Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
One question I have about the new House Republican plan, if banks can't afford to move the bad debts off their books, then how do they pay real money to insure those loans when they don't have it? That's just a nit picky potential flaw I could see with the new plan.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________ KOC Rules!
Yuma's Dad RIP 03/22/07
I still have a gut feeling Shaq will be better next season (2008/2009) after our docs have a full off season to work their magic on the Big Saguaro!
Actually the GOP wants more regulation on how the 700 billion is spent. Dems want no regulation.
I dont want it done at all unless there is a guarentee that we get it all back and then some. Banks can take loans at the same rates we get them .
How would you propose that banks take loans at the same rates we get them? Banks issue loans to customers at rates slightly higher than they are able to get in order to profit. What would be the business plan of a bank that just passed the buck?
One question I have about the new House Republican plan, if banks can't afford to move the bad debts off their books, then how do they pay real money to insure those loans when they don't have it? That's just a nit picky potential flaw I could see with the new plan.
This plan offers federal insurance to private corporations that agree to buy up bad debt - not move them off their books.
The house republicans are the only ones acting sane right now. They aren't swallowing Bush and Paulson's vile plan, and the Dems and others are trying to shove it down their throats.
Why is it ok to go along with Bush now?? Why do the house republicans who are saying "we can't let the taxpayers hold the bag" and that they have hundreds of economists saying DON'T DO THIS!!, all of the sudden they become the bad guys? Hell, if they succeed in getting this altered to where it is less insane, I want their names so I can write them congratulatory letters.
__________________
I'm the anti-TNT. I don't do drama.
This plan offers federal insurance to private corporations that agree to buy up bad debt - not move them off their books.
I saw on TV that the private companies have to buy the insurance. They are already having liquidity problems. Spending their available cash only makes that worse. I did have a question as to who was providing the insurance. Thanks for clearing that up.
__________________ KOC Rules!
Yuma's Dad RIP 03/22/07
I still have a gut feeling Shaq will be better next season (2008/2009) after our docs have a full off season to work their magic on the Big Saguaro!
The house republicans are the only ones acting sane right now. They aren't swallowing Bush and Paulson's vile plan, and the Dems and others are trying to shove it down their throats.
Why is it ok to go along with Bush now?? Why do the house republicans who are saying "we can't let the taxpayers hold the bag" and that they have hundreds of economists saying DON'T DO THIS!!, all of the sudden they become the bad guys? Hell, if they succeed in getting this altered to where it is less insane, I want their names so I can write them congratulatory letters.
I feel like you do, EXCEPT, no one is saying if the House Republicans plan is any better, or if it will work. I want those 200 economists to weigh in on that plan before I rush to congratulate them.
__________________ KOC Rules!
Yuma's Dad RIP 03/22/07
I still have a gut feeling Shaq will be better next season (2008/2009) after our docs have a full off season to work their magic on the Big Saguaro!
Well, I strongly disagree with your take, Donald. Again, I am of the belief that the bailout is a long run loser anyways, but the Dems and Reps that did work together over the past week have absolutely EVISCERATED the Bush-Paulson plan.
My take is that the original plan that was put forth was deliberately unrealstic. Let me analogize this to the car industry. Say you go to the dealership and you fall in love with, say, a 2005 Civic. You go in for the four square and the salesman says that with $5000 down, your payments are ONLY $650 a month for 48 months and that you just need to sign the paperwork and the car is yours. Huh?!?!?!? Those terms are RIDICULOUS, so you hit the ceiling. Well, that tactic is intentional in the car business. While you were thinking you could get the car for $300 per month with you $1000 down, which is realistic, now you will drive off somewhere in the middle.
The Bush Admin did this exact tactic and the Dems and Reps had to be peeled off the ceiling. Again, I am against a bailout and this is admitedly a worse bailout plan than one that would have been put forth had they been working independently of the Bush Administration's proposal, but you have to give both parties credit on this. This was the ultimate shell game by Bushco....
Can someone explain the rational for this inclusion into the House Republican Bill?
Quote:
"We've not seen any way to getting majority [Republican] support," said Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), a leading Republican vote counter and co-author of the alternative House GOP plan, which would also cut taxes on dividends and capital gains.
Well, I strongly disagree with your take, Donald. Again, I am of the belief that the bailout is a long run loser anyways, but the Dems and Reps that did work together over the past week have absolutely EVISCERATED the Bush-Paulson plan.
My take is that the original plan that was put forth was deliberately unrealstic. Let me analogize this to the car industry. Say you go to the dealership and you fall in love with, say, a 2005 Civic. You go in for the four square and the salesman says that with $5000 down, your payments are ONLY $650 a month for 48 months and that you just need to sign the paperwork and the car is yours. Huh?!?!?!? Those terms are RIDICULOUS, so you hit the ceiling. Well, that tactic is intentional in the car business. While you were thinking you could get the car for $300 per month with you $1000 down, which is realistic, now you will drive off somewhere in the middle.
The Bush Admin did this exact tactic and the Dems and Reps had to be peeled off the ceiling. Again, I am against a bailout and this is admitedly a worse bailout plan than one that would have been put forth had they been working independently of the Bush Administration's proposal, but you have to give both parties credit on this. This was the ultimate shell game by Bushco....
I thought pulling off 9/11th would remain in the #1 shell game slot...
The house republicans are the only ones acting sane right now. They aren't swallowing Bush and Paulson's vile plan, and the Dems and others are trying to shove it down their throats.
Why is it ok to go along with Bush now?? Why do the house republicans who are saying "we can't let the taxpayers hold the bag" and that they have hundreds of economists saying DON'T DO THIS!!, all of the sudden they become the bad guys? Hell, if they succeed in getting this altered to where it is less insane, I want their names so I can write them congratulatory letters.
Can someone explain the rational for this inclusion into the House Republican Bill?
I believe (and understand that I don't understand the long term benefit of it) it is because every single economist I have seen on CNN has said that one of the major things that HAS to be done is to eliminate the capital gains tax NOW.
Now compare this to Obama's plan to double the capital gains tax and I really wonder where he is getting his advice from.
__________________
Bob Melvin is an idiot. Period.
Brad Puffer, NECN) - As bailout talks continue into the weekend in Washington D.C., there are economists who are urging lawmakers to slow down. The Bush Administration has been telling congress that time is of the essence.
"Five pages of the leading economists in America"
Senator Richard Shelby held up a letter Thursday, signed by more than 200 economists - insisting the Paulson plan won't work. One of those economists is Harvard Professor Oliver Hart.
Prof Oliver Hart
"If you throw money at a problem you will probably going to make that particular problem better but you may be worse off because of the costs."
That cautionary note is one reason House Republicans have held up negotiations - pushing forward alternative plans.
"Rather than buying these bad assets one could take equity positions in financial institutions or lend to them"
Many of the nations top economists are in DC right now, whispering in the ears of Congress. Among them: MIT Professor Simon Johnson.
"Everybody is focused on getting it done so they can get home but I don't think that's the answer they have to work on a really comprehensive decisive solution and that's not what is on the table."
But fixing the underlying problem will take time. And Babson College finance Professor Michael Goldstein says time is running out. He says the longer we wait the greater impact to the economy.
Michael Goldstein
"Sometimes in a crisis you can't make the best plan but you can make a plan and we kind of at that point."
Still at Harvard, Professor Hart is joined by many colleagues who don't buy into the gloom and doom predictions.
"That argument can always be used to scare people and say if you don't do something right now the world is going to end but I think if you look at the economy historically it's actually pretty robust and things don't collapse overnight."
Linear Mode
