Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 90 comments | Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Stocks tumble as bailout plan fails in House
Originally published 03:39 p.m., September 29, 2008
Updated 10:19 p.m., September 29, 2008
NEW YORK – The failure of the bailout package in Congress literally dropped jaws on Wall Street and triggered a historic selloff — including a terrifying decline of nearly 500 points in mere minutes as the vote took place, the closest thing to panic the stock market has seen in years.
The Dow Jones industrial average lost 777 points Monday, its biggest single-day fall ever, easily beating the 684 points it lost on the first day of trading after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
As uncertainty gripped investors, the credit markets, which provide the day-to-day lending that powers business in the United States, froze up even further.
At the New York Stock Exchange, traders watched with faces tense and mouths agape as TV screens showed the House vote rejecting the Bush administration’s $700 billion plan to buy up bad debt and shore up the financial industry.
Activity on the trading floor became frenetic as the “sell” orders blew in. The selling was so intense that just 162 stocks on the Big Board rose, while 3,073 dropped.
The Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Composite Index recorded a paper loss of $1 trillion across the market for the day, a first.
The Dow industrials, which were down 210 points at 1:30 p.m. EDT, nose-dived as traders on Wall Street and investors across the country saw “no” votes piling up on live TV feeds of the House vote.
By 1:42 p.m., the decline was 292 points. Then the bottom fell out. Within five minutes, the index was down about 700 points as it became clear the bill was doomed.
“How could this have happened? Is there such a disconnect on Capitol Hill? This becomes a problem because Wall Street is very uncomfortable with uncertainty,” said Gordon Charlop, managing director with Rosenblatt Securities.
“The bailout not going through sends a signal that Congress isn’t willing to do their part,” he added.
While investors didn’t believe that the plan was a cure-all and it could take months for its effects to be felt, most market watchers believed it was at least a start toward setting the economy right and unlocking credit.
“Clearly something needs to be done, and the market dropping 400 points in 10 minutes is telling you that,” said Chris Johnson, president of Johnson Research Group. “This isn’t a market for the timid.”
Before trading even began came word that Wachovia Corp., one of the biggest banks to struggle from rising mortgage losses, was being rescued in a buyout by Citigroup Inc.
That followed the recent forced sale of Merrill Lynch & Co. and the failure of three other huge banking companies — Bear Stearns Cos., Washington Mutual Inc. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., all of them felled by bad mortgage investments.
And it raised the question: Which banks are next, and how many? The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. lists more than 110 banks in trouble in the second quarter, and the number has probably grown since.
Wall Street is contending with all of it against the backdrop of a credit market — where bonds and loans are bought and sold — that is barely functioning because of fears that anyone lending money will never be paid back.
More evidence could be found Monday in the Treasury’s three-month bill, where investors were stashing money, willing to accept the tiniest of returns simply to be sure that their principal would survive. The yield on the three-month bill was 0.15 percent, down from 0.87 percent and approaching zero, a level reached last week when fear was also running high.
Analysts said the government needs to find a way to help restore confidence in the markets.
“It’s probably fair to say that we are not going to see any significant stability in the credit markets or the stock market until we see some sort of rescue package passed,” said Fred Dickson, director of retail research for D.A. Davidson & Co.
The bailout bill failed 228-205 in the House, and Democratic leaders said the House would reconvene Thursday in hopes of a quick vote on a revised bill.
“We need to put something back together that works,” Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said. “We need it as soon as possible.”
The Dow fell 777.68 points, just shy of 7 percent, to 10,365.45, its lowest close in nearly three years. The decline also surpasses the record for the biggest decline during a trading day — 721.56 at one point on Sept. 17, 2001, when the market reopened after 9/11.
In percentage terms, it was only the 17th-biggest decline for the Dow, far less severe than the 20-plus-percent drops seen on Black Monday in 1987 and before the Great Depression.
Broader stock indicators also plummeted. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index declined 106.62, or nearly 9 percent, to 1,106.39. It was the S&P’s largest-ever point drop and its biggest percentage loss since the week after the October 1987 crash.
The Nasdaq composite index fell 199.61, more than 9 percent, to 1,983.73, its third-worst percentage decline. The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies fell 47.07, or 6.7 percent, to 657.72.
A huge drop in oil prices was another sign of the economic chaos that investors fear. Light, sweet crude fell $10.52 to settle at $96.36 on the New York Mercantile Exchange as investors feared energy demand would continue to slide amid further economic weakness. And gold, where investors flock when they need a relatively secure investment, rose $23.20 to $911.70 on the Nymex.
Marc Pado, U.S. market strategist at Cantor Fitzgerald, said investors are worried about the spread of troubles beyond banks in the U.S. to Europe and other markets.
“Things are dying and breaking apart,” he said.
The federal Office of Thrift Supervision, one of the government’s banking regulators, indicated that the market was overreacting to the House vote and that its fears about the financial system are misplaced.
“There is an irrational financial panic taking place today, and we support and applaud the continuing efforts of Secretary Paulson and congressional leadership to restore liquidity and public confidence,” John Reich, Director of the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, said in a statement.
The plan would have placed caps on pay packages of top executives that accepted help from the government, and included assurances the government would ultimately be reimbursed by the companies for any losses.
The Treasury would have been permitted to spend $250 billion to buy banks’ risky assets, giving them a much-needed cash infusion. There also would be another $100 billion for use at the president’s discretion and a final $350 billion if Congress signs off.
But Wall Street found further reason for worry overseas. Three European governments agreed to a $16.4 billion bailout for Fortis NV, Belgium’s largest retail bank, and the British government said it was nationalizing mortgage lender Bradford & Bingley, which has a $91 billion mortgage and loan portfolio. It was the latest sign that the credit crisis has spread beyond the U.S.
___
On the Net:
New York Stock Exchange: http://www.nyse.com
Nasdaq Stock Market: http://www.nasdaq.com
Business Writers Joe Bel Bruno in New York and Christopher S. Rugaber in Washington contributed to this report.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by TheDude (Michael Wells) on September 29, 2008 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You reap what you sow ....
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 4:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
That's true, unfortunately some of us are reaping what OTHERS sowed.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I blame both Democrats and Republicans in Congress for playing politics at the expense of our country. At a time of great crisis, all we can ask is that our elected leaders come together in a bipartisan way to find the best solution that protects ordinary Americans - not just Wall Street. At first, it appeared that was going to happen. The original proposal from the Bush administration was modified to include oversight, limits on corporate salaries, and the possibility that taxpayers could eventually profit from this bailout. These were the provisions outlined and agreed to by both Obama and McCain that they believed should be included in this bill, yet the majority of Republicans and some Democrats decided it was more important to cover themselves politically by voting against a very unpopular bill. I believe this bailout is a necessary evil - and getting a solution as quickly as possible before our economy completely collapses is extremely important.
Today our "leaders" in the House failed us miserably. It is yet to be seen what the impact on our economy will be, but the largest one day drop in the Dow ever is an indication of where we're headed. Credit is still frozen, and soon small businesses will not be able to make payroll and people may start losing their jobs. Some say credit cards won't work and nobody will be able to get loans of any kind if no bill is passed soon.
In my opinion, the biggest failure of leadership falls directly on the shoulders of John McCain. Earlier today John McCain tried to take credit for the bill passing before there was even a vote. Now the bailout bill fails in most part due to House Republican opposition who said McCain was responsible for bringing them to the table during negotiations. What kind of leadership is this on the part of McCain? He can't even get his own party members on board, and now he is trying to blame Obama? Don't be fooled by McCain's lies. The fact is that his political gimmick to "suspend" his campaign and go to Washington only interjected presidential politics into the negotiation process and hindered Congress' efforts to get a bipartisan bill passed. McCain claims that Obama tried to "phone it in" when the truth is that Barack has been involved from the very beginning and even after McCain went to Washington he went straight to his campaign office and according to his senior adviser Mark Salter "He can effectively do what he needs to do by phone.''
This is not the time for political stunts and posturing. This is a REAL crisis that deserves REAL leadership.
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 5:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Of course, on the flip side of this, if all the democrats had followed their leaders, it wouldn't have mattered how the republicans voted. They are, after all, the majority party.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 5:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree Nov, and I said that I blame both Democrats and Republicans.
At least Obama didn't try to pull a political stunt in the middle of a crisis. McCain pretended to suspend his campaign (his ads still ran, and his surrogates were on TV bashing Obama daily) and he went to Washington where he accomplished absolutely nothing other than throwing a wrench into the negotiations. In reality, both candidates had no part in this process other than to outline their proposals (which they did) and vote when the bill came to the Senate. Instead, McCain gambled that he'd get the credit for the bailout bill, and he lost.
Posted by A4RealAUTiger (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 6:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
McCain is a loser.. he has been up there for longer than i have been alive and has done absolutely nothing but play republican politics the whole time. Obama may not be the best man for the job but he is certainly better than 4 more years of George Bush which is what you will get if you elect McCain to office.
Posted by lifestyle (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How can Obama sit in church for many years under the leadership of a racist pastor and not know it. People wake up. We are about to elect malcolm x as our president...
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 7 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no doubt that McCain made a political gamble last week, and he lost. Political posturing, plain and simple. However, I think Obama was playing a game, too. Not going back to Washington was also political posturing, he was gambling that McCain would stumble on this, and he turned out to be correct. If he had thought that he could upstage McCain by going to Washington, then he would have gone. I don't find it surprising that politicians play politics, that's what they do. Pigs play in slop, that's what they do. This won't be last time that this sort of theater plays out before election day.
Although I've lost alot of money in the last few days like millions of other folks, I'm glad that this disasterous bill failed today. Now maybe we can get one that will actually address the root causes of the crisis instead of panicing and throwing billions up a wild hog's butt. Our day of reckoning is here, we need to get it right. Early last week, according to the prez and Palosi and Reid, and a lot of republicans, the world was supposed to come to an end last Friday if they didn't get a bill. It didn't. They will get it done. We'll be screwed no matter what they do, at least now maybe they're preparing to use protection.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 7:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What has Bama overtly done to promote racism, hatred, and violence? He was born to a christian mother and a muslim father. He was raised by white grandparents in Hawaii as a protestant. He tried all the things my generation has popularized,(coke,pot, and alcohol.) He atteneded Harvard, got his degree, taught constitutional law, worked as a community organizer. He married one woman and has been married to her every since. Now, my church will not allow a divorced man serve as a deacon, but they want MickeyCaine to be president. He has admitted using drugs, (speed-methamphetamine), alcohol, paying prostitutes for sex, and divorced his wife. Now, I DON'T LIKE EITHER OF THESE MEN. But, to throw a statement that we are electing Monkey X is promoting fear through racism. I'll admit I have done and said things to put me in the same category.
The issue here is a political mess that was brought on by years of irresponsible politicians and citizens. Everyone just needs to step back and settle down. I remember when the Dow hit 1200 in the late 80's. When it hit 1500 we thought the end of time was on us. When the dot com boom came and the Dow hit 10,000 we knew we had learned how to let money work for us. This will not be the end of the world. It will be a tough time like many have never seen. I saw it as a child. But, I saw my parents WORK through it. They cut back on trips, Sunday dinner at Barons restaurant, and other excesses. They loved, played, prayed, and lived. THAT is my plan. LBJ, DICK NIXON, Gerry Ford, Peanut Carter, Superman Reagan, No Clue Bush sr., Slick Willy Clinton, and That SON OF A BUSH SR. never came to our house or wrote us a paycheck. They all took our taxes and lived comfortably. They will not consume my life. They can't eat me nor live for me. So let's not try to instill fear by stupid comments like that of Mr. Monkey X.
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Could be, but it's at best disingenuous to for Obama to claim that he never heard any of the inflamatory and racist comments of his revered reverend. Could be that he slept through church, I guess. That's what I did when I used to go to church.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nov - I'll concede the point that Obama should have done more to get House Dems behind this bill if he fully supports the bailout. If McCain wanted to take credit for a bailout bill - before anyone voted - he should stand up and take responsibility for it failing.
Of course Obama is also playing politics - too many people are uninformed and against the bill so he's trying to distance himself while still looking like he's involved during a crisis (which he was). The real point is who looked most presidential and capable of leading us through this mess? Obama has been cool, calm and collected, while McCain does whatever he can to get press since he's down in the polls. When the motto of your campaign is "country first" you can't go pulling political stunts in the middle of a crisis. The result - Obama looks presidential, McCain does not.
lifestyle - Way to change the subject. Obama has continually said that he never heard any racist comments from his former pastor. He has condemned Wright's controversial statements and has left his church. I really don't understand how anyone can be held responsible for something their pastor said once when they weren't even there. If you want to play guilt-by-association, there are plenty of shady characters McCain knows and has been endorsed by such as John Hagee.
Steven - Your use of the term "Monkey X" is racist and I find it extremely offensive.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Really Nov? Why do you assume because Wright said some controversial things in a couple of sermons that he was saying the same thing every Sunday? Did your pastor say the same sermon every time? I'll bet you even heard things you disagree with - does that mean you are responsible for everything your reverend said?
This sure got off subject fast...
Posted by lifestyle (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
How can you say he was not there... He was in that congregation for years. The so-called Rev. Wright didn't just start preaching hate before this election campaign started, according to many sources wright preached in that format and fashion for years. And guess what, Obama was a member and in attendance during these years. Also, The Reverend Racist married Obama. So it does not take a rocket scientist to determine that Obama is not telling the truth.....
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Like I said, I slept through church. I probably would have found it hard to sleep through all of that hollering, though.
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kwsrgraves is an equal opportunity offender. :)
Posted by TheDude (Michael Wells) on September 29, 2008 at 8:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ASE, a week or two ago you called all McCain followers "ignorant racists". If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Posted by lifestyle (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If a white man running for president attended a KKK rally and sits in the rear and just listens, but not actively participates, Would he still be guilty by association and lynched in the Media...... Most Certainly.. He wouldn't be a presidential candidate very long. He would be holding a sign "Will Work For Food" in about a week. Just after he is crucified in our liberal Hollywood Media and investigated by the Feds..........
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lifestyle - What exactly are these "sources" - Fox News and RedState? People stay at a church for many complicated reasons, most as an obligation to the entire congregation - not just the pastor. There is absolutely zero proof that Obama attended any sermon when Wright made racist or inflammatory comments. Even if he heard Wright's racist views every Sunday, how does that make them Obama's beliefs? Are all church goers mindless sheep who can't think for themselves? Again, I can hold no man accountable for anyone's words but their own.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I meant nothing racist by it. He was like Farrakhan. Monkey see monkey do. I call Obama, Bama. The rest of the nation uses this term to describe someone who is backward thinking. I call McCaine, MickeyCaine because he is like voting for mickey mouse. My apologies to Mickey Mouse. If you took it as racist, then you are thinking in terms of racism. Malcolm X accopmlished nothing in his lifetime. Monkeys still fly in space. You're right, I should not have disgraced a monkey that way. If you're offended then you are an official citizen of the United States of the Offended. As the Eagles' song says Get Over It. The fact that someone would even compare Bama to X should also offend you.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TheDude - You need to read what I originally said and stop lying about what I've written here. Here's my original quote: "Anyone who is voting for McCain over Obama is either not paying attention to reality, is a partisan sheep, or is an ignorant racist." As you can see, I did not call ALL McCain followers ignorant racists - there are three categories that I believe McCain supporters fall under. Maybe I shouldn't have been so inflammatory with my language, but nobody has given me any other good reasons why McCain is the better choice so my opinion still remains unchanged.
Here's a link to the article where my original comment was posted.
http://www.clantonadvertiser.com/news/20...
Posted by lifestyle (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
While I do not care for either candidate very much and feel like I do not Have much of a choice in my selection, I still have to vote.. I have researched both candidates and feel everyone should do the same thing. Do not jump on the media band wagon and vote for someone just because We are making history and proving that times have changed. Vote for a candidate for the right reasons.. Regardless of race. And always remember a wolf in sheeps clothing IS STILL A WOLF. AND THAT MY FRIEND IS THE FACTS....
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Steven - Ok, got ya. But no matter what a person has said or done, anytime you compare a black man to a monkey it sounds racist.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Thanks November. If I got my feathers ruffled everytime some one said something offensive, i'd be walking around like a naked chicken. Albeit a handsome barnyard pimp I would be. That's the head cock - a - doodle - do!
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Sure doesn't take much to get called a racist around here. I've been called racist, a nazi, and accused of being a KKK member in these posts. I don't carry my feelings on my shoulder, though, so it didn't offend me. Might have temporarily ticked me off, but it didn't offend me.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Understood allseeing. Now, what is happening is Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emerites, and China are going to pick up these pieces and own the mortgages to American property. That should make everyone stop and think about this outcome. When China owns your mortgage who is going to stop them from calling notes early? These monk...clowns in Washington are going to be just as dumbfounded.
Posted by lifestyle (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)
allseeingeye---- one usually attends a church or any other organization because he/she shares the same beliefs... I think it is ridicolous of one to think that one would attend a church for numerous years and not share a common belief and philisophy that is being preached. As far as sources, Rev. Wright's former followers have attempted to talk on this subject, but THE LIBERAL MEDIA will not report it, THEY ONLY REPORT ON POSITIVE OBAMA FACTS so people like you are fooled......
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kw: I hear ya! I have always felt that if you carry your feelings or your religion on your shoulders, then you should expect them to get thumped from time to time.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lifestyle - Just because you say something doesn't make it true. Post the links to your proof that Obama has been in church when Wright said something racist. Post the links to your proof that former Wright followers are saying all of his sermons were racist. Why it isn't all over Fox News every day? I don't think you can call them the "liberal media".
Posted by A4RealAUTiger (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Personally I think that Chief Hendersen needs to run for President.. Him and Billy Joe.. they have run the city of clanton better than anyone and they are both stingy with the cities money so balancing the budget in Washington should not be a problem. They would go back to the old ways of doing things and I believe we would be better off.. DRIVER/HENDERSON 2012...
Posted by lifestyle (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There is no links........ the links are controlled by your liberal media....They are too busy reporting on the poor innocent OJ Simpson and fueling more anti-bush sentiment in our country. and of course following Obama's campaign around this country.........
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
All of this Rev Wright stuff is a distraction. Nobody should be held responsible for the opinions of someone else.
The real issue in this election is who is our best chance for change from the failed policies of the Bush administration and who's policies benefit all Americans. The fact of the matter is that John McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time. That is no "maverick". McCain's policies are the same as Bush's so if you think everything has been great for yourself and your country for the past 8 years, vote for McSame. If you want REAL change - Vote for Obama!
Posted by lifestyle (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with you a4RealAUTiger We need Billy Joe in Washington. We need Chief Henderson Chief of our Homeland Security. Together they would change Washington...........
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lifestyle - OK, so the entire Internet is controlled by the "liberal media" - riiiiiiiiiiight... I can surf up 1000 totally hateful and untrue lies about Obama right now - I guess the "liberal media" overlords of the internets missed those links.... LOL
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Of course there's always the Daily Kos.
Posted by A4RealAUTiger (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
STOP all this arguing.. Obama is going to win.. no use in fussing about it.. he is ahead in every poll and has been for some time.. Mccain is done.. roasted.. grilled.. whatever.. Obama will win.. I still say that Billy Joe could run this country.. BILLY JOE IN 2012..
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'd rather vote for him in 2008.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Treasury Secretary Paulson, former chaiman of Goldman Sachs, is wanting unlimited funds to bail out financial institution that Goldman Sachs has BILLIONS vested in. And that Son of a Bush sr. will not fire him, says mountains about the Republican scratch my back attitude. The Dems are not any better. But there is a lot more that has yet to surface. MickeyCaine and Bama have their hands so deep in the back money, that neither wants the nation to know. Political grandstanding was rampant last week. Lil George tried to help MickeyCaine but, that was like stuffung puttymin a gun barrel. And unless I was on the moon last week, Bama went to the White House also. Last time I was there that was in Washington. So both candidate
went to DC to try to "help". I personally think it was grandstanding and nothing more. Most of the negotiating is done by aids. The different parts of the bills are WRITTEN by aids. The congressmen only look and crow. There are more deals made than lawyers in the courthouse, (and that's a hel..ck of a lot)behind closed doors. This whole thing stinks and there are people making money that we will NEVER hear about.
Posted by lifestyle (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
a4realAUTiger.... Spoken like a real liberal you are. However, I doubt Billy Joe will vote for Obama.... lol
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
People still have to get out and vote. Until the election I'll happily defend my belief that Obama is the better choice and I'm armed with the truth. Luckily (if you can trust polls) it seems most people are paying attention to the FACTS to make their decision and not just rumors and smears from the wingnuts on the right.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kwsrgraves - I agree, the bailout stinks and it probably won't help anyone I know. However, I think something has to be done by the government and quickly. Did you see what the Dow did today when the bill failed? By doing nothing or acting too slowly, the Bush admin and Congress would be derelict in their duties.
Is their solution the best one? I don't know - and we'll probably never know. I certainly am no expert on the economy, so I'll leave that up to them. As I stated above, "At a time of great crisis, all we can ask is that our elected leaders come together in a bipartisan way to find the best solution that protects ordinary Americans - not just Wall Street." From what I've read, that seems to be the case - at least compared to the original plan from the Bush administration. Against all my better judgment, I have no other choice than to trust that Congress will come together and find the best way to deal with this problem. You'd think with their incredibly low approval ratings, they'd put us first for once this time. We can only hope.
As far as Obama going to Washington. The idea for the meeting was McCain's - when he "suspended" his campaign. President Bush asked Obama to attend the meeting, and any sitting senator who refused such a request would not be serving his constituent and it would have been "politics first". By going, Obama was actually putting country first - unlike that other guy.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 9:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is not about MickeyCaine and Bama. This is about Foreign countries coming to our rescue. They are brokering deals to purchase these failed institutions. When they do, and they will, if your mortgage falls to them, who is going to stop them from taking your deeds? Our government? Right. On Las Vegas Blvd right now is the largest high rise construction project in the world. It is 50/50 MGM and UAE. America is being bought up by Arabs and the Chinese. And we continue to stick our heads in the sand. I brought up Vegas because in the last year 14 Union brothers have died. The owners are blaming each death on the people who died. And the families are only getting what we donate on the job. Do you think foreign investors care. Well,..we went on a safety strike and stopped the deaths. A walk out made them re-evaluate their business practices. But this is not the only place. ThyssenKrupp has bought land in Mobile and building the largest steel mill in the world. Our government gave them tax breaks to do this, and all the profits go to Germany. Same with the oil refineries. We are being sold out by our government! And that is wrong. But we bicker over guns and abortion. Noble issues, but they do not affect every AMERICAN. This financial mess does.
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 10:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You can't pay attention to wild changes in the stock market. The stock traders are schizophrenic. And they are also spoiled rotten children that need a really good spanking. The day after the congress gets a bill passed and it is signed, the market will probably go up like a rocket and then the very next day when they figure out that this train isn't going to turn around on a dime, it will go right back down again. I'm not going to sweat it though, but I am going to double down pretty soon, and catch a wave on the way back up. On the positive side of this mess, at least we are finally purging a lot of crap out of the system that really needed to go. Now, if we can only convince the folks not to be signing up for home mortgages and credit card debt that they can't afford. That's going to be harder to do than to get a crack head to go straight.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Very well said November.
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 10:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kw: You are absolutely right about the fact that we are being bought by foriegners. It's happened right here in Clanton, KMA and CRH. That's just a very small example but it's right here. Sure, they employees get their paycheck and they spend some of it locally, but what have we lost in the trade? The corporate profit goes to countries that really don't like us but they do like our money so they put up with us and take the money. And in the process we lose just a little more of our sovereignty and national identity and pride. But hey, at least the chamber of commerce and city and county leaders can run around and crow about all the jobs that they brought in. Welcome to the One World Economy.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ahha! Someone finally said it. Just wait until Congress introduces the Aero. Same as the Euro. A shared currency with Canada, America, and Mexico. Then when it ultimately fails, we join in and share the Euro. When these foreign countries call notes most will ask what just pulled our pants down and raped us. Debt free. The only way to be. They can't touch it then. But America's number one consumer product is DEBT. They walk around with 2-3 mortgages, 1-15 credit cards with pictures of their dogs, fish, and kids on them. Why have that debt? The borrower is slave to the lender. Thanks to Dave and the old testament for those. Slaves to the mortgage companies owned by the Arabs and Chinese. Not for me. Pay cash for everything!
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 29, 2008 at 10:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)
There you have it.
Posted by TheDude (Michael Wells) on September 30, 2008 at 5:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ASE, I really shouldn't respond to your pathetic answer you gave me on Sept. 29 at 8:56 p.m. McCain followers, McCain supporters, give me a break. You opened your mouth and inserted your foot. Just because Americans are SUPPORTING a presidential candidate YOU don't like, you condemn them? I didn't lie about what you said. Don't try to worm your way out of that one. You didn't stutter. I am sure a lot of others got your point, also.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 6:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hey Dude, let it go, man. This is about a bail out, and those two clowns, (Bama and MickeyCaine) are using this to grandstand. They are using this issue and the AMERICAN people. If the two of them would stay away from Washington and stay on their little speech stumps, then congress might get something done without worrying which candidate they are helping or hurting. That's the issue here.
Posted by TheDude (Michael Wells) on September 30, 2008 at 6:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I understand that, kw. All of us stray from the main topic at times. I will just re-adjust my attitude and forgive ASE for his remarks, and that's a FACT.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 7:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
See,..the healing begins. Last night I mentioned the Aero. I was wrong. It will be the Amero.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TheDude: You DID lie - And I proved you lied. You tried to claim that I said ALL McCain supporters are racist - THIS IS NOT TRUE and you know it! I wasn't quibbling over the words followers or supporters. You misquoted me - thus lied about what I said. Read my response instead of just reacting stupidly. Read my original comment and the sentence in question.
Here's your lie: "a week or two ago you called all McCain followers "ignorant racists"
Again, this is not what I said at all and if you actually read my quote you'd know that. You're right, I didn't stutter - my original quote is there for anyone to read. I said that I believe McCain supporters were EITHER not paying attention, partisan sheep, OR ignorant racists. How exactly is that calling ALL McCain supporters ignorant racists?
So stop with the lies TheDude! Anyone who reads my quote can plainly see that you are lying so it does you no good to try to hold to your distorted belief about what I said.
Posted by TheDude (Michael Wells) on September 30, 2008 at 11:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Whatever you say, ASE ...
Posted by amrybnu333 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If Jesus Christ were himself to run for political office i`m quite sure that he`d be labeled a liberal democrat.I`m sure glad that the God i worship is more forgiving than the people who write in these preceding posts.I`m sure He still loves you all the same.Whats happend to this world?
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TheDude - Your inability to admit you are wrong shows exactly the kind of person you are.
Posted by klw919 (Kevin West) on September 30, 2008 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No, Jesus wouldn't be labeled as democrat or republican, but he also would not have any more attention paid to him than he did the first time.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 2:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is off topic, but I have a question for all of you misguided McCain supporters. How can you honestly feel comfortable with the possibility that Sarah Palin could be president?
First, McCain is a 72 year old cancer survivor who has refused to release his medical records, so the possibility that Palin could be president is very real. The only job a vice president has is to break a tie in the Senate and to take over if something happens to president.
If you've seen any of the few interviews Palin has given, it is painfully obvious that she is not qualified in any way. She has zero foreign policy experience. I'm sorry, but being able to see Russia from Alaska has no relevance. She's been the governor of the 47th most populous state for 21 months and she's already under investigation for an ethics violation. Before that she was the mayor of a town the size of Clanton, and she left her city in debt when she left office. She claims to be a reformer, but she was for the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it (when it became politically unacceptable) and she even kept the money her state had already received for that project. Palin is against abortion even in cases of incest or rape and opposes any type of birth control. Even many conservatives are admitting that she is not qualified and that she should step down.
The facts are obvious to any thinking person that McCain made a purely political decision when picking Palin as VP - and that says a lot about what he would do as president. She was not even the most qualified Republican woman available. How is his choice for VP putting "country first"? They say that a VP choice is a presidential candidate's first executive decision and McCain chose to put politics in front of our country's best interests to placate his conservative Republican base and in the hope of grabbing some Hillary supporters' votes. Obama, on the other hand, made a terrific choice for VP in Joe Biden that truly was a country first decision that shows good judgment.
Seriously, do we really need another Bush in the White House who governs based on his "gut" rather than intelligence and reasoning? Do you make decisions for who you vote for based on who is more like you rather than what is good for the country?
McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as VP shows that he does not have the proper judgment to be president, and I dare anyone to defend his "politics first" decision.
Posted by TLS (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 2:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Obama is a liar. He is funded with terrorist money. He does not give a crap about this country. He is openly racist. What if McCain had said something about "typical black people"? He would have been murdered.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Oh brother. People like TLS know they are wrong so they try to change the subject with a post full of lies and, as usual, zero facts to back up their delusional opinions. What the hell is wrong with you people? Get informed and wake up!
This is what is wrong with this country. People form their opinions based on what they've heard rather than what they've learned. I know it's easier to believe everything you hear that backs up your preconceived beliefs, but doesn't the truth matter anymore? Even I will research and confirm everything I've heard about Obama, McCain and Palin before posting it here.
It does not make your candidate for president look better when you post wild accusations that are not based in reality. It only makes you look stupid.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Are you calling us terrorists? You see my name. Come see my face and say that to me. TLS you really need to stay in the romper room on AOL. But, we will allow you to stay if you will provide facts. And facts are not quotes from Bill O'reilly. Until then you sir are still a member of NAMBLA. (North American Man/Boy Love Association) See, we just have to let everyone know. Want us to provide the pictures?
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 3:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, I guess according to TLS I'm a terrorist. Me and the other 2 million Americans who have donated to Obama. The lies and hate from the wingnuts amazes me.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 3:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TLS is the number one fund raiser for MAMBLA. See, whether it's true or not doesn't matter to TLS.
Posted by TheDude (Michael Wells) on September 30, 2008 at 3:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ASE ... how much are you getting paid to spread all of this malicious garbage? I don't think anybody in their right mind would be making all of these bizarre, threatening comments unless they were getting some kind of satisfaction out of it. You're evil, man ...
Posted by UAEng (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AllSeeingEye: Considering you always ask others for proof that what their saying is true. I think it is only fair that you do the same yet you have not posted a link to a credible source in any of your arguments. Why is that?
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 7:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, did we stray! This was about the Dow crashing in the wake of a federal bail out. I said days ago, sit back and let the chips fall. Well...the market made a jump today. Down 777 yesterday up 485 today. Things are going to be tough. But this is just cleaning some of the sediment in the banking industry. Yes, I lost money in the market since last November. The Dow is down a couple THOUSAND points. This didn't just happen in the last two or three months. This has been coming for several years. When bank loan officers and presidents are lending $300 million on a building project that only cost $190 million so they could gain a percentage of profit as payment. Used to be, these institution payed these people in salaries. But somewhere along the line these banks started over lending to large companies. Then it spilled over to the housing market. When people borrowed 4 to 5 times their income, instead of a maximum of 2.5 then the trouble began. Americans bought adjustable rate mortgages like it was free gold. They didn't care about the clause that let those rates go up from 4% to 8%. Almost doubling their payments. Americans took credit cards because they were getting $25,000.00 limits at 7%. When those rates went to 19%, they started defaulting. And now everyone is sitting here bad mouthing Bama and MickeyCaine. How many are behind on house payments and credit card payments? YOU are the one's to blame. My wife and I refused to have a credit card. We make our house payment on time or ahead of time. We have been late before. But, when we saw how destructive this was we made changes. America needs to do the same thing. This crisis will pass. Cash is going to be our best friend. Everyone needs to put on their big boy pants, stop blaming, go to work, pay bills, live, love, pray, play, and BE RESPONSIBLE!
Posted by TheDude (Michael Wells) on September 30, 2008 at 7:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
When a blog gets in the 60's, it usually turns to mud. This is old mud ...
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 7:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
TheDude - Typical wingnut strategy - accuse someone of being paid when they are expressing their own views. What specific point that I've made is "malicious garbage"? If you think I'm wrong about something specific then PROVE ME WRONG! What exactly have I written that's "bizarre" or "threatening"? Since when is the truth evil? I think you're sick for believing in lies and smears instead of facts. Way to attack the messenger - you've learned well from your "hero" McCain because that's the exact same strategy he uses when he's obviously wrong.
UAEng - Everything I've written here can be easily verified. What specific point do you want proof for? I'm not making crazy accusations like others here have. I'm not saying McCain is a Nazi or McCain eats babies or anything like the lies that have been said about Obama here. Everything I've posted has been repeatedly reported by multiple media outlets so look it up yourself if you have questions. It's your own responsibility to get informed, so I'm not going to do it for you. As soon as I post a link you losers will yell "liberal media" anyway so why bother. Again, if there's a specific point you want to challenge me on then let me know instead of whining about my proof. I haven't seen you post anything in any of these conversations (for all I know you're somebody's duplicate account) so I owe you absolutely nothing.
You people are weak-minded and lazy. Nobody has been able to defend McCain or Palin against anything I've written here. You can't defend them so you attack me. The same strategy McCain himself uses when called out for his lies - blame the media. I've said this before, but this time I mean it - I will no longer try to reason with unreasonable people. All I wanted was a civil debate on the issues and I've always tried to be as respectful as possible, but all I get is attacks and accusations. Pitiful that this is what it's come to in this country. I should have known better than to think that anyone who supports McCain could have a reasonable debate because you are obviously not living in reality.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
What has all this Bama/MickeyCaine crap got to do with the DJIA and the core of this article? Are you people so jaded by Fox News and MSNBC that you are incapable of discussing economic issues related to a (perceived) global economic crisis. This is almost like listening to a County Commission meeting, or a mousekateer club meeting on crack.
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AllSeeing Eye: Is your purpose to change people's minds about who they plan to vote for? I can save you some effort here, the people that you will encounter in this forum, including myself, have already made up their mind on this issue and they aren't going to change their position, again, including me. That doesn't necessarily make them ignorant or uninformed, or racist. Whatever reasons they may have are their own and frankly don't matter. Granted, if someone decides to throw a bomb, be he republican or democrat, he really should provide some form of reference, but it's not required. I would be suspicious of most references anyway, I tend to trust very little of what I read and don't believe some things that I see.
Whatever your motivation here, and you have every bit as much right here as anyone, is your own, but given that I don't think you will change any minds it just makes wonder if you are masterbating your ego as an intellectual or just being condescending. Nothing that you or I say here makes one iota of difference, all that matters is what happens in the Electoral College and we can't influence what happens there.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well said Nov. Did you see Steve Wynn discuss the core issue here, on H & C on Fox? He said what we have been saying. Government stay away! Let these institutions fail. The government has no business buying bad mortgages. Let the people who took out larger loans than they could afford on property that was over valued by crooked appraisers, lose it. Let someone take over it that can afford it!
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I missed that interview. Mr. Wynn is a pretty sharp individual, congress would do well to listen to him. Even Donald Trump is using common sense about this matter.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nov - I've already stated my purpose here. I wanted a reasonable debate and all I get is lies about what I've written, baseless accusations and attacks. Those who don't know the facts are indeed ignorant and uninformed. I believe many are probably racist but will never admit it. I seriously doubt that I'll change any minds - most here have proved that they'll ignore the truth as long as the facts prove their preconceived opinions to be false. They only believe what they want to hear, and that is truly pitiful and sad.
Nobody here can effectively defend their opinion that McCain is the better choice and they only throw out crazy ideas about Obama that are not based on any facts at all. As an Obama supporter I feel obligated to knock down those lies with the truth, and that's exactly what I've done here. People can take what I write however they want. I really don't care what you or anybody else thinks about me or my motivations. In my opinion this is the most important election of my lifetime, and people need to learn the facts before making a decision.
When I first started posting here, and since I think Obama is the obvious choice, I honestly wanted some logical reasons that people may have for voting for McCain - and I've yet to hear even one.
Posted by TheDude (Michael Wells) on September 30, 2008 at 9:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If the institutions fail, the lower and middle income families fail. The bailout is going to be a necessary evil.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If you are defending the lower and middle class, why side with the white collar upper class party? Dude, the party line has always been divided between white collar, blue collar, upper class vs. lower/middle class. But some people in the 1980's decided that they could be the Elite. It became the "vogue" way to be, if you voted republican. It gave one "status" to claim to be republican. A true republican has never walked through the EVIL EMPIRE (Wal-Mart). A true republican Never grocery shops. A true pub has every Armani suit tailored each week. A true democrat comes home tired, takes off his boots, cleans the dirt from under his fingernails, pets his dog, then, discusses the bills with his wife. A true dem does not lie awake at night trying think of ways to screw his neighbor out of something. He lies awake wondering how to help his neighbor fix a fence before dark, pay bills, and if his wife is cooking fried chicken for the pastor appreciation day at church.
Now these are generalizations, but, the bottom line is, blue collar-dems. White collar-pubs.
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 10:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AllSeeingEye: There are several reasons that I can think of NOT to vote for McCain. There are some reasons that I can think of TO vote for him, though, that for me override most of the negatives. It's not his 150 years in the senate, or however long it's been, it's the five- plus years that he spent in Hanoi. He could have avoided combat if he had wanted to because of who his father was, but he didn't. Now, to most of the liberals that I have talked to, this fact means absolutely nothing to them. In fact, I've talked to a couple and heard several, make fun of this very fact. I'm not sure if it is my own military experience or just the way I was raised, but I like to see someone prove their dedication to this country if they want to be my president and the comander-in-chief of our military forces, not just talk about it. That's not to say that I think that military service should be a prerequisite to be president, but to me it's very important. I've been in some dangerous places with a CIC of both types, I'll default to the experienced military type. He's not the one I would have hand picked as the republican nominee, that's a non issue now, but I don't have to wonder about his loyalty or devotion to our country. He's already proven it to my satisfaction. That's a starting point that goes a long way toward the finish line for me.
I don't expect you to accept this as a valid, or informed, reason for voting for Sen. McCain, but that's OK. That's not my purpose here anyway. I don't feel a burning need to justify my reasons for voting for McCain, but there's a couple of them.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 10:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think most people are vastly uninformed about this economic crisis and the bailout. Due to a bipartisan effort in congress, it is no longer a blank check to the Bush administration. There will be oversight. There will be limits on corporate salaries of failed companies. There will be the possibility that taxpayers can eventually profit - like they did after the great depression.
I can't believe I'm agreeing with TheDude, but it is a necessary evil. The credit market is completely frozen - banks aren't lending. If there is no action by our government, people won't be able to buy a house or a car and small businesses that rely on credit won't be able to function. That means people start losing their jobs and stores start closing. Also, if the stock market falls again people will lose their savings and investments and will stop buying things. In other words, an entire failure of our economic system.
I have however changed my opinion on the delay by congress to get a bill through. They still need to act quickly, but I think this will give them the opportunity to come up with a better plan that protects ordinary people better. The whole thing is still a trickle down approach, so who knows if it will work at all. We can only hope.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Nov - Thank you for your answer. I do respect McCain's service to this country, but we'll have to agree to disagree that makes him the best choice for president. You should look into his voting record on veterans issues. I also think the fact that he is willing to send troops into Iraq and keep them there for less than honest reasons should be looked at closely. Most military members want a president who will use their service as a last resort, and I don't think McCain has shown that at all with his hawkish rhetoric about Iran and Russia.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Allseeing, I disagree. A bail out is like giving a crack addict one last boulder wit shoulders. Who cares if the credit market is locked down. That is what this country needs, is to detox from a borrowing overdose. If you can't pay your power bill next month will you put it on a credit card at 12% interest a pay a little on it each month? Then when you walk out of church and trip down the steps break your arm and leg and cannot work for 9 mos should the church pay the credit card bills for you? There was no bail out and the world didn't end. Stop buying on credit. This seems to be ingrained in Americans. Borrow now pay if you can, if you can't the government will bail you out. What is wrong with this picture?
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 10:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ASE: As you said, we will have to agree to disagree. At some point I'm sure we'll get a thread going about the Iraq war and I'll open myself up for total ridicule on the subject. :)
I agree that most people are uninformed about the economic situation that we are in. I'm not in the hand wringing camp, though, and I do understand the stake that we have in it. I beleive that too ready access to credit by people that weren't/aren't credit worthy is one of the major reasons that we are where we are now. This has GOT to be addressed. It's a matter of personal, and corporate, responsibility. People simply must get away from the 'gotta have it now' mentality and learn to pay for things that they want, not make payments. The world is not going to end because of this mess, but I sure hope it gets close enough to get people scared enough to start living economically responsibly.
Posted by UAEng (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 10:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My point was simply this: whenever someone else presents a statement about one of the candidates your first reaction is to demand that they show you proof. So I was pointing out the fact that you haven't shown any proof. Sure you say its fact, but am I suppose to take your word for it. I am grateful for people like you who are so passionate about politics and are making an informed decision about who to vote for in the presidential election. However, I do believe that you should be less judgmental when someone disagrees with your point of view.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
kwsrgraves - How can you put most of the fault of this crisis on the back of the American people? I do agree that people shouldn't rely on credit but the corporations that made these loans have some responsibility to make sure those loans are not too great of a risk. Instead, due in most part to lack of government regulation, those banks wanted to turn sell off and turn a profit on a bunch of bad mortgages - that they knew were bad because they made the loans!
I'm curious to hear what you think the best solution is for this crisis. All I'm seeing is complaints. I'm no expert, so I can only hope that our government gets plenty of intelligent opinions and works together for a change and finds a solution (even temporarily). Nobody really knows how bad it could get, so if they do nothing they could very well screw everybody.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on September 30, 2008 at 11:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
UAEng - My first reaction is to ask for proof because usually the only response I get when I ask a question here is a bunch of obvious lies and smears about Obama. When someone says "Obama is a Muslim" or "Obama is funded by terrorists" or "Obama kills babies" you're damn right I'm going to demand proof because this stuff is not true and has to stop! When people make idiotic statements like that, I have every right to be judgmental.
No, you don't have to take my word for anything. However, I've been totally honest and open about everything I've posted here. These are my opinions based on the facts as I've learned them through exhausted research from many independent sources. I've also said repeatedly that people should research this stuff themselves and I truly hope they do so.
It's true that I come off a judgmental at times when it may be inappropriate, but that is only because I feel so strongly about my opinions. If anyone here disagrees with my point of view I just wish they had the ability to reasonably discuss the topic without throwing out baseless accusations, attacks on me and lies about what I've written. Is that too much to ask, even on this website for a Clanton based newspaper?
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
ASE, if a cigarette company sells you cigs for 10 years and you develop lung cancer from smoking, do you not bear the brunt of responsibility? The solution to this crisis is quite simple. It is not a crisis. It IS a serious problem. Congress began telling us last week that the sky was falling if they didn't get 700BILLION dollars. I remember Oral Roberts say God told him if he didn't raise 1 million dollars by a certain date the Eart would be destroyed. That didn't happen either. This market and economy is hurting, but, it is strong enough to weather this dip. It'll hurt for a while. But it'll pass. There are some modifications that need to be made. Just not 700 BILLION of them from the AMERICANS PAYCHECKS.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't get your cigarette analogy. If a company includes addictive and cancer-causing chemicals in their product and the government knows about these chemicals and does nothing, would the consumer be the only one responsible for being a smoker and getting cancer?
I just don't buy the assertion that this isn't a crisis. You can't have all these major banks and insurance companies failing like they have recently without something major going on. Is it as big a crisis as they're saying? Probably not. But I still think our government needs to act rather than risking our already fragile economy on the hope that the trouble will pass. It's their responsibility to find a solution in a bipartisan way and make sure ordinary people aren't getting screwed. Will they do their job? It remains to be seen - but as I've said before - with their extremely low approval ratings, you'd think they'd try to protect us regular folks for a change.
Also, most of the analysis I've read about the bailout says that at least half of the 700 billion will probably be recovered when the assets that are bought by the gov't are sold off. They say that there's even the possibility that we'll recover all the money and profit, but I doubt it. And, they're not going to just dole out the whole 700 billion. The plan as I understand it will put the money out in increments so they can see if their solution is actually working. Overall, I think it looks like a good compromise, especially compared to the blank check the Bush admin wanted with zero accountability to start with - or the other option (which you seem to support) of doing absolutely nothing at all.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well,...guess what. The original bush plan is being introduce and voted on tonight. In the senate. This is an end run around the house. Then those that wouldn't pass either bill in the house the first time are going to take it this time. The plan Tres. Sec. Paulson wants gives all the money out at once. Bad plan. I don't see where throwing good money after bad is helping this problem. And who is going to buy these assets? You are buying this crap from Fox News, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MTV, and BET. Listen to real financial pros. Ones that don't have a govt interet. Steve Wynn (my boss), Dave Ramsey, and George Sorose. Now I'm no expert but, here is another analogy. If you buy beer and drink a cases a day, your probably a drunk. If you get drunk and run your car through your house and kill your kids, are you going to blame the car maker and the beer company? Same thing is happening here. Bad loans were sold. Foreclosures happened. banking is wrecked, and we want to blame congress for not fixing our mess. I do not want to pay for irresponsible peoples financiacial woes! This makes me mad as hell and even more mad that America is being suckered in by it.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 2:25 p.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 2:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I know how government works. I know if the senate passes this ORIGINAL bill, the house will probably follow. Our markets were supposed to self destruct if this didn't pass by last Friday. Didn't happen, won't happen!
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
ASE, we agree ona lot. On this, we disagree. No biggie. But, I am like that dog barking in the middle of the night, I hace to get one more woof in. LOL This plan is like giving methadone to a heroin addict. Stops the craving for a little while. But, then, it's be addicted to methadone until that runs out, then go back to heroin. Americans are the consumers and the American Government/Big Business are the dealers. Everyone shares the blame. And the blame is proportionate to each's point of view.
Posted by AllSeeingEye (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I do agree with you that people need to stop relying on credit and start saving for the things they want to buy. This is a fundamental problem with our society that is only making average people poorer and making the rich even richer. When offered a deal that seems too good to be true, people need to realize that it probably is not in their best interest to accept it just because it's being offered to them.
This bailout will far from solve any of the systemic problems in our economy. It's more like a band-aid than a long-term treatment for our economic woes. I just hope our next president (Obama!) will be able to turn things around with a sound economic policy that helps the majority of Americans and not just the rich with the hope that it all "trickles down". That policy has failed us miserably and everyone needs to realize that staying the course with Republicans and McCain will be just more of the same.
Posted by kwsrgraves (anonymous) on October 1, 2008 at 5:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Whoever becomes president is going to have a difficult situation. Eight years has been enough. We had a good thing in 1998. Growth was everywhere. And it will be again. I said 6mos ago I would never vote for a N...one caucasion for pres. I was wrong. McCaine has shown me how much worse he could be for this country. He is a patriot. Nothing more. He plans to continue Bush's policies, and I can't accept that.
Posted by November162000 (anonymous) on October 2, 2008 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
As relates to the mortgage/credit "crises", there are three players, and three parties that deserve the blame. The government for leaning on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and others to make loans to unqualified borrowers, I think even to the extent of extortion. Thank you Barney Frank, stand up and face the music like a man; oh, never mind, it's Barney Frank. Next to blame are the people that should have known that they couldn't afford their mortgage and were probably already deep in other types of debt and may not have even had a job. And then there's the people that loaned the money. What were they thinking? They loaned thousands upon thousands of dollars to people that did didn't even have a down payment, and gave them a second mortgage for the down payment! Of course, some of that was because of the governments' pressure to "extend the American Dream to the poor". How's that working out for us?
Too much credit got us in this mess, and you can't fix it with more credit. We need to go ahead and take our medicine and move on. Unfortunately, the medicine that the government is trying to force down our throats will be worse than the desease.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)