Bush Asks for $700B

[Yanksfan396]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/20/news...ion=2008092009

I am actually 100% for this. Mortgage crises is a huge criterion for a failing economy. There is a huge likelihood that the return would pay for the $700B--and then some. Very wise decision!

[daniel3417]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/20/news...ion=2008092009

I am actually 100% for this. Mortgage crises is a huge criterion for a failing economy. There is a huge likelihood that the return would pay for the $700B--and then some. Very wise decision!

We've debated this. It's just a matter of more or less government..

[Yanksfan396]

Actually, no, this isn't a matter of government control, as they plan to sell it back in the near-future.

[daniel3417]

Actually, no, this isn't a matter of government control, as they plan to sell it back in the near-future.

When the government steps in to prevent a private company from going under, it's very much about government control.

[Yanksfan396]

For a brief period of time, and it is for the economy's benefit. Are you telling me that we, the people can fix this without government intervention? Please tell me how.

[daniel3417]

For a brief period of time, and it is for the economy's benefit. Are you telling me that we, the people can fix this without government intervention? Please tell me how.

Actually, yes that's exactly what I'm saying. That is free-market capitalism, of which I am a huge advocate.

Banks that take too many risks with others' money should lose their business. If they don't, this debt becomes distributed amongst their clients...and apparently people that aren't even their clients. Someone said it's not fair to keep AIG's profits private, but to socialize their losses! That's an excellent way to put it. Are we going to see some paychecks in the mail for saving AIG in the next few years?? No.

In a free market, AIG would sell bonds with very high interest rates. They would reorganize their business plan, and find buyers. That's just basic stuff. That's how all economic issues work. When the government gets involved on any level, it dilutes a pure system. And the government's involvement in the issue is probably as meddlesome as the country has ever seen.

We survived Enron, SNL, dotcom, Qualcomm, etc etc etc, this is no different. It was just a different sector that was being blown up too large.

[hendrikus1967]

Daniel - what do you think about FDIC insured savings etc?

[OnePimpTiger]

What I was afraid of is already happening: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/22/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

I wasn't a big fan of the government rescue to begin with. I actually thought the concept of buying the failing business' bad mortgages and selling them later for a profit was an unusually good idea for the government. But I was really afraid that the government assistance/intrusion would quickly become bigger and broader. Already Congress is talking about putting more regulations on companies and the Treasury is requesting wider scope of what they can take from the companies.

A little help from the government wouldn't be such a bad thing, but Congress doesn't know how to provide that help with as little intrusion as possible...they want to try to control everything. Why should banks, mortgage firms, etc. listen to the government's business advice? The government has a $9 trillion debt, doesn't have to provide quality products or satisfactory service to get their income (they get mandatory taxes), and is generally the most inefficient and ineffective business on the face of the planet. Yeah, I want them to keep their hands off as much as possible.

[Yanksfan396]

Actually, yes that's exactly what I'm saying. That is free-market capitalism, of which I am a huge advocate.

Banks that take too many risks with others' money should lose their business. If they don't, this debt becomes distributed amongst their clients...and apparently people that aren't even their clients. Someone said it's not fair to keep AIG's profits private, but to socialize their losses! That's an excellent way to put it. Are we going to see some paychecks in the mail for saving AIG in the next few years?? No.

In a free market, AIG would sell bonds with very high interest rates. They would reorganize their business plan, and find buyers. That's just basic stuff. That's how all economic issues work. When the government gets involved on any level, it dilutes a pure system. And the government's involvement in the issue is probably as meddlesome as the country has ever seen.

We survived Enron, SNL, dotcom, Qualcomm, etc etc etc, this is no different. It was just a different sector that was being blown up too large.

I know precisely what a free market is, but, at this level, it would simply fail. You're comparing Dotcom and Qualcomm to AIG, which can't be done. Also, at your age, you're not affected by the repercussions of not having these bailouts.

[Yanksfan396]

What I was afraid of is already happening: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/22/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

I wasn't a big fan of the government rescue to begin with. I actually thought the concept of buying the failing business' bad mortgages and selling them later for a profit was an unusually good idea for the government. But I was really afraid that the government assistance/intrusion would quickly become bigger and broader. Already Congress is talking about putting more regulations on companies and the Treasury is requesting wider scope of what they can take from the companies.

A little help from the government wouldn't be such a bad thing, but Congress doesn't know how to provide that help with as little intrusion as possible...they want to try to control everything. Why should banks, mortgage firms, etc. listen to the government's business advice? The government has a $9 trillion debt, doesn't have to provide quality products or satisfactory service to get their income (they get mandatory taxes), and is generally the most inefficient and ineffective business on the face of the planet. Yeah, I want them to keep their hands off as much as possible.

The majority of that debt is from a Republican congress.