What is Digg?238 Comments
- inactive, on 09/29/2008, -4/+113Okay, that's enough.
- UKLooney, on 09/29/2008, -6/+103This must be FAKED!!!
I never saw any of this on the news, or anywhere else in the MSM.
I guess I'll have to wait till the next episode of the Jon Stewart Show on Comedy Central to get the full coverage... - kerston, on 09/29/2008, -15/+97When is enough enough?
- GetItBuilt, on 09/29/2008, -8/+80YOU BROKE IT! YOU BOUGHT IT! THE BAILOUT, IS *****!
- sullivancg, on 09/29/2008, -6/+76Call AND write your congressman. Tell them that if this passes at all, they're fired come November!
Visit www.voterbomb.com to learn just how to fire every last congressman! - kerston, on 09/29/2008, -27/+93When is enough enough?
- kerston, on 09/29/2008, -25/+91When is enough enough?
- kerston, on 09/29/2008, -27/+93When is enough enough?
- Wryly, on 09/29/2008, -3/+49WaMu CEO got 13.65 mill for 18 days of work. How does that not make you happy.
- nutsackninja, on 09/29/2008, -5/+41We need a revolution V for vendetta style.
- micheshi, on 09/29/2008, -6/+36I've called and written Congress and the Senate. This will pass and it sucks.
- CrazedLeper, on 09/29/2008, -4/+29" Any idea why the media wouldn't report on this?"
Clearly, whomever owns the banks owns the media, too. Are we ready to face the reality of a shadow government? No? Then you'll suffer until you can no longer deny it. - SetOverSet, on 09/29/2008, -4/+27I demand a 15-year idiot tax on people who defaulted on their mortgages.
- 1elbuggo, on 09/29/2008, -5/+27Let them jump!
- martinherrera, on 09/29/2008, -0/+21yes, he is implementing a radical technique called sarcasm.
- logicalriot, on 09/29/2008, -3/+23this too, shall pass
- trollick, on 09/29/2008, -3/+22If these securities are so great why are banks so stupid wanting to get rid of them?
- richmomz, on 09/29/2008, -3/+20Hmm, they're not showing this on the news... wonder why?
/sarcasm - AutoXer, on 09/29/2008, -2/+18Point 1: If we can buy them(mortgage backed securities) and make money; why can't the banks keep them and make money?
Point 2: That's a risk I'm NOT willing to take. - ostracize, on 09/29/2008, -1/+15Eight is enough
- inactive, on 09/29/2008, -5/+19LOL, I see both myself and my colleague in this one! Great protest, everyone! Please do *now* call/write/threaten your congresscritter to keep them from passing this naked transfer of wealth from us taxpayers into the pockets of the greedy parasitic class.
- SetOverSet, on 09/29/2008, -4/+17But just "vote for change" and "hope" in November and the problem is solved, right?
- Brain1, on 09/29/2008, -0/+13Censorship is alive, and well in America.
- airwalkery2k, on 09/29/2008, -2/+15Hah, the guy in the top hat was begging for money. Brilliant visualization.
- juankovo, on 09/29/2008, -3/+15> "The Fed and US Treasury are earmarking 700 billion in new money (read: not from your "pocket")"
Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha! What exactly do you think increasing the supply of dollars does to the dollars in your pocket?
> "They simply don't understand the stock market."
Perhaps you are not familiar with sound economic theory. Here's a good start: http://freedom-school.com/money/how-an-economy-gro ...
> "I think in this case its a sound (and necessary) investment in the future of the American market place."
No, this is a socialistic power grab. Fifty years ago this would have been investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee. They are stealing from you in the name of stability. - juankovo, on 09/29/2008, -4/+16Let the bad banks fail, end the Federal Reserve, and keep the government out of it. It will hurt for a year or two, of course, but these bailouts will usher in the Second Great Depression and destroy the dollar. The similarities between this month's events and those leading up to the Great Depression are remarkable.
- crimsonnblue, on 09/29/2008, -2/+13Thank you.... I'm glad someone pointed this out. Yes these companies offered these sub-prime loans. The idiots are the people who thought they'd be able to make payments on a 200,000 loan making 25,000 a year. Just stupid.
- AngryAngryBrian, on 09/29/2008, -2/+13Like a watermelon in your colon.
- JeddHampton, on 09/29/2008, -0/+10Good odds for any Greek.
- crimsonnblue, on 09/29/2008, -0/+10@ trollick and AutoXer
Just to reply to your first point. The banks aren't able to conduct business with them on their books. The Government can however, since they print the monies.
This should fix your 2nd point btw. - gbjxc, on 09/29/2008, -21/+31Anyone who thinks the bailout is a bad idea has absolutely no fundamental understanding of our economy or financial system.
We are spending $700 billion. True. But unless the economy becomes DRASTICALLY and PERMANENTLY worse, that $700 billion will actually MAKE A PROFIT for the taxpayers.
i.e. The $700 billion will be used to buy failing securities at, say, $0.50 on the dollar. In five or ten years, they can be resold for more than $0.50 cents on the dollar; i.e. we will end up making more than $700 billion back. So it's really just a large investment.
The only way to actually LOSE money on this in the long term would be if mortgages are selling at below $0.50 on the dollar from here on out, in which case we would have much larger issues than $700 billion being spent (i.e. almost every homeowner in this country would have to default for this not to make money in the long term). - inactive, on 09/29/2008, -7/+16Thank you for some common sense on this issue.
You also don't go far enough in your thoughts- we're not spending 700 billion. The Fed and US Treasury are earmarking 700 billion in new money (read: not from your "pocket") to invest in failing banks to keep you (and them, and the chinese, and the japanese, and the germans...) from losing hard dollars (in deflation and failed investments).
This money is basically created out of thin air guaranteed by the Treasury, but you know, its just a promise to pay back 700 billion.
If we make back 50% of what we put into it and the economy doesn't tank, this is a good thing for americans, and you saved your economy with an injection of 350 billion actual dollars.
What is more likely, is the economy recovers in a year or two, and that 700 million in assets (maximum at this time) gets sold off at 10% or higher of its current value (which is currently worthless) so 110% of 700 billion in junk is still 770$ billion at the end of the day. That's profit!
Of course there's the risk that most of the funds will fizzle out with no worth. This is also good, since someone needs to buy, sell or dump in order for a stock to have value. For every seller, there must be a buyer. No buyers are worse for an economy than losing money.
Think about this, what if half those assets actually attain some of their old value (not terribly difficult), the likelihood of profit is so much higher. So then the government sells good mortgages back to the banks, and privatizes the profit, using proceeds to buy back from the Treasury. Banks Profit, but Government (you sort of) profits first.
I love how people misconstrue the idea of this plan. They simply don't understand the stock market. It's really sad because, in most cases the government is robbing people blind, but I think in this case its a sound (and necessary) investment in the future of the American market place. Don't mistake the Wall St. robber barons for taking one final dip or for the culpable government officials who set up this shell game in the first place. These guys are already long gone or well insulated from the blowback.... The government now needs to take a break from robbing taxpayers in order to ensure there are future taxpayers to rob.
I can only hope preventative controls coming out of this are permanent. - juankovo, on 09/29/2008, -0/+9There are lots of things that caused this, and they are all government intervention in the market. For one, Fannie Mae eased credit restrictions in 1999 to make it easier for subprime borrowers to get loans. For another, things like the Community Reinvestment Act required private banks to make risky loans so that more people could get homes. For another, the Federal Reserve (which is no more federal than Federal Express, by the way) set interest rates much lower than natural market forces would have, which allowed people to borrow much greater amounts of money than they could have, which made home prices rise, which made people see it as a good investment, which made people speculate on it and assume guaranteed rising prices, which made more people jump into the housing market and take out home "equity" loans, etc., etc.
Bottom line: Government created this problem through their interventions, and now they're trying to fix the problem with more of the same (this is a common theme in government). They are saying "WE MUST ACT ON THIS NOW!" when in reality we would all be much better off if they did nothing. - nick1971, on 09/29/2008, -2/+11I'm a European. Please explain to me what the alternative is to the bailout.
- Charlotte_Web, on 09/29/2008, -6/+14Here's the problem: in 2004, the Republicans in the House held a dozen hearings to investigate corruption in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Watch this video, it'll make you mad as hell:
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/VIDEO_Dems_fight ...
Democrat after Democrat after Democrat after Democrat are "pissed off" at the Republicans for trying to fix something that they claim "isn't broken"!
Even the CEO of Fannie Mae, Frank Raines, claims in the video that home mortgages carry almost no risk! Is this guy an idiot or what?
$700 BILLION WAS SPENT BECAUSE DEMOCRATS OPPOSED THE INVESTIGATION OF FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC. - CycloneTH, on 09/29/2008, -0/+8Sadly, you're probably right. Regardless of the MASSIVE amount of negative opinion toward the bailout, politicians are still considering it. With the amount of public outcry going on, you'd think any decently run congress would've dropped the bill immediately. The reason they aren't is because they simply don't give a ***** about the public. This bill in all likelihood is going to pass, and the American people are gonna have the big bad corporate dick jammed up our asses a little bit deeper.
- SugarCoatedSalt, on 09/29/2008, -0/+8I did, great movie.
- morepowerr, on 09/29/2008, -0/+8"id rahter invest 700bn now then have the economy crash?"
It is going to crash anyway. There just making it take longer. This is not a fix. The way the bank system works is the problem. We pay this now and we will be paying 1 trillion more or more in 2 years. this will not help Joe and Jane worker.
It only give the banks more money to keep making bad loans.
This is like trying to fix a cars gas tank with duck tape. You don't need duck tape we need a new gas tank. - covertbadger, on 09/29/2008, -1/+8Because the banks need liquid assets right now, and the mortgage-backed securities are long term. The American public can afford to hold the securities for a few years and collect the profits; the banks can't.
- Residents, on 09/29/2008, -0/+7***** yeah, that's awesome.
- ProjectGSX, on 09/29/2008, -0/+7The beauty of a two party system. Two pigs in different suits providing the illusion of choice.
- jknevitt, on 09/29/2008, -2/+9I'm glad we have so many economists on Digg.
"Today is the decision day," said Barney Frank, D-Mass., on the House floor. "If we defeat this bill today, it will be a very bad day for the financial sector of the American economy and the people who will feel the pain are not the top bankers and top corporate executives but average Americans."
Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif., also urged passage of the bill, despite reservations he admitted all members had on the proposal.
"I have yet to talk to a member who wants to vote on this today," Miller said. "This is probably the toughest vote any of any of us have taken since we've been in Congress. If you just solely rely on the phone calls we're getting from home, listening to people who don't understand the complexities of our marketplace and what we're dealing with here, the easiest vote for you to make would be a no vote today. You have to go beyond that."
From: http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news/economy/bailo ... - angryfirelord, on 09/29/2008, -1/+8In the words of Bill O'Reilly: "***** THING SUCKS!"
- Rad4444nunez, on 09/29/2008, -4/+11You know, I love how the US government bails all of these 4%#%^ out of trouble. Are they going to bail me out?
- blacktriangle, on 09/29/2008, -3/+10That sounds like something PedoBear would say.
- qXdc, on 09/29/2008, -0/+6First time ive seen liberals protesting for personal responsibility.
- joshabe, on 09/29/2008, -1/+7that's exactly what i was thinking. we need more of this in America.
- syadasti, on 09/29/2008, -2/+8Bravo the protest, but seriously now. Even if every Congresscritter we recalled, the people who actually OWN America would still have plenty of their willing tools to slot right back into those seats and keep the machine grinding along.
- 5h0ckw4ve, on 09/29/2008, -4/+10In the words of Gandalf...."This bill...SHALL NOT PASS!"
- julian02392, on 09/29/2008, -0/+6You broke it, you bought it, the bailout is *****.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 240 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is