BAILOUT [strike]STRUCK DOWN[/strike] PASSED DOW PLUMMETING!

Fuck the House Republicans, and fuck McCain.

Additional Spam:

Originally Posted by Eschbach

Wasn't 300 million of that 700 billion going to form a severance package for one of the retiring CEO's?

Isn't that exciting.

Your information is out of date or more likely wrong. You should educate yourself so you stay informed on what the next bill will look like. However, you probably won't follow my advice, so go back to concert hall you mincing faggot.

How ya doing, buddy?

To all you fucks who think that banks, like all other companies, should be punished for the poor choices they made, there is a really enlightening entry for you to read in Nehmi's journal.

Originally Posted by a teaser!

One excellent first step would be rejection of the $700 billion burden to be placed on the backs of taxpayers.

An excellent second step would be judicial declaration that the value of any and all credit default swaps is zero, as being against public policy that requires that activities than encourage mysterious fires or other forms of disaster are illegal as contrary to public policy.

Yes, you heard me right. Judicial determination that all $62 trillion worth of credit default swaps are null, void and totally worthless.

Only then can a just and humane financial system can be constructed upon the ashes of the old.

So before you think the rest of us are just big assholes who want to spend your hard-earned taxpayer dollars, remember there is a friend amongst you. Nehmi, a shining becon of truth, an eagle in this den of rats.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Go back to Concert Hall, Esch. This bill in particular has been pushed through quite quickly, with intense negotiations on both sides of the aisle. If you think something you dimly half-remember from early last week is still relevant, then you're not ready to read things written by men who are still living.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Mo0

Of "a bailout", yes. Of a $700 billion bailout, not so much.

So what if a bunch of voters whose idea of the bailout was largely informed by the intial no-strings-attached proposal disagree with it? Hell, I don't like it. But I think that taking time to come up with a solution everyone finds agreeable will cost us much, much more in the long run. Now isn't the time to dick around worrying about your goddamn reelection.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Another lurker's been telling me that most of the global markets are down 5%.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Well RR it's like leaving your home unlocked. Sure, the police will probably bail you out by catching the guys who did it, but it doesn't mean you get back all your stolen shit.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

That's where the comparison breaks down yes

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by The_Melomane

So, how about that bill actually passing? You know, like it did.

I don't know much about this bill other than that it gives tax breaks to companies and raises the FDIC insurance rate. I was under the impression that in a "free market" economy that good old invisible hand is supposed to in and fix everything not the government. I guess that's why a bunch of people are calling it a socialist bill? But that doesn't make sense if it LOWERS taxes for companies. (I'm probably not making any sense, probably because from what I know of this bill, it doesn't seem to make any sense.)

Wouldn't it make more sense, instead of reducing taxes on the companies, to invest in America's crumbling infrastructure?

They also put in tax breaks for companies investing in renewable energy and a provision to ensure mental health coverage in all health care plans so I mean it's not like only the Republicans were pandered to.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by The_Melomane

So, how about that bill actually passing? You know, like it did.

I don't know much about this bill other than that it gives tax breaks to companies and raises the FDIC insurance rate. I was under the impression that in a "free market" economy that good old invisible hand is supposed to in and fix everything not the government. I guess that's why a bunch of people are calling it a socialist bill? But that doesn't make sense if it LOWERS taxes for companies. (I'm probably not making any sense, probably because from what I know of this bill, it doesn't seem to make any sense.)

Wouldn't it make more sense, instead of reducing taxes on the companies, to invest in America's crumbling infrastructure?

From what I heard (in addition to all of Shin's stuff), interbank trading* has basically froze. The banks don't want to loan any other banks money for 3 months if they don't know if the bank will still be there in 3 months. If it keeps on for too long like this, then anything that requires loaning from a bank (mortgages, loans, credit cards) will stop. That would be the first pinch.

You should read Shin's posts, and if you're still interested after you should google up some blogs about it. I don't know of any good financial blogs though, so if someone else does, plug it now.

* the financial markets of the world depends on interbank trading.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

From what little I've heard, part of the plummet was due to European and Asian markets not being confident in their respective goverments' reactions to the banking crisis. Basically pointing at the US, Germany (they bailed out a bank recently) and other countries and asking 'what are we doing?'

This was something I heard on the news while doing something else. Don't jump down my throat if I turn out to be mistaken.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Watts

Mostly because this "too big to fail" nonsense is bullshit the pundits crank out. The other reason is because nobody is enforcing trust laws, much less accounting laws, and/or any other laws that govern finance. As sick as it might sound this is probably a good thing. If our financial institutions were forced to reveal just how insolvent they were mass chaos and panic would ensue.

Help me out here, since I'm not well-versed in Chicken Little; there are no banks or financial institutions that are simply too big to fall. However, if we knew how poorly these institutions are doing, a worldwide panic is inevitable. Therefore, these institutions are not too big to fall?

???

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.