We have a deal

[Ed62]

Bailout http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080928/...own_candidates

Ed

[Uncle Cracker]

Why don't they come down here and bail me out??

[germdoc]

Great and intelligent article on what bailout means to Main Street:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news...ion=2008092810

I've pointed this out before, but it bears repeating. 95% of us are never going to be "rich" (i.e., making more than $250,000 per year), so why do we tolerate special rules for those who are? (Anybody out there get 20% raises last year like average CEO's??) Because about half of us naively think we will be rich in our lifetimes. It's time we all play by the same rules.

[jonmulzer]

I emailed my legislative representatives this week and I am going to email them again, to tell them that if they vote for this corporate welfare bill I will actively campaign against them. Many others that I know have done the exact same thing. If you feel strongly against this bill, I urge you to do the same.

[stormdog74]

"Steal a little and they put you in jail
Steal a lot and they make you king"

-Bob Dylan

[Ed62]

Great and intelligent article on what bailout means to Main Street:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/26/news...ion=2008092810

Thanks for the link. It's well worth the read.

Ed

[just started]

It's time we all play by the same rules.

Right, and pay the same percentage of tax regardless of income level or source.

[gerti]

$2300+ for every man, woman and child in the country. Adjusting to todays dollars, the bailout could finance the Apollo program 5 times.

[germdoc]

And here's this gem by Tom Wolfe, author of Bonfire of the Vanities:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/op...ml?ref=opinion

I knew the Masters of the Universe wouldn't really be hurt with the current "financial crisis". They've always been smarter than us rubes who actually work for a living, and they know where their golden parachute, or "nut" as he calls it, is stored.


J

[jackellis]

Right, and pay the same percentage of tax regardless of income level or source.

You probably mean the same percentage of one's income. Well, according to this document from the US House of Representatives, we might want to be careful what we ask for: http://www.house.gov/jct/x-45-00.pdf

Folks making $200k and over on average paid about 23% of their income in taxes. Folks making between $75 and 100k paid about 11%. Since these are average, some taxpayers paid more and some paid less but the trend is pretty clear. Not only are the rates higher as your income rises, but many tax breaks start to disappear as your income climbs into six figure territory.

Of course, the same chart clearly shows how unequally incomes are distributed. When you're at the bottom of that chart, all you can think of is how unfair it all seems. When you start moving up the brackets, all you can think of is how much money you pay in taxes every year.

The question we might ask ourselves is this: "How much of every additional dollar I earn am I willing to hand over, and if asked to hand over more, how does that affect my willingness to work harder, start a business, etc?"

Someone mentioned that wealth isn't taxed. Most of the really large fortunes are never taxed, because a lot of that money ends up in foundations that support all kinds of charitable works, like university endowments. I suppose we could end the tax write-off for charitable deductions, but it seems we'd have to find money to fund all those good works somewhere else.

[jackellis]

I emailed my legislative representatives this week and I am going to email them again, to tell them that if they vote for this corporate welfare bill I will actively campaign against them. Many others that I know have done the exact same thing. If you feel strongly against this bill, I urge you to do the same.

I suppose one way to look at this is corporate welfare. I'm not terribly happy that things got this far myself. I'm not happy that a bunch of rich guys got richer while making this mess. But at this point, I don't give a **** about them. I care about me.

In the last two weeks, there have been at least two cases where depositors started pulling their money out (runs on the bank). Financial institutions have stopped lending to one another. In other words, it's looking a lot like the runup to the Great Depression.

Maybe Paulson is bailing out his Wall Street buddies. It's pretty hard to know. It's possible $700 billion won't be enough. Also hard to know. What's pretty clear is that unwinding the "virtuous circle" of rising home prices is going to result in a vicious cycle of declining home prices, more foreclosures and more pain as the bubble collapses. If it really does take as much as $700 billion, or $2300 per capita, to stop the spiral, that money well spent, even if we get none of it back.

Those of us who are working stiffs would like to keep our jobs, so we'd like to avoid a recession, especially a bad one. If you're a retiree with a pension, you're as vulnerable as everyone else. A "run on the bank" could spread to other kinds of assets, like the stocks and bonds that your retirement plan holds and depends on to pay your benefits. That'e exactly what's been keeping me awake nights.

So I guess I'm on the opposite side of this. Prepared to hold my nose in order to save my financial skin.

Just my $.02

[jonmulzer]

Extend FHA insurance to these loans stopping up the market and 70+% of this goes away on its own for a cost of ~$40 billion at worst. If you only extend insurance and not draft them a welfare check then they have to sort this out theirselves to save their collective arses.

When nearly every economist that is not at the top of our governmental food chain says that this is a HORRIBLE idea and is only Paulson, Bernanake and Bush taking care of cronies than I am likely to believe the majority.

[jonmulzer]

Deal killed, for now......

[jackellis]

Extend FHA insurance to these loans stopping up the market

It appears you're suggesting the Feds agree to make good on any subprime mortgages where homeowners default. That would force the banks to work out loans, but then suppose nervous depositors start withdrawing their money, which is one of the big concerns and has already happened several times. If depositors flee, the Feds will have to sieze the bank anyway to protect those who didn't get out early. Since there isn't a whole lot of money in the FDIC insurance fund, either depositors are going to get stiffed, or the Feds will have to step in anyway.

I'd be interested to read what the outside economists have to say. Do you have any links?

[Alex Franke]

uh. wow. -777. I'm stunned...

Turns out it's actually a pretty good time to refinance your mortgage, though... 30 year fixed for 5 5/8 with no points. not bad...