digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Bear Stearns Buyout Illegal - Grounds for Bush Impeachment!

market-ticker.denninger.net — In direct violation of The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and grounds for impeachment, George W Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson provided to JPMorgan a $30 billion bribe flowing from the US Treasury, via The Federal Reserve, in order to “buyout” Bear Stearns at a price not determined in the free market. WE MUST STOP THIS CRIME NOW!

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Coldwarvet, on 03/27/2008, -44/+38Get behind this, or continue to get rear-ended by the pigmen!!
    • Terr01, on 03/27/2008, -15/+41Yes, it's bad for many reasons...

      But why the hell is this being paraded as "OMG grounds for impeachment!!111" after all the other stuff?

      Bush has already thrown US citizens into jail for years without trial, lawyer, or charges. He's already been breaking the law tapping people's conversations. He's been declaring he has a legal right to continue doing both.

      And somehow *this* is important by comparison? Or is it only important for a certain breed of conservative who don't give a damn about the Constitution but will lay down their lives for the "free market"?
      • MellerTime, on 03/27/2008, -6/+20Because this is about our money. And everyone knows we care a whole lot more about our money than we do our rights.

        I totally agree with you, but at this point I'll take anything I can get...
      • Coldwarvet, on 03/27/2008, -6/+1Not really much of a conservative here, more of a libertarian. I think this is about the rule of law, and you have a point about other egregious offenses. But this one is about bailing out pigmen.
      • phunlee, on 03/27/2008, -5/+5We have to grab at all of these straws. It seems that without a blood in his hands and a knife with his prints, our Congress won't even proceed with any kind of criminal proceedings. Al Capone was put in jail for tax evasion. We all know that Bush has done much worse than this, but if this is the one thing that gets him what he deserves, then so be it.
        • mikelieman, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6MARION JONES was put in jail for telling a Gov't Agent a material lie in violation of 18 USC 1001. Martha Stewart got nailed on the same charge... IIRC, the guy in the midwest they just nailed is going the same route...

          Bush, Cheney, Rice et al also broke the law in violation of 18 USC 371, by lying to Congress to deprive them of their appointed oversight duties.

          They are, quite simply, Above The Law, and further they have unlawfully replaced "The Few Good Men" working as USAttorneys at the DOJ with Crazy Religious Fundamentalists which both insulates them further from any legal sanctions for their crimes -- AND let's them conduct the political games like Spitzer, etc...

          • TimDigg, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1I don't think Jon Yoo is relgious...just evil
      • ThndrShk2k, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2It's because this is the most forward offense that they bypassed the law to do. The other stuff they had ***** removed or are doing for national security, but this is just blatant disregard for the process. The ***** is going to hit the fan sooner or later, why not let the ***** market decide the buyout? Wouldn't that be for the better since it would stimulate the economy better?
        • Terr01, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3I'd refer the case of Jose Padilla as a great example. Sure, the guy's not exactly Santa Claus, but it's a matter of clear public record what was done to him. (Short story: Nabbed from Chicago airport and spent 2+ years in solitatry confinement in an empty military cell block in an empty cell without even being charged with anything or allowed to see a lawyer. Then more years except having been able to see a lawyer intermittently.)
      • Nosocialism, on 04/01/2008, -0/+0What U.S. Citizens are in Jail, or is it that you would like to extend Citizenship to those who have planned the attacks on the WTC? Do you hate America so much that you want these people granted citizenship now?
    • Hangly, on 03/27/2008, -5/+9While I appreciate that the buyout is illegal, what has it got to go with the Bush administration? The Fed is a private company.
      • marksven, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4Congress oversees the Federal Reserve, even though it technically is a private bank.
        • Nosocialism, on 04/01/2008, -0/+0You are correct sir, it is the Congress that's in charge of the Fed, so if anyone should be impeached (which I doubt) it would be Nancy Pelosi, since she's in charge of Congress, and by proxy the Federal Reserve.
    • Idolatry, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Aren't Bush and Cheney's bank accounts frozen while they're in office?
    • codered1322, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Nah man. Bush sucks but this is all lies.
  • bigtallmofo, on 03/27/2008, -30/+212Let me get this straight... JP Morgan keeps any profits, but the people pay for any losses.

    W T F ?!?!

    To add the icing on the cake - Paulson used to work for Goldman Sachs and he's just bailing out all his buddies. UNBELIEVABLE!
    • bingobongony, on 03/27/2008, -21/+33Why are you replying to your own submission in a way that makes it sound like you are just learning about it now?
      • MindTrigger, on 03/27/2008, -9/+6Who gives a *****?
      • bobthebuilder25, on 03/27/2008, -5/+19Just because he submitted it doesn't mean he wrote it. He found the article, submitted, thought more about it, and made a post. What's your deal?
        • bingobongony, on 03/27/2008, -9/+3Doesn't matter...replying to your own submission is lame neough. But he did it in such a way to makeit appear that he was not hte submitter.
          • breadfred, on 03/27/2008, -0/+9Yeah right. That's why used the same handle. I bet you a lot of people here have more than 1 handle and comment and digg their own stories, but bigtallmofo just wanted to comment on an article he found. I cannot for the life of me envisage how that is lame.
    • davbmn68, on 03/27/2008, -5/+22That's not exactly accurate. The F.R. is guaranteeing $30B in assets to keep investors from losing their shirts, because B.S. invested unwisely. This is an effort to keep liquidity to allow a buyout. This is why JPM upped their bid. The Federal Reserve is assuming all the risk here. The truth is B.S. assets will probably be worth alot more than $30B. The Federal Reserve stands to make money on this deal, in that any value above the $30 guaranteed will go to the Federal Reserve. A smart move on their part. Do you really think they would assume a huge risk like that? They are money people, they like MAKING money.
      • dtaylor379, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Exactly!
      • diggingaround, on 03/27/2008, -3/+6"....The Federal Reserve is assuming all the risk here.."
        ROFL
        you mean they will lose all that (monopoly) "money" they printed from thin air?
      • marksven, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7How does this make it legal? Is the Federal Reserve is now free to break the terms of the law in order to speculate with what is essentially taxpayer money and bail out investment banks? I don't think so.
      • ThndrShk2k, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2so the federal reserve is taking the risk

        So if they win, our money is worth more, we all win
        So if they lose, our money is worth less, we all lose.

        The federal reserve taking the risk of the investment/debt involves all of us.
        They also make money all the day by printing it, they don't feel the effect because the inflation doesn't effect money/debt that isn't introduced into the system. Once they introduce it, everyone down the line from then on past the initial people feel the loss, as the money they just received is now worth less due to more in circulation.
      • eviltandem, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Well then it all makes sense! Everybody gets to do what they want and the tax payer absorbs any real risk, while the reward stays with the people who screwed it up in the first place!

        Because in this whole mess the thing on the top of my mind is how unfair it would be for the BS people to have to actually deal with the consequences of their choices in a free and open market. That would just be outrageous.

        Sounds fair to me...
    • airfabio, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5Actually it works the other way around. Fed keeps all the profits and JP Morgan is responsible for the first $1 billion of loses.
      The assets were valued as of March 14, so there is a decent chance that the Fed is actually going to make money or at least not loose a significant sum. So the Fed stabilized the financial markets and stands to make a profit. Looks like a pretty good deal to me.
      • eviltandem, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1So free and open markets are good, unless of course, things aren't going well. Then socialism is good! Well, not real socialism. We don't want the state standing to make too much money or control in any of this, we want to make sure that stays with the guys that made all the mistakes.

        So we define a "free" market as one where private individuals and organizations make the money, and the government absorbs the losses?
    • Zlorp, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2haha i know right? yet the same people who are fine with this type of thing would sooner leave the country than have government healthcare
      • foxtrot25m, on 03/27/2008, -1/+0Impeachment! BUSH Impeachment! BUSH Impeachment! BUSH Impeachment! BUSH
        TIME TO START A WEBSITE FOR EVERYONE WHO THINKS BUSH SHOULD BE IMPEACHED TO SIGN!!!!!
    • DMCer, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Paulson?! I think you mean Ben Bernanke. The fact that you're mixing up the Federal Reserve with the Treasury Department shows you're clearly sensationalizing something of which you know little about.
    • Flipdawg27, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2Take a finance class. Anyone who dug this up - follow suit.
  • activerain, on 03/27/2008, -23/+119This is probably the most disgusting thing I've seen lately, and I'm so angry I'm shaking. The pig men of wall street are getting a bail out for screwing over the US taxpayer and we're going to end up paying twice. The bailout is illegal on many points, clearly violating the federal reserves congressional charter.

    Bloomberg: Tax payers maybe liable for Bear Stearns Rescue - http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aN ...

    Bloomberg: Bear Stearns Sale to JPMorgan to Be Probed by Senate - http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aA ...
    • davidcg, on 03/27/2008, -5/+15I'm in agreement with you about this like this getting my extremely angry, id digg you up more if I could. Personally, the thing that really ***** me off lately are the two recent nuclear weapon mishaps. But that aside, this current action by bush is just another item to add to the list of reasons of impeachment. He shouldn't be allowed to just give company's any amount of money to "save" them and pay directly out of the Federal Reserve whenever and however he wants.
    • Tehrooni, on 03/27/2008, -20/+6Get a grip man. President Bush saved the whole economy from Collapsing. $30 Billion is peanuts in terms of investing into the economy. If he hadn't acted when he did, it would have been the 1930's all over again. Go thank God we have a president to save the day in the most difficult times. Since 9/11, this president has consistently shown that the hand of God is behind his back. I start shaking at the thought of having had a liberal moron like Al Gore at the helm the past 7 years.....
      • rootofunity, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5yup it definitely seem like the hand of God is behind his back. Ready to slap him in the back of the head. :P
        Do any of you really think he knows enough about the economy to make that call??? He just ok'd his advisors and Bernarke.

        Regardless it does suck that he used public funding to help bail out Sterns but at the same time not doing anything would of wiped out so many peoples savings 401k's, portfolio's all innocent customers of bear sterns. It could of caused another depression if it inflicted a domino effect. Again i don't agree with using public funding but what other options were there?? Something had to be done. Also 30 Billion is a extremely small, insignificant, fraction of the other wasted money this administration has sucked up from taxes payers dollars (IE Iraq, Homeland inSecurity, etc.
    • cotaskmemalloc, on 03/27/2008, -16/+14I laughed a lot when I read "and I'm so angry I'm shaking". You sound ridiculous.
      • laserblazer, on 03/27/2008, -6/+11Your apathy and shallowness are what's ludicrous, and thoroughly ridiculous; you can't imagine what it's like to love your country. Go eat a barbed-wire fence.
        • cotaskmemalloc, on 03/27/2008, -4/+4I can't imagine what it's like to love my country? Just how would you know that?
          If it sounds like I'm apathetic and shallow with regards to this issue, it's because I simply do not share the opinion that this particular issue was anything illegal or even immoral. You're just another insignificant left wing nutjob. Have fun changing the world through comments on Digg - I hear it works real well.
        • skinturtle, on 03/27/2008, -4/+2War needs to be declared on the wealthy and greed ridden. They have way too much power and they need to be cut down to size.
          • stevetrojanman, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2Ah...so you're a communist...
    • rhydondirty, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4Bear was the most exposed bank to the housing market. The Fed put up $30 billion for public interest. Bear is a counterparty to over $10 trillion of OTC swaps. With the broker's collapse, the fear of these and other contracts would no longer be honored would have infected the worlds derivatives markets. Imagine theose doubts raging in all the securities Bear traded and from there spreading across the financial system; then imagine what what would have happened to the economy. You should be thanking the FED for saving us from 10 Tril.
    • c1nn46, on 03/27/2008, -3/+10i'm shaking with laughter at how stupid you are. BS was about to go illiquid which is ~= to bankrupt for a financial firm. This would have caused a chain reaction killing wall street and sending the market into a panic. The fed saved your ass. (here i assume that you are not 8 years old and have some investments, which may be a bit much)
      • marksven, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Would you rather get the cleansing of the system over with quickly, or have it take 10 years with stagflation? By propping up this house of cards and not taking our medicine now, we are risking a repeat of the 1970s.
      • eviltandem, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2BS made some very poor decisions. Not me, not you, not the fed, BS. These guys need to lose their shirts. I don't understand why it's not fair for them to deal with the consequences of their actions. The people who took out home loans they couldn't afford lost their homes (which is fair), so these people should lose their shirts, as is fair.

        This is like rewarding a pet for bad behavior. What message do you send when they can do any crazy thing they want because the fed will bail them out. Of course they do things like this, they can take out all these bad loans because at the end of the day they dont' have to risk anything, they can just pass that on...
    • ghuytro, on 03/27/2008, -2/+7And the "liberal" welfare state is worse than the "conservative" welfare state how exactly?

      The only trickling from this kind of trickle down economic policy is from the runny nose of some investment banker's disposable tawny girlfriend who's done one line of coke too many, courtesy of the taxpayer.
    • dcollins, on 03/27/2008, -0/+8I am curious as to why I keep reading comments from all these people who think that its white collar billionaires getting bailed out. Middle class citizens put their retirement funds in to plans, which are then invested for them in the market. They are losing on this as well.
    • cbuddha42, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4Alright, I read all these articles and I'm still lost with the claims I see people making. I was mad when this originally happened because it seemed like a federally funded bailout of a corporation. Anyway, I have a couple questions:

      1) A lot of people claim the fed caused the problem. I can see some way that you could claim this, but most people seem to be accusing them of not regulating the banks enough. Supposedly lax regulating lead to the current subprime problem, which I don't quite buy, but whatever. This leads me to ask, where do it say the fed is supposed to regulate the banks?

      2) Impeachment? Even the article just claims people are saying Bush signed off on it, I don't see an actual signed presidential order calling for this action. Just because Bush told the fed it was a good idea doesn't mean you can impeach him for it. So, under what law do you claim he should be impeached? Please don't be vague like the article.
    • voodoosteve84, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0Someone should digg the second one you listed (Bloomberg: Bear Stearns Sale to JPMorgan to Be Probed by Senate)...I'm too tired.
    • Nosocialism, on 04/02/2008, -0/+0Why do people insisnt on commenting on something they don't understand. EVERY single piece of paper here, is backed by a Home, do you think those homes will shrivel up and not exist anymore? The Problem is INVESTOR CONFIDENCE is keeping them from buying any of these things at any price, shoulld the Fed have simply allowed these institutions to collapse? The president of the company already lost over a half Billion Dollars of his personal fortune, should EVERYONE invested in Bear Stearns have lost their money? Please don't comment on things you don't understand. Equity swaps are way out of your league and you have no standing in commenting.
  • tsberts, on 03/27/2008, -23/+86This is EXACTLY why our forefathers got mad enough to declare independence: Remember "No taxation without representation" ?
    Bernanke and Paulson, appointed officials, just taxed me, my wife, and my three kids to the tune of $1500. Bush backed him up. And I'm ***** off about it. When Congress votes and puts us on the hook for a $30 Billion bailout, then we can have a conversation. Until then, let's throw the treasonous bastards in the hole.
    • jeffiek, on 03/27/2008, -2/+13When Congress votes on it you don't need a conversation, you need a bigger hole.
      • MellerTime, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2But the point is that the people in Congress were put there by us to do those things. These guys weren't.

        Which way to the hole?
    • Tehrooni, on 03/27/2008, -20/+9LOL
      You liberals never seize to amaze me! Do you prefer keeping your $1500 and sleeping on the street next month? The president just saved the whole economy from collapsing because morons like you borrowed money they couldn't pay back. Go thank God the Almighty for having President Bush in office in these difficult times.
      • laserblazer, on 03/27/2008, -3/+6I bet if you tried to breed with a human, your offspring would be sterile.
      • Aokitsune, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1There's no guarantee of that. Things could go a lot worse before they get better. And the problem isn't just the average person taking out loans and defaulting on them- corporations' speculative investing based on virtual money and dubious record keeping has a part to play too. Though I'm sure President Bush's brilliant solution of sending checks directly to the people will turn the economy right around no problem, regardless of other factors like the price of basic necessities. /sarcasm
        And the word you were looking for is "cease" not seize.
      • drouk1556, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3I'd look a little bit deeper than I know you're going to. Deregulation of private businesses and conservative free-market ideologies played a bigger part in this crisis than you could imagine. Barney Frank said it in the Boston Globe, that "To the extent that the system [referring to subprime mortgaging] did work, it is because of prudential regulation and oversight. Where it was absent, the result was tragedy."

        Blame the liberals all you want, buddy, but with the current administration's remarkable streak of failure and the notable decline of conservative popularity in the last decade, I wouldn't be so *****.
    • jecruzs, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5$30 billion / $300 million = $100, my friend. It's still a robbery, but it isn't as much as you point out.
      • jecruzs, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2300 million people. Sorry. =/
      • displacednomad, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1You have to remember that only half of American are taxpayers. Many are too old or too young to be working. Others choose not to work for various reasons. And few can't get work.

        And tsbert describes a family of five. I'm guessing he has the income to support them. Therefore his tax burden is far greater than my mine, as a single guy. My share might be $20 because of how little I make, but I could agree with his being high. Not $1500, but still high, like a hundred or two.
    • sw33tsarin, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2I see a few of you talking about how Bush saved the economy and all that *****, but whose policies and actions got us here in the first place? with the way his policies are causing our contry to bleed money it's like he put a bandaid over a shotgun wound.
      • Antwan718, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2We need the needle thread and lighter to close it back up, who's up for lighting bush on fire, he should burn well with all the Texas oil he has.
    • floorman56, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Remember "No taxation without representation" ?
      Hum You DO have representation ....its called congress... Now if you don't like your representation vote them out.
      • displacednomad, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
        In these United States, we have a two party system. It's not official by a matter of laws or anything. It's just the product of the electoral college and the majoritarian democratic model.
        In effect, we don't have the democratic freedom to vote them out quite like we think we do. We have two choices (on occasion, three or four if the smaller parties step it up).
        200 years of political refinement have led us back to this gruesome era of taxation without representation.
        • floorman56, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Humm didn't you just vote the GOP out of power? And put the Dem's in power? ...Who I may add want to RAISE your taxes.
  • sgiffy, on 03/27/2008, -53/+31The only right about this is most of the names. The Fed saved us from financial disaster. Thanks would be the appropriate response.
    • ithasacarb, on 03/27/2008, -16/+21The fed caused and half assed fixed the problem. You sgiffy are a moron.
      • herkimer65, on 03/27/2008, -8/+12Moron was putting it rather delicately.
        • bamapachyderm, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1That's funny, coming from a stalker. Asshat.
      • c1nn46, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6How did the fed cause the sub-prime problem?
        • Antwan718, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2By not raising the interest rate and letting people borrow because they saw a low loan percentage.
          • ithasacarb, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1The rabbit hole goes much deeper than that.
          • stevetrojanman, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2The Fed raising and lowering the overnight borrowing rate has very little to do with the subprime issue...the interest rates on the market are caused primarily by bond yields on the open market. This means that investors are the group that is most responsible for the low interest rate. They were willing to buy bonds at lower yields that supported the easy borrowing rates.
        • ithasacarb, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1Let me answer your question with a metaphor so everyone can understand. How did the Cancer Tumor cause the problem. It was the cancer tumor itself that caused the problem. If you truly understood how the federal reserve worked you wouldn't be asking silly questions like that. You use google right? "how does the federal reserve work" And if you have questions after that, you didn't read enough.
    • haircut1001, on 03/27/2008, -6/+20The Fed caused the problem when they chose to not regulate the banks. Now they want the taxpayer to foot the bill for their and the banks mistakes?

      I don't think so.
      • Tehrooni, on 03/27/2008, -10/+5It is not the job of the Feds to regulate the banks you liberal morons. The economy was collapsing because Liberal idiots borrow money they cannot pay back. I am all for the feds regulating Liberals' spending, but that is not their job either. In the mean time, just thank God President Bush saved the day on this one, or you'd be chattering with your liberal buddies from the street.
        • StGhurka, on 03/27/2008, -5/+6It IS the job of the fed to regulate banks. The problem here is it has heretofore NOT been their job to regulate the likes of Bear Stearns. They are forced to back up the purchase of BS because if they didn't, there would be a liquidity crisis that would threaten large scale economic calamity.

          wait... why the hell am I even responding to you?
          • TheSabre, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Actually, it's up to the state's Banking Department to regulate banking within the state.
        • Hangly, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Technically I think it's the SEC that should regulate it. They both attend the same ***** parties though, so it's kind of a meaningless distinction.
        • ronaldinho, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1WE liberals borrowed money that put us into this *****? Look it up. I remember that Bill Clinton almost shaved our budget deficit to ZERO because Bush propelled it to the billions.
        • senatorpjt, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2It's not the job of the feds to regulate banks, but it's not the job of the feds to bail them out either. Quid pro quo. If we're going to have to save these assholes every time they ***** up, we gotta keep the bastards on a short leash.
    • mormo92, on 03/27/2008, -4/+6You should probably stop reading press releases and start reading real news.
    • huckabee, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."
      • ronaldinho, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I find it interesting it comes from "huckabee"
        • huckabee, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Yes, the irony goes deep and wide here.

          iSevilla por el campeonato!
    • chillmandan, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2The fed makes sure our economy stays under control. I love how the digg community jumps on the anti-fed bandwagon when a recession comes along.
    • bsmang, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2All they did was postpone the economic chaos and ensure that it will eventually be even worse than it already would have been. And all at our expense.
      Yeah, thanks! (/sarc)
  • kakready, on 03/27/2008, -17/+19Line in the sand, people!
    • MellerTime, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4I think we passed the line I drew about 2 years and a thousand miles back...
    • shakbhaji, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Remember the Alamo!
    • dorkino, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4Head in the sand.
  • kdenninger, on 03/27/2008, -28/+21Guys, this one IS GETTING NOTICED.

    Digg it, sign it, DO IT.
    • tsberts, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4Nothing changes until we get sufficiently ***** of, and vocal.

      I'm feeling a bit of both, today.
  • tsberts, on 03/27/2008, -33/+107The Fed is not "saving us from financial disaster" -- they have created the existing financial disaster, and are making the coming fall much, much worse.
    We ARE going to crash.
    Our entire economic growth for the past four years has been based on a lie - housing value growth - brought about by Fed policy and enabled by creative accounting by the banks. The Fed and the banks have made BILLIONS by STEALING from US homeowners. Now they want us to bail them out? Hell no!!

    It's like pregnancy. The Fed screwed up, and got us pregnant. Abortion would have been painful, but those days are long gone. We're now overdue for delivery. Prolonging the due date is only going to make the final delivery that much more painful.
    Cry and deny if you want, but the baby is coming. The time to hide the pregnancy has long since passed. Now the father wants to take no responsibility and foot us with the bill? Hell no!
    It's not just about being responsible and accountable, it's about following the law. It's long overdue that the rich and powerful live and die by the same rules that we do. You screw up, you pay the price. Sometimes, bad decisions mean you lose money. I, as a taxpayer, am not willing to bail you out now. We're going to crash. I'm not going down alone. No safety net for you this time.
    • aukxsona, on 03/27/2008, -4/+7Wow, you couldn't have used a better analogy.
    • Tehrooni, on 03/27/2008, -15/+2I always knew screwing Liberals in the ass is the best policy!
      • tsberts, on 03/27/2008, -2/+6Getting screwed in the ass rarely results in pregnancy.
        • laserblazer, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4Ex-lax is the morning-after pill for Republican mothers.
      • dorkino, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1So you're saying we're all pussies?
      • PeterODactyl, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3I think he's coming out of the closet.
    • Hangly, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Four years? How about eighty years?
      • tsberts, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2It hasn't been a lie for the last 80 years. 80 years ago you could buy a home in the Sears catalog for under $500. Those Sears houses that are still standing are worth considerably more than $500 today.

        The rapid appreciation since 2003 or so, driven by lax lending practices and low interest rates, is what's behind the current credit crisis. There's no way out of it but to take down home values to an honest market value. It's going to hurt. Let's get it over with, and get on with our lives.
        • Antwan718, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I love that in south flordia, all i see is new home developments being brought up.
    • HeroDreamerCS, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1The Fed needs to start using condoms.
      • redneckblues, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2No need, we're getting raped in the ass.
    • sw33tsarin, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5The Fed *raped* us and got us pregnant. Fixed that one for you homie.
    • ceredron, on 03/27/2008, -5/+5It's sad I'm seeing this much ignorance. Listen, if you know anything about how the fed has to work, it has to do dirty ***** like this to make the banks do what they want. And in this case, it was SAVE THE ***** ECONOMY. Do you have any idea how badly America would have turned into a debt freefall, making the dollar worthless, decreasing imports, devaluing investment in the american economy, and all that *****. People who complain without understanding the necessity of underhanded deals are ignorant and fail to see the need for realism in a world full of *****. Get an Econ degree, then work in a related field, and then complain. Because you won't be when you realize how much was at stake if JP Morgan didn't do what we wanted them to.
      • skinturtle, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Do you know how badly America is still going to turn into a debt freefall, making the dollar worthless, decreasing imports, devaluing investment in the american economy, and all that *****?
      • tsberts, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1And... I'm not looking forward AT ALL to footing the bill to bail out JP Morgan.
        Just let 'em fall. They screwed up, they pay the price. We could spend $500 Billion propping up these crooks, and they'd still fall. Let's keep our cash in our wallets and let the big fish pay for once. We're going to need our cash when it's time to rebuild.
        • onestrawplz, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1JP morgan's not getting ***** like bear stearns was. they're not going to need a bailout.
      • bubbalicious26, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1yeah, honestly. what has that deal changed really? credit spreads are still at all time highs. no confidence in the system and that's all it has been based on for way too long.
      • GoneFishing, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5lol. econ degree. go do something like engineering or science, so you can grow up and understand what it means to take responsibility.
        • ryeland, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Damn right. A broker recommends you take this and that stock, the stocks plummet, oh well the market is volatile, no real backlash for the broker. An engineer desings a bridge, the construction company cuts corners and hides it beneath the concrete. The bridge collapses 20 years later, the engineer gets hung out to dry. Thats responsibility. Perhaps people should start holding these banks and governments accountable for their sub prime practices. Here is an idea, stop spending money you don't have.
  • ambiguus, on 03/27/2008, -14/+23While a move I don't agree with, I'm not quite sure calling it a bribe is accurate.
    The money was not given to them to encourage them to buy the company, it was used more as an insurance (backing) for them to buy the company. It may be a privileged loan with no intent to pay back, but I'm not quite sure that constitutes a bribe. Shadey and risky to the taxpayer either way.
    • activerain, on 03/27/2008, -4/+3Would the deal have happened without the (non-recourse) loan?
    • ExRe, on 03/27/2008, -3/+11So I can give a hooker a "privileged loan" and it wouldn't be illegal?
    • ambiguus, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Giving a hooker a loan is not a problem, but the service she renders from that fee will probably get you in hot water...unless you're in certain parts of Nevada. But let's stick with the issue here.

      As far as i was lead to believe, the situation was as follows: B.S. had a lot of morgateges tied to the company, and if they were to go under, then foreclosures would continue to rise and the econonmy would gain vast momentum down this slope of a recession. The government, under the guise of wanting to prevent this, needed this company to be taken over, but no one wanted to assume the risk. To mitigate the risk, they offered to back the loan if someone was willing to run the company. J.P. decided that at $30billion, it was worth it for them to take on the time, effort, and risk of running the company since they wouldn't have to take the hit if things couldn't be salvaged. In a misguided way, the government is trying to stop the slipsliding economy on this one.
      Again, im not so sure I agree with the strategy, but I don't think this qualifies as a bribe. That says nothing about it's legality. It could be very illegal for other reasons.
  • Picaroon, on 03/27/2008, -17/+56Get back to me when this shows up in more places than a blog and a letter.
    • Killeroid, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Exactly, everyone is going nuts trying to find something so that we can impeach that airbag in the white house but you gotta realize, he has less than a year to stay in the white house. Impeachment proceedings will take too long and his presidency will be over before the impeachment is over. So , are you guys listening, BUSH WONT BE IMPEACHED NO MATTER WHAT.. All we can do now is vote and pray the next president who wont be as stupid and airheaded and evil as Bush is/was.
      • sremick, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Impeaching isn't so much about getting him out of the White House as it is to set a precedent for other presidents to take notice, and to regain a small bit of respect back from the international community.

        The USA, like a parent, will not be listened to if its not respected.
  • stormsailor1981, on 03/27/2008, -23/+55congress and ron paul should call for an immediate investigation. only congress can pass laws. no other branch can make up laws as they go along. the federal reserve is not even a government institution.
    • brycelb, on 03/27/2008, -22/+28Buried for unnecessary Ron Paul shout out.
    • Hangly, on 03/27/2008, -3/+6Dr. Paul always calls for investigations. I expect he will this time too. ...And that his call will be roundly ignored by everyone.
    • dcollins, on 03/27/2008, -7/+6Hey I will get buried for saying this since its not what people want to hear, but hey, im used to it.

      Impeachment won't do anything!!!! Bush will be out of office long before the investigation would be even near completion.

      Oh, and I also third the bury for unnecessary RP shout out.
  • PATSCRU, on 03/27/2008, -12/+33Corporate welfare, ftw. Taxpayers ftl
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Faster Than Light? Sounds more like a FTW to me!
    • kittnerrules, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Um..what do those acronyms mean *L*
  • EvansHall, on 03/27/2008, -36/+101I voted for Ron Paul.
    • UltraPenguinX, on 03/27/2008, -27/+17And look how much it helped.
      • MellerTime, on 03/27/2008, -11/+14Yeah, nice to see that your plan of 'wait for someone to swoop in and save me' has worked out so well. At least the RP supporters are TRYING to do something.
        • laserblazer, on 03/27/2008, -7/+3Isn't Ron Paul a Republican?
          • Antwan718, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6Party alliances dont mater, look at what people stand for not where they stand.
    • bingobongony, on 03/27/2008, -25/+11that was dumb
    • reed311, on 03/27/2008, -5/+12Congratulations. I was actually just about to email you and ask you who you voted for. Thanks for saving me the time.
    • RomeyRome, on 03/27/2008, -11/+4As in Ron-Paul-Polling-In-Single-Digits Ron Paul?

      I like the guy too, but eventually you gotta realize it's not going anywhere. But lets not let reality get in the way.
      • Bilabrin, on 03/27/2008, -0/+5If there were a bill in my state legalizing animal cruelty I would not vote for it. Even if polls showed it would pass %95.

        Sometimes it's not about numbers, it's about what's right.
        • Merendino, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4At least there are a few who get it.
    • TripcodeMel, on 03/27/2008, -5/+3Ron who?
    • eOgas, on 03/27/2008, -8/+2Good job. You wasted your vote. Are you also going to write him in for the presidential ballot?
    • slantyeyed, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6i guess you're the only one who voted for him because everyone else on digg who said they would obviously DIDN'T
      • displacednomad, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Screwy system has screwed me over.
        Unfortunately for me, my state's caucus is in July. I never even got the chance to vote for RP, which I wanted to do.
    • xtlosx, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3this is a fantastic thread..i voted for ron paul as well, but i know it was a matter of time before someone made that comment when the fed was the subject of the article.
  • Lane, on 03/27/2008, -16/+10well that is a nice round $100 of cash stolen from each of our pockets.
    • martin1192, on 03/27/2008, -5/+2Not really, taxes come from more than personal income tax... As in taxing corporations which generally are taxed at a higher percentage.
      • laserblazer, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Wrong. Corporations pay as much in taxes today as they did in the 1940s - in unadjusted dollars.
    • toppgun, on 03/27/2008, -8/+5um.... the top 1% income earners pay 60% of the taxes. the top 10% pay 70% of the taxes. I'm pretty sure I'm paying more for this than you are. The rest of the 90% pay peanuts compared to the top 10%. So its not $100 from your pocket, its probably around $30 from your pocket.
      • ekravchenko, on 03/27/2008, -3/+3are you dumb? The rich know how to avoid paying taxes on income they earn on their investments. It only seems like the rich should be paying more taxes, since they are taxed at a higher bracket. However in reality they pay less taxes % wise than your average joe. Here read this http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/mon ...
      • Antwan718, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4Prove it.
    • earful, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1No worries — $300 is in the mail!
  • kahakauai, on 03/27/2008, -17/+100Do we really need anymore evidence to impeach this piece of *****?
    • likeyehokwhatev, on 03/27/2008, -5/+8People didn't need any more reason not to vote for him in '04, but they still did :(
      • ExRe, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4The popular vote doesn't mean *****, because Bush lost it and still got in.
      • MellerTime, on 03/27/2008, -2/+9Please, don't remind me. Sometimes, late at night, I can still hear the screaming...
      • TnTBass, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I would actually point more toward electoral fraud.
    • quomen, on 03/27/2008, -9/+1Not saying you're wrong or right, but would you say that to his face?
      • tj111, on 03/27/2008, -1/+9It'd be a dream come true.
      • dannydyer1000, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7god yes
      • foolishbean, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4in a heartbeat... and then if i was allowed to id give him a nice punch right in the damn face
        • ronaldinho, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I would do it even if it's not allowed
      • ProgressBar, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4No... I'd say it to the hood over his face as I shoved him into a small, cold cell in Gitmo.
      • eOgas, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I'd say it to his mom's face, and then punch her right in the ovary so she can't have another devilchild like bush.
      • ronaldinho, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2I will be happy to tell Bush to go ***** himself and Cheney, I tell you he deserves a LOT more than that
    • ronaldinho, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Well, if we can only get other people motivated to impeach him instead of being indifferent
    • displacednomad, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Hugh's List: http://www.netrootsmass.net/Hugh/Bush_list.html
    • Johntp, on 03/28/2008, -0/+1You gotta remember, you are good at talking ONLINE. You have no say in the real world.
  • connerfitz, on 03/27/2008, -19/+12This place is beyond satire ATM
    • bamapachyderm, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5Seriously. The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
      Christ, it's like watching a trainwreck reading Digg comments. Moving right along...
  • Infidelcastr0, on 03/27/2008, -13/+28This entire administration has done nothing but find ways to essentially embezzle taxpayer dollars or at least make it easier for their cronies to do so.
    • Tehrooni, on 03/27/2008, -9/+2Do you have Alzheimer?
      Already forgotten the 9/11 atrocities and our ongoing war against terror?
      • laserblazer, on 03/27/2008, -1/+5War on Terror = con job protection racket.
      • fanclerks, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Wow... is that your answer to everything? You sound like ***** Guilliani! 9/11! Terrorist!!

        People like you make me sick. ***** think beyond 9/11. More people die everyday than died during 9/11 so don't even try to use that as an excuse for what this administration has done.
      • bamapachyderm, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Dugg with pleasure for making moonbat heads explode. :)
  • Magee1205, on 03/27/2008, -9/+36"But for now, we need to bail the water out the boat and see if we can plug the leaks. Allowing the boat to sink is not an option. And get this. You are in the boat, whether you realize it or not. You and your friends and neighbors and families. Whether you are in Europe or in Asia, you would have been hurt by a failure to act by the Fed. Everything is connected in a globalized world. Without the actions taken by the Fed, the soft depression that many have thought would be the eventual outcome of the huge build-up of debt would in fact become a reality. And more quickly than you could imagine."

    -John Mauldin, Editor
    Outside the Box
    http://www.investorsinsight.com/otb_va_print.aspx? ...
    • TeacherOfHeroes, on 03/27/2008, -2/+7Thank you, sir, for a rational comment on this page. It seems that everyone else here thinks that if large US financial institutions fail, and are not kept alive for the benefit of their customers/partners (as a dried husk, bought for less than 10% of their 52 week high), they won't be affected in any way.
    • Photokon, on 03/27/2008, -5/+7backed by tax payers. Bear Sterns is not a US deposit bank. It's an investment bank. Read that again, an INVESTMENT BANK. They lost. Since when do INVESTORS get bailed out? Oh that's right, in socialist America, socialized losses, privatized gains.

      Bear Sterns got bailed out because it would have shown everyone else is insolvent, so how is that the US Tax payer's problem? Last time I checked I'm not in the business of bailing out executives and employees who ALREADY RECEIVED BONUSES. The CEO got a bonus, the employees got a bonus, so WHY DO THEY NEED MY TAX DOLLARS.
      • ceredron, on 03/27/2008, -1/+6You have no idea what you're talking about. Bear Stearns was BOUGHT OUT. They don't really exist anymore. They're not really getting any money anymore. Their stock is massively devalued, their usefulness is out. And if you think that investment banks don't need to be bailed out, you're foolish. All the banks these days are melting into big generalized investment deposit savings giants, and Bear Stearns was no exception.
        You want to see a failure of the INVESTMENT BANKS? Be my guest.
      • regeya, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Let's see...the average American's saving rate is somewhere a little under zero. We all want a place to live, sleep, have sex, whatever. We all want to eat, have a way to get to and from work. Do we normally take a "grandpa roll" when we go buy a car? Unless we're oilmen or drug dealers, probably not.
        Now, everyone, where does the money come from?
        Banks?
        Uh-huh. Who's left holding bad debt right now? Anyone?
        Banks?
        Correct. When gasoline goes to $4/gallon, you're out of work, you want to go to a job interview in the next town, and you're standing in front of the only gas pumps left open in town (probably at a Wal-Mart or a grocery store) what're you going to want to rely on? Anyone?
        A credit card?
        Right! And who ultimately backs those, eh?
        Banks?
        Yep! Now, it's only through their willingness to loan money that that transaction takes place...so if everyone's left holding bad debt with no way to move any of it, who loses out?
        Eh?
        Guys?
        OK, since everyone's determined we're going into a global Great Depression, I'm planting my Victory Garden right now. I'm still hopeful that foreign investors are still pleased with the low value of the dollar, (relatively) cheaper gas and power, and a work force that's more than willing to work for some cash but might lack funds to fly the ***** out of America. Haier has a factory in South Carolina, there are "green" companies going into those states that McCain gave up on "Those manufacturing jobs are never coming back", eh, Mr. "I crashed FIVE jets and burned the USS Forrestal" fancypants pilots, sir? Just kidding about that McCain jibe, btw, since it was a short which caused the missle to launch...I'm told that you have to watch a movie about that tragedy if you're in the U.S. Navy...OK, I'm off track, so while McCain may have been a helluva guy back then (hey, he DID survive FIVE crashes and was a POW, for Pete's sake) that kind of talk is just dooming us to oblivion. We have a massive trade imbalance, and a massive imbalance of industry vs. service, but for Pete's sake let's not let this one end quick-and-messy. There are opportunities for this to be something other than quick-and-messy or slow-and-messier. Y'all facing rough times right before an election aren't just hurting your fellow countrymen, you're hurting damn near all of the SIX BILLION PEOPLE on this planet. Food riots in 40 countries, because on top of shortages, panicky traders are jacking up commodity prices AS A HEDGE? C'mon!
        It's fun to watch Wall Street slit its own throat, until you realize it affects us all. Right now it's a rather delicate house of cards and I just know some asshole is going to blow on it before it can be dismantled to manageable levels. Next thing you know, Osama will be on TV claiming that Americans are making fuel out of food. Well, I know I am...a bit of chicken with some lovely curried rice is fueling this post...mmm...flavorful rice...
        Shorter version: Disinformation helps no one. These are delicate times that call for delicate measures, not tribunals.
    • Ishtar, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5Thanks for a decent post. Do you people not realize what would happen if the FIFTH largest investment bank in the COUNTRY went under? If you think that the stock market has hit hard times lately, you have no idea. If Bear Stearn's hadn't been bought out, we would likely have started seeing runs on banks....we're talking Black Thursday (for those that don't know, the crash of '29) type crisis. I don't care if you don't think you wouldn't be effected by something like that....you would be. Without the bail out we'd all be in huge amounts of hurt. I don't care what your political views are. If you think this was a bad idea, you obviously don't understand economics or how the economy in this country works.
      • BAFrayd, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2Or maybe SOME of us do understand the economy, recognize it as a corrupt cabal of greedy bankers led by the "Fed", and deficit-spending, ego-maniacal politicians, and want to hit the reset button now, rather than what will be a much harsher later.
  • brokenspatula, on 03/27/2008, -23/+43apparently no one on digg understands the bear sterns situation
    • freethrowtommy, on 03/27/2008, -15/+5Wow... that was a pointless post... want to back up your accusation of lack of knowledge with some of your own next time? Since you seem to know it all...
    • mormo92, on 03/27/2008, -12/+4All I understand is that a financial service provider made some bad decisions and the taxpayers are paying the price for their mistakes.
      • c1nn46, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7that would be wrong. the fed makes its own money, it isn't taxpayer funded.
    • mikes1, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4You're right. The real issue is that our monetary system isn't based on value, it is based on faith. Bear Stearns had almost exactly the same intrinsic value when it's stock sold for $50 on 3/13 as it did when it's stock sold for $5 on 3/17. The change in price reflected a loss of faith.

      The exact same loss of faith can easily spread to the overall economy (i.e. the US Dollar). The Government and the Fed stepped in at Bear Stearns to try an prevent that from happening. That, in the short term, is a good thing.

      But, since the Dollar isn't based on value (i.e. gold or another commodity with a stable intrinsic value), it itself doesn't have any real value. It is traded based on faith that it's purchasing power will remain steady. Unfortunately, with the way the US has been running up debt, and diluting the dollar to pay for it, that faith is quickly eroding. The housing market is one big indicator (it reflects faith/purchasing power).

      The dollar is backed only by "the full faith and credit" of the US. Look it up. Guess what happens when the US gets in too much debt (currently about $31,000 per person!), and the rest of the world begins to lose faith that it can ever be repaid?

      Anyone willing to study economics, and listen to Ron Paul would know that. It's those who dismiss a return to the gold standard as a "kooky idea" who are building a house of cards.
  • syroncoda, on 03/27/2008, -16/+34SO ***** CALL FOR IMPEACHMENT. this is digg. and i may be a guy who thinks too much of this particular social network, but seriously now, ARE ANYONE OF YOU familiar with some lawyers or senators or whatever willing to show some balls and do it? anyone? how long is this going to take while it gets worse and worse? FIX THE COUNTRY NOW!
    • MellerTime, on 03/27/2008, -2/+7I think we're trying to fix the country as best we can by driving up public awareness. You also see on a regular basis calls for Diggers to contact their Congressmen and Senators to fight some crappy legislation. In today's world, I would argue that's about all we can do. What else do you propose? Just because our elected officials are screwing us on a regular basis doesn't mean we can instantly resolve it all by morning...
      • Waterrat, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4So true.
        I've written my reps' several times demanding impeachment...They didn't even send me back a form letter thanking me for writing and voicing my concerns.
    • Tehrooni, on 03/27/2008, -9/+4How about we start by fixing you?
    • RBrenner14, on 03/27/2008, -5/+4The average citizen can't impeach the President, and there's very little they can do to expedite the process either. A majority of the House of Representatives has to agree to the act of Impeachment, and then the Senate is responsible for the trial and conviction, which requires a two-thirds vote. Talking to Senators won't do very much without the House first initiating the process.

      The point is there's nothing the average person can do, unless you're one of those people who think online petitions solve problems. I don't think Bush has committed the "high crimes and misdemeanors" that are required for impeachment (treason, bribery, etc...) and even if he did, I don't think impeachment would do anything but cause more problems. We don't need people worrying about corrupt Executive Officials when he'll only be around for a couple more months anyway. Besides, impeachment is mostly a sham... Just look at what happened to Johnson!

      Bring on the buries for defending Bush....
      • Rsulliv1, on 03/27/2008, -2/+11I believe that Bush has done more than Clinton to deserve an impeachment.
        • Treason, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3I believe you're right sir.
        • bamapachyderm, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Simply because you "believe" that to be the case, doesn't make it so. I hate to tell you this, but objecting to the President's decisions is not grounds for impeachment, no matter how much you wish that were the case. But please, go right ahead and be hysterical. It's been an amusing seven years watching moonbats futilely shriek for impeachment, especially when the result would be (if impeachment would happen, which it wouldn't) Dick Cheney becoming President. PRESIDENT CHENEY!
          LOL.
          • Rsulliv1, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1You're right about that. Cheney will have to go first.

            And, I do like the irony (or is it hypocrisy?) in your statement. Doesn't GW "believe" that God is on his side. Doesn't he "believe" that the war in Iraq is a world-wide success. He doesn't "believe" in public opinion polls. Doesn't he "believe" that the economy is strong. etc, etc, etc.

            But, if you haven't been around for the last few years, here are the details that I base my "belief" on... I could have posted any one of these sites, but google exists for a reason, right?
            I'm much more ashamed of any one of those details more than the (Whitewater + Starr) + Hale = Sex scandal circus that the GOP put us through in 97/98.

            But, you know what? People have different priorities in life, and I can respect that.
            http://www.google.com/search?q=bush%27s+impeachabl ...
          • Rsulliv1, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Digg cut my link. Let's try it again:
            http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush%27s+impe ...
      • MellerTime, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2To make matters worse, who's next in the chain of succession? That's right, Cheney... You want HIM running the show for the last couple months?
    • ntwrkguy, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7but pushing a thumbs up button is a lot easier...
    • TheSabre, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4But that would involve putting down the controller to my PS3...
    • rfox54, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2that was just about the funniest thing I ever read. Thank you.
  • Foghat99, on 03/27/2008, -14/+6Where are the cops?
    • Larz0rz, on 03/27/2008, -5/+4They're beating Tibetan people with clubs for calling them "dude".
      wait...
    • ilkin, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1Chasing Elliot Spitzer, who actually would have done something about it.
  • bcomeaux, on 03/27/2008, -29/+59You people really don't understand the crap that would've happened if the hedge funds bear stearns lends to would've been forced to liquidate its assets. Sorry, but it WAS necessary. Don't be ignorant. I hate Bush, but he didn't do this and it was necessary. Oh what the hell, just bury and go back to being ignorant
    • bigtallmofo, on 03/27/2008, -20/+24What a pompous ass you are. Oh, we don't understand? I've worked for an investment bank for 10 years. What are your credentials? This was a bailout of the stock and bondholders of a single investment bank.

      Since you lack imagination, let's think of another scenario. The stock of Bear Stearns goes to $0, the bondholders lose all their money and JP Morgan buys them for 1 cent! Then the company is far stronger, the economy is far stronger and the only people that lose are the ones that invested in a company that was royally screwing everything up.

      What's wrong with that?
      • p0s3r, on 03/27/2008, -8/+31FYI, just because a guy cleans toilets at Marshall Space Flight Center doesn't mean he can fly the space shuttle.
        • Tehrooni, on 03/27/2008, -12/+4LOL
          Exactly! Bottom line is that our President rose to save the day once again. We should all get together and send him a thank you card.
          • jmpeagle, on 03/27/2008, -7/+3the President had no say in the matter
          • laserblazer, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Your satire lacks a certain zest. It's too dry.
          • bamapachyderm, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3@jmpeagle: I hope you didn't digg this POS article, then. If the President has nothing to do with it, why the hell would the OP and the peanut gallery be calling for impeachment?
            Oh, wait, I forgot. Bush Derangement Syndrome. Everything is grounds for impeachment. Chikezie got booted off American Idol tonight--IMPEACH BUSH!!!1!1!
      • jmpeagle, on 03/27/2008, -3/+11uh...they hold the capital for other companies. Those companies would have lost their capital and would have been forced to cause a stock market crash.

        "Bear Stearns is the second-largest prime brokerage firm in the country, with a 21 percent market share. As part of the prime brokerage business, hedge funds would use their stock holdings and borrow money, many times the value of their stock from Bear Stearns, and then redeploy it in the markets. Bear Stearns, thanks to its stellar credit rating, could easily raise gobs of money that it in turn loaned to hedge funds. They had built up a portfolio of around $136 billion of these assets. (I am not sure how they are really assets, but maybe I am just way too skeptical.)

        In the days leading up to the financial crisis, the hedge funds had started to get worried about the credit worthiness of Bear Stearns and decided to pull their money. Now had Bear Stearns gone bankrupt, there would be a lot of hedge funds out there being forced to dump their stocks into the market just to meet their obligations. In other words, the downward spiral that would have ensued would have become a vortex that would have sucked down entire financial markets."
        http://gigaom.com/2008/03/17/bear-stearns-bail-out ...
        • boozinf, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1I have a serious question: if JP Morgan Chase didn't offer to buy Bear Stearns, and the latter completely collapsed, then would JP Morgan have collapsed, too, in this vortex of which you speak?
          • jmpeagle, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3never said JP Morgan would have collapsed. I said other third parties handling trillions of dollars in assets would have collapsed. Would it have most likely hurt JPM? Yes. But it wouldn't have caused it to collapse. Our financial system is dependent completely on liquidity.
      • Walmac, on 03/27/2008, -0/+7Ummmm....you must have been a pretty terrible analyst at your Investment bank because bondholders have the most senior claim on assets so they wouldn't have lost everything. EQUITY investors would have because they are the last in the chain after preferred stockholders during liquidation proceedings.

        Arguing credentials mean little over the Internet when people like you can make up whatever they want
        • rmxz, on 03/27/2008, -2/+1At a $0.01 sale like the parent poster proposed, the bondholders would get $0 too; regardless how senior their claim.
          • jmpeagle, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3a buyout doesn't mean the buyer gets to reneg on the company's (the one being bought out) debt. A .01 sale would have been shareholder compensation only. That compensation is what they are paying for the right of ownership over the target companies assets plus debts.
    • Keewaydin, on 03/27/2008, -4/+6If Bear went down into forced liquidation, we'd finally have a market value on all the toxic crap that comprises a huge component of the capital of a lot of Wall Street banks, and we could see who is, and who isn't solvent. Scorched earth maybe, but this ship ain't getting righted until this crap comes out into the open.
      • ceredron, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4This is true, but it would cause so much pain for the us economy the fed couldn't allow it. It's their job to make everything seem better, don't you realize?
    • rromanchuk, on 03/27/2008, -3/+3They would have failed and A LOT of people would loose their jobs?
      It sucked when I found out Santa wasn't real too, but it would have been a lot worse for my parents to spend all of their capital resources to make sure I NEVER found out he wasn't. Personally, I think that opportunity cost of that capital is far too expensive.
      • jackgalt, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2A $29BN loan to avoid a depression is a pretty good use of capital... opportunity cost, real cost, or nominal cost.
        • rromanchuk, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1I guess we will wait and see then how beneficial this $500+ BILLION (only including TAF auctions, not including federal fund rate targeting expansion) really is. "Pretty good use of capital" Not my capital.
    • shig, on 03/27/2008, -1/+2Could you imagine having to conduct business in a free market where tax payers couldn't pay for your golden parachute? Could you imagine leaping out of the window of the leased offices of your failing company instead of phoning your business partners in the Federal Government?
    • BUrAph, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Isn't the fed independent...? Meaning it doesn't get money from congress. It makes ***** tons of profit by charging interest on loans to banks, but it doesn't itself pay interest when banks deposit money in the Fed. So yea, the fed has ***** tons of money to throw around on a rainy day. I don't think this affects tax payers in any way.
  • bigtallmofo, on 03/27/2008, -19/+14It appears pretty common that people are saying that this was good for the economy and had to be done. Wrong.

    Let's think of another scenario. The stock of Bear Stearns goes to $0, the bondholders lose all their money and JP Morgan buys them for 1 cent! Then the combined company is far stronger, the economy is far stronger and the only people that lose are the ones that invested in a company that was royally screwing everything up. Then repeat this process until only strong companies survive. This is the way things work in the real world.

    Doing what we're doing now is what caused Japan's deflation for TWENTY YEARS. This is a royal mistake and designed to help out a single group of people - investment bankers and the people that invest in them. Everyone else pays for the bailout and gets screwed.

    • Tehrooni, on 03/27/2008, -5/+9Repeating a wrong statement 10 times doesn't make it right.
      You obviously don't understand the dynamics of economy, especially banking which is very fragile. A bank can loan out up to 15 times of its assets. It doesn't take a lot for it to go down. One bank goes down, it can take other banks down with it. A bunch of banks going down, they can take down whole sectors of business with them. This is exactly what happened in 1929. Except this time we have a president who could save the day.
      Did you say you worked at a bank's cafeteria?
      • Bilabrin, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1That's called a correction of mal-investment. These are necessary and as we can see from 1929 it is temporary as long as there is a workforce.
        Why should everyone pay but the investment bankers?
      • superboo, on 03/28/2008, -0/+0The reserve requirement is actually 10% in the US (10x vs 15x). Regardless, what we have here is leverage or margin. We all know what can happen with investing/borrowing on margin (eg. your stock account has a reserve requirement of 50%, 2;1). That said, it is prudent for you personally to ensure that your investments are made commensurate to your reserve requirements ... you wouldn't invest everything in a momo tech stock in case it drops 30% and you've actually taken a 60% whack in your account balance. Same thing with the IBanks (all of them) ... did they take care in packaging SDOs and SIVs that they knew had a high amount of risk of default? No. There is talk of moral hazard and how at times like this we shouldn't be focusing on principal. However, we can take the risk of not letting anything fail and socializing the losses (what Japan did in the 90s) and having a devalued currency possibly subject to a carry trade or we can let one of these guys fail ... and have everyone else on Wall St wake up and fix the problem themselves.
    • ceredron, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Yeah. Banks loan to banks, you know, and they all loan and lend to each other. The collapse of a big one causes a massive windfall where banks, slowly, but surely, begin to take massive loans they can't pay back, and eventually the debt becomes so great that everyone collapses and everything gets ***** up. It's complex, but it's a definite possibility, and one reason the fed exists. So we don't all go poor.
      • bubbalicious26, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2Thinking that the Fed can stop this is where you are both wrong. What's wrong with a Depression in the grand scheme of things? It flushes out the weaknesses in the system. Sure there will be pain, but it is a natural part of the cycle. The Fed has just helped to delay it (and make it worse). We brought it on ourselves and there will be consequences regardless of any tricks the Fed tries to pull. The more they pull, the worse the end result will be.
        • regeya, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3Hm...well, since things seem to be happening in a more controlled manner, let's check the world news and see what's happening around the world, eh? Such as food riots in, what, 40 countries, due both to delining food stock and soaring COMMODITIES PRICES?
          Yes, let's starve millions so we can keep those RETIREMENT FUNDS alive, eh? Nothing like a little manmade famine to weed out the weak, eh?
          Now imagine what would have happened, and could have happened, had this been allowed to drop down to a Great Depression. Trust me, some of the first (FIRST!) to suffer would have been American farmers. Hmm...food sources at decades-old lows, people starving, literally starving to death, and we're gonna just let a Depression happen so's we can weed out the bad BUSINESSES. I guarantee you that not only do we not have a decent winter wheat crop, but our crops would be severely DIMINISHED because farmers wouldn't have been able to afford to plant. Just that simple. The market is rigged so that, although the price is really high on paper, it's almost always low when it's time to pay farmers. Y'know, if there's a bumper crop the value is obviously low, and the price only goes high when the food stores start getting lower...at which point the farmer no longer has the food on hand, but has already gotten the low price. Talk to a smaller-time farmer and find out what HIS saving rate is. And if it's positive, find out what his night job is.
          Sure, go ahead, look and see how many farm foreclosures there were back in the 70s and 80s. Most farms are owned by large corps now, but even they have budgets they have to meet, I'm sure.
  • StormCommander, on 03/27/2008, -9/+17The Central Bank needs to come to an end like the one before it.
    • weAreDoomed, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Here, here! All in favor of standing behind the Constitution?
  • apophenic, on 03/27/2008, -12/+7I'm sure that this will actually lead to impeachment, and that you know more about what is good for the economy than the SEC!
    • bigtallmofo, on 03/27/2008, -4/+3It was the FED that did this, not the SEC, doofus.
      • apophenic, on 03/27/2008, -5/+4whatever. i don't understand all of this, which is why i'm leaving it up to people who do (not people on the internet)
        • rromanchuk, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1"By a continuous process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method, they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some....The process engages all of the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner that not one man in a million can diagnose." - John Maynard Keynes Economic Consequences of the Peace, 1920
        • BAFrayd, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1If you don't understand any of this, then please try to, because your not-to-distant future is at hand. In the mean time feel free to NOT COMMENT when you have nothing but ignorance to bring to the table.
      • rromanchuk, on 03/28/2008, -1/+1"But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost." (the best economists in the last quarter century. )

        Why was this comment deleted from the thread within? Ben is that you?

  • mrzack, on 03/27/2008, -7/+2good enuff for me
  • bingobongony, on 03/27/2008, -15/+9I love hte "groudns for Bush impeachment", thus making the submitter's viewpoint meaningless.
  • auricomnet, on 03/27/2008, -3/+8Holy crap I love ticker forums, I can't believe Genesis' (derringer) stuff made it here!
  • CYR1X, on 03/27/2008, -11/+15I love how people think that impeaching Bush and making him leave 10 month earlier than normal is the solution to the problem.
    • bubbalicious26, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2The point isn't to impeach. I think the writer knows that there is little chance of that happening. If you read it, you will see that the point is to get Congress to unravel the Bear deal that the Fed didn't have the legal authority to make.
      • CYR1X, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1I know that's not what the writer is saying but that is what everyone one digg is saying.
    • madmonkey300, on 03/27/2008, -0/+4I don't think we can have an election or a new administration until we hold the Bush administration accountable for all the laws they broke.
      • dedan62450, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0I don't believe you "think" about anything.
  • frenchi, on 03/27/2008, -10/+15Sorry guys but Digg Nation is not going to stop this. Maybe a ***** off senator or congressman, but not digg. We can bring back Xboxes and laptops, that's about it.
    • lhbaker, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Digg is already just one big DOS attack. If anything on my servers ever got dugg, they'd burst into flames.
  • svtspeed, on 03/27/2008, -7/+9What good is law if they won’t follow it? Screw the Fed and screw debt based money systems.
    • dk911, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0Well, cut up all your credit cards and return that car, that you borrowed money for, to the dealership. Because, like it or not, you are bound to this system too.
  • Lurtz, on 03/27/2008, -11/+6Is it legal to discuss violent action that we as citizens could possibly take against our government on Digg? This comment is probably along the lines of that "What you cannot say about the President" video from a few days ago, but would discussing literal plans of action for a violent revolution on a social networking website's comment system break a law? If in fact it is illegal then we probably have a good indicator of how little we as citizens can do to check our government, if we can I propose we get another town hall meeting together and do just that.
    • cotaskmemalloc, on 03/27/2008, -3/+6You sound like one of those people who would whine and complain incessantly when your parents asked to to take the trash out when you were younger.
      • Lurtz, on 03/27/2008, -5/+1Why do I sound like that if I may ask? Violence is the most potent form of action a citizen can take against there government. Thomas Jefferson said, "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing. …God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion." As we clearly haven't had an active rebellion in several decades the Government no longer fears the potency of those who they govern.
        • cotaskmemalloc, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3You just remind me of a whining little kid throwing a tantrum when you're told you can't have something. I don't know. You sound like a kid whose knee-jerk reaction to being told something he doesn't like is to threaten to run away from home.
        • Lurtz, on 03/27/2008, -4/+1I fail to see how your comment responses address anything I actually said in either my initial comment or my rebuttal to your first hollow comment. Regardless of your feelings as to how I acted when I was younger the issue I attempted to bring up was not addressed and thusly I imagine you were one of those kids who quickly changed the subject when a discussion was going in a direction you didn't like.
          • cotaskmemalloc, on 03/27/2008, -1/+3I never set out to address the issues you raised. I was simply making an obvservation about how ridiculous you sound because of the way you chose your words.
    • uhal3000, on 03/27/2008, -3/+1he has a point
    • bingobongony, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1OK...do it. Organize that. Then realize how empty that town hall is in hte grand scheme of things.
      • Lurtz, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0I think the seed of discontent in this country is growing by the day actually. Just as in the first American Revolution the actions of few will temper the sentiment of the many.
  • chadu, on 03/27/2008, -6/+14Socialized Capitalism
    • xen0blue, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1shh....us liberals want that...its a good thing.
      • bubbalicious26, on 03/27/2008, -1/+0not when the losses of private corporations are socialized.
  • papipablo, on 03/27/2008, -9/+10If they didn't impeach the bastard for lying the country into a bogus war where 1,000s have died, they aren't gonna impeach him for this sh*t.
  • unc919, on 03/27/2008, -17/+16Yeah Bernanke has no idea what he's doing right? He's only one of the best economists in the last quarter century. This move is important in so many ways to the global financial system. People here need to get their head out of their asses and read on the subject before declaring that we should impeach Bush. It just makes you look more ignorant and bigoted.
    • bigtallmofo, on 03/27/2008, -7/+8There are few people who look more ignorant than those that accuse others of ignorance in error. You are one such person. There were at least a half dozen different ways of doing this that didn't end up with an economic moral dilemma. That is, rewarding the imprudent behavior of the Bear Stearns equity and bond holders. They should have lost everything in this transaction. No, the customers of Bear Stearns shouldn't have suffered. But the people that owned the company (stockholders) and the people that loaned them money (bondholders) should have lost everything before unafilliated taxpayers got stock with a $30B bill. And it wouldn't have hurt the economy any more. Just people who should have lost money would have lost money. But fortunately for them they know Paulson who used to work at Goldman Sachs and is their good buddy! Seriously, unc919. Open your eyes. You're spouting the surface-level *****. Dive down a bit here.
    • rromanchuk, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7"But the U.S. government has a technology, called a printing press (or, today, its electronic equivalent), that allows it to produce as many U.S. dollars as it wishes at essentially no cost." (the best economists in the last quarter century. )

      http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardDocs/speeches/2 ...
      • BAFrayd, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2WRONG. Although the printing presses may belong to the U.S. Government, it is NOT the government who decides to turn them on and print money - it is the Federal Reserve - a cabal of PRIVATE BANKS.
    • rromanchuk, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5"People here need to get their head out of their asses and read on the subject before declaring that we should impeach Bush. It just makes you look more ignorant and bigoted."
      Ok I have read hundreds of books on the subject, spent years getting a lousy degree in economics at a reputable college, spent far to many hours researching and writing, have ran countless and pointless econometric studies trying to figure out the BEST way that man can try to engineer markets (with lower R squares then my colleagues of course!) of collective HUMAN ACTION.

      And guess what. We should impeach bush, and EVERY single governor of the federal reserve from past to present should be tried for crimes against humanity.
    • lhbaker, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2Bernanke has no right to violate the law. Nobody does. This isn't cum on a dress. This is a gift of our tax money to a group of wealthy shareholders.
    • superboo, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0Why don't you answer this one then ... why didn't Ben offer BSC the discount window like he did for GS & LEH?? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/business/25sorki ...

      If he's such a believer in free markets why not have BSC attempt to right their ship via the traditional route of tapping the lender-of-last-resort (aka Fed).

      Also, please try to read the original post more carefully. The point was to avoid use of taxpayer dollars to bailout the excesses of Wall St, not to remove the president from power.
  • jm4847, on 03/27/2008, -9/+17I would love nothing more than seeing the Bush Administration go out in disgrace and shame.
    • laserblazer, on 03/27/2008, -1/+7You're seeing it now.
    • BAFrayd, on 03/27/2008, -0/+2If you really think about it, that is a sad, sad comment.
      Personally, I would rather see the Bush administration go out in a blaze of glory because of all the great things they had done for this country.
      Sadly, he has been a terrible President and no such scenario will occur.
    • dk911, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0I would love nothing more than to see the Bush administration step aside, then release ***** of documents onto the people showing that all the ***** that you consumed as fact for his impeachment was, in fact, *****. You are fed what you want to believe. No matter what you say, you cannot disagree as you are only following what you have been told to say. You're not a free-thinker, you are one of the sheeple that cannot think for themselves.
  • dvs112, on 03/27/2008, -8/+10Seiously, this petition needs to be signed. The manipulation in our capital markets is getting out of hand. Bear Stearns handed out billions in bonuses. Now they are getting a bailout on the tax payer's dime. This ***** has to stop
  • soot, on 03/27/2008, -7/+2Oh my ***** god I would facepalm.jpg if this is what nailed him.
  • charlesray, on 03/27/2008, -17/+11HAHAHAHA.
    Bribe? It's not a goddamn bribe, they gave them money so they could afford to buy Bear Stearns. If someone didn't buy them they would have been forced to declare bankruptcy, at which point all their assets (including mortgage loans) would have been sold off at far less than they were worth. It would've made the problem WORSE.

    GOD DAMMIT GET YOUR ***** FACTS STRAIGHT. You people parade around like you are holier than thou when you are flat out liars.
    • legendxx, on 03/27/2008, -3/+5Diggers love to hate Bush. Rational thought goes out the window when they have another reason to loath him.
      • dk911, on 03/27/2008, -0/+0Wouldn't everyone love to see Bush leave office, then release millions of documents showing that every president before him did THE EXACT SAME THING? I feel like he should -- since people seem to think he's one-in-a-million.
    • Olfster, on 03/27/2008, -5/+2So. Let it crash. Seriously. I hear farms are dirt cheap if you have cash, no pun intended ;). Just get there before the foreigners do. Come to think about it, I sure would like to see them plant corn in some of those Manhatten apartments. Just dump a pile of black dirt on the floor. As for Bush hating, I just don't get it. Why is everyone hating Niel Bush about this situation, that savings and loan stuff was so long ago? Ohh, my mistake, wrong bail out. And wrong Bush. So many bail outs and Bushies I get confused sometimes. Good times to be had by all. Enjoy.
  • RyeBrye, on 03/27/2008, -9/+9"WE MUST STOP THIS CRIME NOW!"

    Ok. Let me get my pitchfork and torch. WTF do you expect a bunch of diggers to do? The only thing we are good at is making prank phone calls and looking up embarassing information on people... unless someone posts the guy's contact info Digg users are incapable of action.
    • dshey, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3we're also damn good at getting Xboxes, TVs, and Laptops returned to their rightful owner.
    • Woundedeagle, on 03/27/2008, -2/+2Sign the petition. Your .gov Sen, Reps, Pres, and god knows how many others will receive a fax all at the expense of K Denninger. This is getting noticed and Digg users are capable action.
    • bubbalicious26, on 03/27/2008, -1/+0seriously? you really think he literally meant pitchfork? good thing we live in a democracy where we have the power to vote for our public officials and let them know when we aren't satisfied with the job they're doing. or isn't that the case anymore?

      it's that apathetic defeatist attitude that allowed us to get where we are now.

      it's really easy to sign the petition. seriously.
  • cotaskmemalloc, on 03/27/2008, -14/+27Let the irrelevant hoard of diggers with tin foil hats rant on!
    • Zamyatin, on 03/27/2008, -2/+5here here. :)
      I always love the screams for Ron Paul libertarianism... but of course no mention of the fact that those same 'taxpayers" who will buy out the banks were the same ones making tons of cash on inflated housing prices and their own stupidly risky ventures. I admit the banks should suffer, that would seem right, except that those taxpayers, had they had some foresight, could have demanded some Congressional regulatory oversight of the horrible loans the banks were handing out like candy.
      • bubbalicious26, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1Like all "taxpayers" took bad loans.....right.

        There were plenty who didn't and saw the ***** games the banks were playing long ago.
  • nkleffman, on 03/27/2008, -6/+7Recommended Reading: The Creature From Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve by G Edward Griffin.

    "The few who understand the system (bank loans earning interest and also serving as money) will either be so interested in its profits or so dependent upon its favors that there will be no opposition from that class while, on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending... will bear it's burdens without complaint" - Rothschild Investment House
    • ceredron, on 03/27/2008, -2/+3Yeah... the fed is completely incomprehensible to everyone. And everyone who learns about it, suddenly falls in love? That's some serious anti-fed ***** right there. I hope you realize the fed is what keeps america so economically prosperous. And causes your 401k to stay above the water.
      • BAFrayd, on 03/27/2008, -0/+3Just like a pusher keeps his junkie alive...

        Seriously ceredron, you are treading in deep waters, while your true understanding of "the fed" is only surface deep.
  • vornan19, on 03/27/2008, -4/+5"Now, the question is, do our Congressfolk have the necessary will to stop this raiding of the public treasury for the enrichment of a private firm - if necessary, by bringing the above article of impeachment?"

    No. They don't have the huevos. The DEms were voted in because the voting public thought they did but alas, they do not.
  • mystere, on 03/27/2008, -10/+21Wow, I just can't believe so many people are this ignorant of both current events and the law.

    A) The government didn't give JP Morgan money to convince them of anything, they ASKED for the money to facilitate the buyout.
    B) The money is a short term loan, due back in 30 days. It was not money "given" to them.

    People really should learn something about what it is they are railing against. It makes you look a little less like a douchebag.

    (and no, I don't agree with the bailout, but the fact is it's not what people claim it is).
    • bugpowder, on 03/27/2008, -9/+8You are wrong sir. The FED assumes all of the negative liabilities beyond the first $1B. The true value of Bear is far into the negative and we all will be footing the bill to the tune of 30B/300M=$100 per person. Thanks.


    • bigtallmofo, on 03/27/2008, -5/+11You are the one that should learn something. Let's start here:

      The Fed is GUARANTEEING the assets transferred from BEAR to JPM. If they are profitable, JPM keeps the profits. If there's a loss, WE THE TAXPAYERS bear the loss. Seriously - look this ***** up, you ass, before you tell another person false things.
      • myphriendmike, on 03/27/2008, -4/+3If the whole economy tanks YOU THE TAXPAYER bears the loss. Don't be so simple minded. A guarantee keeps people calm so panic-freaks like you don't cause a run. Go buy some JPM stock and quit bitching.
      • jmpeagle, on 03/27/2008, -1/+4so would you scrap the FDIC?
      • Brainclone, on 03/27/2008, -0/+1The problem here is that this is unprecedented. The Fed did not allow others to be considered. They hand-picked JP Morgan, loaned them the money, and take all the risk (except for the first billion, which JP Morgan said they would eat if the losses started happening so as to not look too bad).

        The taxpayers subsidized this whole deal, for one company!?!

        It's slippery slope, and this will start the ball rolling. Why save this one company putting taxpayer money on the line? What the hell happened to Capitalism?

        This will just make idiots in major institutions make more risky decisions in the future, thinking they will get bailed by the Fed out if ***** hits the fan. This is a bad, bad thing for us all.
    • haircut1001, on 03/27/2008, -3/+4You are wrong.

      This is a non-recourse loan, AKA a gift.