $700 billion dollars but at whose highest interest?

that money can buy out peoples foreclose home loans, built bio energy investments, funding other inhouse ROI to increase foreign investors to come back in.. etc.

i went to school for economics and from a theoretical standpoint, its a very viable option and sounds great, but the reality is we are not dealing with robots or saints... we are dealing with locust infested greed and panic and international cultures reacting in the near future.
this may boost up the economy in wall street and other international markets but i cant say how long. this is because of the nature of the boost.

all we can do is hope for the best, but i seriously think its boost is temporary and i think $700 billion dollars should be considered investing else where.
the main reason is because economic plans are not facts and the variables are never stagnant.

our $700 bailout has to be rock solid! so other investors can see it and churn the locomotive again. a no brainier plan is the best plan for investors. a fickle plan like they propose leads very fickle investors to hang on longer.

them going back and forth about pulling the trigger shows a sign of weakness, and uncertainty... IF THE STOCKS FALL A WEEK AFTER.... chaos will come again, this time thru out the globe.

[4dmin]

^ excellent post.

[Alan®]

With the bailout discussion Dem's wanted to create sometype of guidelines to limit pay for executives on this deal... Bush and some republicans didn't think we should do this...



Am I missing something... big $$$ execs should stand to make $$$ off of American tax payers for bailing them out . Why is there any question? Of course there should be limitations to their pay. The big execs got these companies in these messes. This is about as bad as someone taking their gov check to buy cigarettes/booze - HELLO.

discuss.

I agree with you . History has proved that the execs will pad their pockets in scenarios like these. Which is why I commend congress for not being willing to put all the money up front. It's about time someone called for accountability.

The big question in my mind at this point is, Will it be too little too late.

[Alan®]

this is the real world. they wont cut back on their settlements, they cant.
even though its right,

you cant save the middle income even though they deserve it.

but what you can do it alter minimal aid in order to create a butterfly effect,
changing outside markets in the distance, attracting foreign investors again and creating a stronger foundation for the near future.

this administration is very unpopular and probably the same people who voted for bush, will vote bush again in the next election. its like a bulldog vs tech syndrome for these states. some of them never even went to college but roots for them for no reason just by their influences around and swears by them.

i was sad to see clinton leave, like i didnt want him to leave, even though he was almost impeached at the end, i didnt care for that. i cared for the money i was making and everybody was having a fun orgy.

even the rich was happy, mind you.

but the rich they were happier, when they saw the next bush was going to lower their high income taxes, and well the rest was happy to see them get to buy their hunting licenses easier.



$700 billion is alot. there is alot of other options they can do with $700 billion dollars but at whose highest interest?

that money can buy out peoples foreclose home loans, built bio energy investments, funding other inhouse ROI to increase foreign investors to come back in.. etc.

i went to school for economics and from a theoretical standpoint, its a very viable option and sounds great, but the reality is we are not dealing with robots or saints... we are dealing with locust infested greed and panic and international cultures reacting in the near future.
this may boost up the economy in wall street and other international markets but i cant say how long. this is because of the nature of the boost.

all we can do is hope for the best, but i seriously think its boost is temporary and i think $700 billion dollars should be considered investing else where.
the main reason is because economic plans are not facts and the variables are never stagnant.

our $700 bailout has to be rock solid! so other investors can see it and churn the locomotive again. a no brainier plan is the best plan for investors. a fickle plan like they propose leads very fickle investors to hang on longer.

them going back and forth about pulling the trigger shows a sign of weakness, and uncertainty... IF THE STOCKS FALL A WEEK AFTER.... chaos will come again, this time thru out the globe.

Your post was most excellent indeed . The only part of your post that I have an issue with is

buy out peoples foreclose home loans,

Now I don't know exactly what you mean by this but if it's buying out these loans to keep people in their homes I have to disagree with you. While in principle it sounds good but when you examine the whole picture it's not.

IMHO everyone is involved in this mortgage crisis is at Fault. The government is at fault for not enforcing stricter regulations and the consumer is at fault by taking such a big gamble with their own lively hood.

[v-empire]

Your post was most excellent indeed . The only part of your post that I have an issue with is



Now I don't know exactly what you mean by this but if it's buying out these loans to keep people in their homes I have to disagree with you. While in principle it sounds good but when you examine the whole picture it's not.

IMHO everyone is involved in this mortgage crisis is at Fault. The government is at fault for not enforcing stricter regulations and the consumer is at fault by taking such a big gamble with their own lively hood.

you got it wrong.

while working on MBA programs it was even hard for me explain this to the class although they knew exactly what i was talking about.

its a fiscal and monetary strategic used by the govt to balance out the economic turmoil starting from the largest % of the problem.

this is a very non free market movement but stabilizing housing regulations, while revamping their own government expenditures, taxes, and debt thru the source. this in term will change the markets and coz banks to get back on their feet.

they dont really care about their damn homes or the families...lol

i was just implying there are options, i m not saying it is one of the options that will work or will not work. haha... there are other options to consider if you have $700 billion dollar loan check

i dunno what will happen?
thats beyond my pay check.

i m not smarter than these guys up there.

but however, today i am convinced, i am smarter than Sarah Palin, altho i do like her and feel bad for her, that i am smarter.

[Alan®]

you got it wrong.

while working on MBA programs it was even hard for me explain this to the class although they knew exactly what i was talking about.

its a fiscal and monetary strategic used by the govt to balance out the economic turmoil starting from the largest % of the problem.

this is a very non free market movement but stabilizing housing regulations, while revamping their own government expenditures, taxes, and debt thru the source. this in term will change the markets and coz banks to get back on their feet.

they dont really care about their damn homes or the families...lol

i was just implying there are options, i m not saying it is one of the options that will work or will not work. haha... there are other options to consider if you have $700 billion dollar loan check

i dunno what will happen?
thats beyond my pay check.

i m not smarter than these guys up there.

but however, today i am convinced, i am smarter than Sarah Palin, altho i do like her and feel bad for her, that i am smarter.

I didnt think thats what you meant but I thought I would throw my stance on something like that

[Verik]

i was sad to see clinton leave, like i didnt want him to leave, even though he was almost impeached at the end, i didnt care for that. i cared for the money i was making and everybody was having a fun orgy.

You also can't deny that Clinton left us with one of the original catalysts of the credit crisis. The burst of the technology bubble left serious implications and the Fed's lowering of interest rates (to as low as 1% iirc) turned investor's eyes towards the real estate market. Clinton left office with possibly one of the worst bursts in the stock market in decades.... So please don't over-glorify the economy during his administration's reign.

[green91]

Honestly i could give a **** about the "bailout" persay. My greatest concern is the money being concentrated to where it will increase consumer confidence the most. Anything that will improve our economic conditions and increase consumer spending is worth taking a tax burden for, imo.. but paying for negligence and greed isn't. Regardless of whether/how this bailout goes through, i hope that these guys are criminally investigated.

[Verik]

note, 2 of the guys being investigated for financial fraud are working as advisors for the obama campaign. (they made some 90$ million working at freddie may or some other financial institution, don't remember to clearly.... ill be back with sources)...

[4dmin]

note, 2 of the guys being investigated for financial fraud are working as advisors for the obama campaign. (they made some 90$ million working at freddie may or some other financial institution, don't remember to clearly.... ill be back with sources)...

you don't want to go there b/c McCain has the same working for him and republicans are the ones who don't want limitations on big execs earnings w/ this bailout... we can even dip into our own administration on this issue

[Alan®]

you don't want to go there b/c McCain has the same working for him and republicans are the ones who don't want limitations on big execs earnings w/ this bailout... we can even dip into our own administration on this issue

People really need to realize that this isn't a partisan issue the blame is equal on both sides of the isle here

[4dmin]

People really need to realize that this isn't a partisan issue the blame is equal on both sides of the isle here

the problem we are in isn't a partisan issue, but the fact of the matter is that republicans are not for dems limitations on execs earnings. that no matter how you spin it is just wrong. take tax payers money to bail out your friends and don't put limitations on it... hmmm :idb:<<< thats exactly what reps are trying to do to tax payers.

[v-empire]

You also can't deny that Clinton left us with one of the original catalysts of the credit crisis. The burst of the technology bubble left serious implications and the Fed's lowering of interest rates (to as low as 1% iirc) turned investor's eyes towards the real estate market. Clinton left office with possibly one of the worst bursts in the stock market in decades.... So please don't over-glorify the economy during his administration's reign.

the legacy of an administration stands while the administration is in office. there is no point in speculating after, they left us with a bad position or what not.


after the term... well, its up to the new administration to figure out how grow from there, am i not right? or should we blame the new guy for not being competent enough to foresee new changes. that's their bloody job. to continue to grow and get better.

clinton took over office with a bad economy.

reagan took over a ****ty economy.

[Verik]

the legacy of an administration stands while the administration is in office. there is no point in speculating after, they left us with a bad position or what not.


after the term... well, its up to the new administration to figure out how grow from there, am i not right? or should we blame the new guy for not being competent enough to foresee new changes. that's their bloody job. to continue to grow and get better.

clinton took over office with a bad economy.

reagan took over a ****ty economy.

Your right but when things that have been building up for the entire administration's reign and finally bust in the final year of the administration (1999-2000), then please don't say it's bush's fault for not properly adapting his administration to it.... I'm not defending him, I am simply stating that Clinton has been over-glorified and no one likes to describe the ball of **** his administration turned our economy into (which we finally saw emerge the last year of his presidency and with what he left for the next president).

If you switched the positions of Bush and Clinton and had the same events happen, all you'd hear about is how Bush left this steaming pile on Clinton's desk and how the current bad economy is simply the best Clinton could have done to prevent it from being worse.

Stop thinking about names and parties for a minute and realize that the administration from 92-00 left us with one of the worst economic situations since the Great Depression (and were the catalyst for putting us into the chain of events that happened. I'm not blaming the dot com bust for how the current administration and alan greenspan handled things during the first part of this decade, but it was certainly the start of the hard fall we have taken these past 8 years). You cannot defer the blame of the Dot-Com bust and say it wasn't forseeable... Warren Buffet (Berkshire Hathaway, CEO), named the world's greatest investor, saw through the technology cloud and thus when the dot-com busted he came out ahead of everyone else. So your saying no one else realized what he was saying wasn't crazy? There were measures that could have been taken to prevent that kind of growth. As an economics major you must have learned the harder you climb, the harder you fall, that's the cyclical nature of things....

[v-empire]

i m not blaming bush as much as the administration. in fact it doesnt even affect me in my industry or businesses. i m just an outsider just like any other tool on here.

however from your suggestion, we might as well give credit when someone fails after a great run, each time.

just doesnt make any sense to assume the latter days has caused us crappy future.


simple analogy, maybe not completely accurate in example.

when steve jobs left apple, they were on top of the world.
they crumbled shortly after he left.
did he leave apple with an over inflated artificial growth?

IBM took over as microsoft won the hearts of consumers.

Steve jobs come back to apple.. and we ve got now one of the greatest investments you could have purchased when he came back in.

we dont go back, we move forward. Bush's admins incompetence cannot be pushed somewhere else. its their job. dont run for office if you cant step up to the plate to take the heat because you are not qualified.

the higher you climb the lower you fall or even in stagnant markets, variables change. its your duty as president/ ceo/ economist/ financial analyst/ etc to change the formulas as we go along. as commander and chief and teams of advisors, they sit down to discuss risk and strategy.

thats what they get paid to do. warren buffet is the richest man in the world and he foresaw all this and makes money even in a down turned economy.

that just shows what clinton and warren bufet did in 92-00, worked for that decade.

again in 00-08, what warren buffet did worked for this decade also. why?

because he changed his equation variables/ investments and planning based on speculations even in a crappy market... etc.

*based on bloody speculations!!*

u r telling me a single dude sitting there watching and speculating knew what to do to make his ROI even greater, and the administration in charge of this wasnt even warned till 5 days ago?



"oh well, we were left with a bubble about to burst......."


but we never saw it till last weekend.

[tony]

I do have one question about this bail out. For those who have foreclosed or have negative marks on their credit for not making payments on their house.. after the taxpayers have bought these mortgages will those Foreclosures be erased from peoples credit? Otherwise they will still owe money on mortgages that the American people have purchased.

[v-empire]

there are a few ways it can be approached i m sure.
i am not so in tuned with the regulations of the real estate policies and options.

the main objective is not the consumer and their homes.

main concern is to bail out larger investment banks and loans.
the govt will be buying over the foreclosures to retain stability in the financing markets.

this gives a push on the back for the banks to restructure and re loan the money to confident investors.

i dont think defaulted home owner's credit will be helped because it is what it is and other lenders must know that to make future lending decisions more accurate.

i would assume their payments will be done as they already have defaulted on the loan, but they have an option to refinance with a new govt loan ( since the govt would own it) or they lose the house and be leased or sold to another investor/home buyer .

i dunno. but main objective is to get large banks back on their feet.