Then you know how (the democrat) they why (constituents) the when and the how they basically precipated this crises.  WHile some did it for graft and bribery, the majority just saw it as a plum for their constituents.  And any cxriticism - from the regulators and auditors no less!  - was met with a witch hunt.  This is not a distortion.  These are the simple facts.  It is not left or right wing - unless you are looking at the why.  Facts are not slanted, so you dont have to "inject" fairness into what is essentially politics as usual.

And before you shout - they both do it - the problem is not who does it or when.  But in trying to cover up why, when where and how it happend - so that it will happen again.

Of course they do as i have said many times before. When does matter because unfortunately the when is usually during election season.

Yes almost all Senators and Representatives believe something needs to be done because their campaigns for re-election depend on something being done so that their big contributors are there for them.  I disagree that this is a decision that "us Americans" don't have a say in, write your representatives to show just how much you dislike this bailout.  It may not end up doing any good but remember that every single member of the House and 1/3rd of the Senate are up for re-election this year, if you ask me anyone who votes for the bailout doesn't deserve to get re-elected.

To be honest I'm rather surprised at how little bickering there is over this issue.  Yes there is finger pointing, but there is far less than I had expected.

The solution is to NOT do anything.  Yes not bailing them out is going to cause problems, some banks will fail, hard times will be ahead but those hard times will not last as long as the hard times that will result from this bailout.  The long term effects of this bailout are going to cause problems for the average American for years to come, and honestly very little is being done to actually fix anything.  The underlying cause of this crisis isn't really being addressed and until it is this crisis is going to keep on cropping up and getting worse and worse.

Yes I know the rich pay more taxes than I do, but who is going to be more impacted by the inflation that results from the size of the bailout?  The poor and middle class.

No I'm not an economic expert, but I have taken the time to research the implication of the bailout and there are experts out there who think this bailout is a bad idea (they have been quoted in various news publications over the past couple of weeks).  And anyone with a rudamentary understanding of how inflation works can see that this bailout is going to have wide reaching implications.  And as far as being in DC, I have a job and need to be at work so that I can afford to pay my bills, I have done my part by writing my representatives and if they don't listen then I will not vote for them in November.

I agree the lower and middle income class (I think we need to stop calling them poor because poor most are not) will and currently are being affected. But guess who got themselves in this dielmma in the first place? We can't ignore that most of these people knew they were getting themselves into this but chose to ignore it just to get that big house they wanted so bad (I mean, how can you not know you can't afford that house you are getting?). Or those who were doing the whole "flip this house" thing that are now screwed as well. I find it ironic to think that one works hard to earn a decent living or an above decent living only to give up some (a lot) of that hard earned money to pay for the poor choices of those in middle and lower income classes and then be told one does not pay enough and one earns too much. Not to mention that being rich somehow means that you did not work for it because your job does not require sweat and heavy lifting and stuff. I guess responsibility does not equal hard work these days.

The way I see it, again I say, everyone had their hands dirty on this one. Guilt by association I guess you can call it. I would rather we not bail them out at all, but I am not sure what damage that could cause and I am no expert in this topic so I prefer we do something if the damage for not doing anything, in the hopes it all works itself out, could be a disaster for us and the world. What would be the point of saving our tax dollars if our economy goes to hell anyways? We need to do what I necessary even if it means going against what the majority want. After all, not everyone in this country is educated enough to know any better, they are simply reacting to the idea of their money being used and possibly never see it returned. Can't blame them for thinking this way. I also see a lot of "well we are simply giving them money allowing them to do this again" comments. What I think about that is if we do bail them out and allow them to continue, then we are a lousy country and deserve to be screwed, we don't deserve the position of the most powerful nation today if we can't avoid this disaster from happening again.

I don't deny that the so-called victims of the sub-prime mortgage meltdown deserve what they get to some extent.  They made poor financial decisions and they deserve to lose their homes.  My point is that the tax payers shouldn't be burdened with bailing out the banks who continued to lend to people they knew could never afford to pay the mortgage or the home owners who continued to borrow when they knew they couldn't afford it.  What's the point in a credit rating if you're just going to ignore it and give the person the money anyway?  These banks knew the risks they were taking in lending money to people who couldn't afford the mortgages and I shouldn't be made to feel the burden for the mistakes of others.  What should have happened a year or so ago when the sub-prime mortgage meltdown started was the banks involved, no matter how difficult it was going to be, should have sat down with the mortgagees and worked out deals that would be beneficial for all involved even if it meant offering a fixed rate mortgage with a term of 80-100 years.  It would have been in both the banks and the mortgagees best interest to do that.  The banks chose not to do anything and now they are suffering and should be made to continue suffering since they did nothing to prevent this mess.

And that is the problem....People like you dont know how this affects you. So they all called their congressmen and said vote no and the congressmen who are up for reelection voted in a way they think will protect their reelection.

So 1 trillion was lost in the markets today....And that's mostly from Main St. because the people who understand this have already isolated themselves from a market downturn. And everyday this keeps going on more and more people will lose their jobs because the credit market is frozen so overnight lending is not happening and businesses that rely on this will close their doors.

The day to day fluctuations in the stock market aren't something to get all worked up over.  Yes yesterday was the single largest point loss ever, but guess what today the market is up.  The thing to watch in the stock market is trends over a period of months not days because the market is very fickle.

There needs to be a serious market correction because the market has been over-inflated for far too long.  Yes that correction is going to be painful and people are going to lose their jobs but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary.  Money and credit has been far to easy to come by over the past 10 years or so and as a result people started to live outside their means.  The notion of saving money up to make big purchases was lost and we as a country need to get that back, and that applies to businesses as well as individuals.

I have been. Thats why I have been playing mostly the downside for a few years. The Federal Reserve is contracting the money supply. If you are smart you will research the history of fractional reserve banking, the central banks, and The Federal Reserve. The Fed made credit easy on purpose and they are about to take it all away. We just went through the roaring 20's and they are about to follow through and repeat history. Doing nothing will make things worse very quickly. Passing this bill is not a solution but will give many a chance to change things. It has been changed enough from the original plan, which was basically extortion to something that will hopefully recapitalize the banks long enough to fix some of the problems without the taxpayer footing the whole bill.

The market is currnetly not overinflated it is broken. The Fed Reserves heavy hand over govt has purposely caused a panic to try to get 700 billion out of the people....one way or another.

Who exactly do you think control the Federal Reserve?

How are they doing that? And who is controlling it?

I am asking for further clarification from you.  I think you have part of the answer, and El-D has much of it.

Really?  So by contracting the money supply you mean tossing billions of dollars into the system?  That isn't contracting anything.  Now I can almost guarantee that the Fed will start contracting the money supply in the near future, but they certainly aren't doing that right now.

That's kinda the point.  Do nothing now, get the worst of it over as quickly as possible so that we can move on and rebuild the economy rather than extending the pain over several years and delay the inevitable.

The market isn't broken.  It's going through a correction, albeit a very painful one but a correction nonetheless.  The market will pull out of this just fine, it will just take some time.

The Federal Reserve is controled by a board of governors that care about big business.

Warburg, Rothschild, Morgan, Chase, and Rockerfeller would be a few examples of family lines with banking interests.

They froze overnight lending. That is why we need this bailout. The Fed Reserve can turn 700 billion into 7 trillion overnight.

It is broken. Nobody knows which companies are exposed to mbs's. Nobody knows which companies are cooking their books. Nobody knows whether companies are properly valuing their assets so investors don't know if they are leveraged properly.

Regardless, finger-pointing doesn't solve problems - save that for the investigation once things are okay.

I say let them burn.  It may hurt us, but a record of saving the butt of people who failed in business will hurt too.  Fact: If there is a necessary service like this that must be provided, someone else will step up and provide it.

The joy of capitalism - no one and no business is indespensable.

What you don't understand is that it isnt a matter of letting them burn. The wealthiest will not burn one way or the other. The average american is the one who will burn. The bailout is not a bailout for Wall St. It is a bailout for the whole economy by recapitalizing the banks. Banks are what capitalism is based around.

Uh, no.  They may control some banks, but not the Feds.  But at least you did not say Congress or Bush.

Questionable on the last part (although they can do a lot of damage).  We dont need the bail out.  And they can only freeze their own over night lending (which would be significant, but not devastating).

All in all, the Feds should be little seen and never heard.  Unfortunately they are both these days (seen and heard).  Some give way to much weight to them, and so the market reacts violently (until the smart money then buys out the suckers).

The Feds are a jewelers tool, not a sledge hammer.  It was never meant to be (but I will agree thatt many - including the Chairman of late - seem to look at it thusly).

I agree.  INvestment is a risk, and has to be, that is why you can make a killing or lose your shirt.  If we take the down side risk out of it, then no one is going to invest wisely, and that will do a lot more damage than a temporary setback.  That is all this all really is.  Some say a new depression - like mostly the short sellers who want to profit from the panic.  It is none of those.  It is true financial darwinism, and we have to let the stupids fail, or we risk everyone failing from of course "good intentions".

NO!  Definitely wrong!  The FDIC will make sure the average joe is fine, but Daddy Warbucks gets hurt.  The Bailout is about the fat cats (and through trickle down - that which many do not like - the little guy will suffer in the short term).  The Nailout is all about the fat cats, and not the average joe.  AIG was a different animal, but then it is not a bank or a bailout.

What do you think the Federal Reserve banks are? The Board of Govenors control monetary policy but that is it.The funds in the reserve banks are the reserve funds that private banks keep at their local Reserve Banks. And if you dont think they have ultimate control of this money then you are a fool.

Like I said you better do some research on the history of not only The Federal Reserve,but also prior central and reserve banks.

Not really. Or do you think everyone should or can move their IRA's, 401K's, Pension Funds etc. to FDIC insured investments?

However you might want to look at what it provides for investment services, which includes an FDIC insured Bank,and mortgage services. It certainly was a bailout.

That's not a broken market, that's broken companies.  And how exactly is a bailout of any size going to fix the problems you identify here?  Whether they are bailed out or not noone will know if they are cooking the books or properly valueing their assets.  And if companies are cooking the books then they deserve to fail not be rescued.

You are correct that the FDIC doesn't insure the IRAs, 401K's and pension funds, but the bailout isn't going to address those either.  The market will rebound, it may just take a couple years so yes people depending on retirement funds may need to find other sources of income for a while but they will survive, it's not like the bailout is actually going to help them.

DEPOSITS.  Why are people so obtuse!  If yoru IRA or 401K is in a DEPOSIT it is insured (and how many are there?).  If it is in stokcs, that is because they want greater returns, and with that comes RISK.  The government is not there to change yoru frigging diaper.  If you are so damn worried, stuff it under your mattress!

Apparently you dont know.  It is the Banks bank,  As such it can influence banks to some degree, but not run them.  Fore someone calling others fools, perhaps you had best get your head out of the space ship and stop spouting assinine statements.  The "funds" are just the reserves the banks are required to keep by law, not the property of the Fed.  Do you think your lawyer can spend your trust fund?  They have a lot of influence over the money supply, but do not "control" it any more than you control speed limits in your city.  Get real, and get off the insults.

Then every time you sell a house and take back a second, you are bailing out the borrower?  Yea right!  AIG MIGHT cost some money, but what it is - is just an investment.  And a pretty damn good one.  Like the one Warren Buffet did with Goldman Sachs - he bailed them out, right?

And who cares about the Bank?  Seriously are you going to use 7 degrees of separation every time someone craps a turd?

I didn't say it was I said the BANKS ultimately control it, that is why credit is frozen and the fed has to come to the taxpayer for more. You would have realized that if you understood what I meant by saying "The Fed only control monetary policy" But as usual you once again jump the gun only to shoot yourself in the foot.

Who says im worried? Like I said before I've been playing the downside for a while now. No worries here. But I do know that it is much more constructive when there is an upside to play. But until recently there was no upside, and there are still problems looking for the upside because there is no transparency.

Hopefully but we will see what happens when they reveal what exposure they have to the various derivative markets and what is to be had as they sell off the various pieces of it.They were leveraged 11 to 1. If you look at a good Ins. business you will see 2 to 1 without it being leveraged by hard to understand non liquid assets.

Buffett did a very diffent thing. He kept them liquid and expects the taxpayer to buy some of their bad assets.

I think you need to reread what you wrote.  And stop "fool"ing yourself.

The only difference is that it is not the government doing it.  It is the same deal.  A smart investment.  So far (and note the tense) that is all AIG is as well, not a bailout.  That has yet to be passed by congress.

Theres a huge difference. AIG insures a lot of things INCLUDING mortgage backed securities, It also has a subsidiary that wrote insurance in the form of CDS's which basically insures losses on loans and debt. I believe these policies run to the tune of about 500 billion. This is what the Fed needed to keep solvent. The same goes for Bears Sterns. They are also in the business of selling insurance in the form of CDS's. These CDS are what  banks use to hedge against loan losses.

http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/04/02/credit-default-swaps-a-50-trillion-problem/

This is what the Treasury is trying to keep from unfolding, by getting the mbs's out of the banks and essentially off book while the housing market stabilizes so they can figure out what needs to be done for the long term. 

No, as I was not talking about their types of business, only the form of the rescue (neither was a bailout - they both have to get their crap together with the good and the bad).

Both were kept solvent not through a bail out, but by what amounts to a bunch of junk bonds.  That apparently not only wall street, but savvy investors think is worth the risk.

Bailout in economics and finance is a term used to describe a situation where a bankrupt or nearly bankrupt entity, such as a corporation or a bank, is given a fresh injection of liquidity, in order to meet its short term obligations. Often bailouts are by governments, or by consortia of investors who demand control over the entity as the price for injecting funds.

DOH

r