Wall Street Bailout

[RAT]

Dude . . . I've seen this :poop: circulated in too many places to count . . . perhaps the lack of basic math skills is the part of root problem in this country

Well,
Only five people I sent it to or saw it posted here figured it out. So you may have a point there. I kepy waiting to see how fast someone would catch it.

[MyBrokenJeep]

Senate passed a "Bail Out" bill tonight...

All, to find out how your representative (the guy is supposedly speaking for his/her constituents) voted, check out the following link.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14196.html

Here's the quick list of the senators who voted NO on bailout/economic rescue.

Allard (R)
Barasso (R)
Brownback (R)
Bunning (R)
Cantwell (D)
Cochran (R)
Crapo (R)
DeMint (R)
Dole (R)
Dorgan (D)
Enzi (R)
Feingold (D)
Inhofe (R)
Johnson (D)
Landrieu (D)
Nelson (FL) (D)
Roberts (R)
Sanders (I)
Sessions (R)
Shelby (R)
Stabenow (D)
Tester (D)
Vitter (R)
Wicker (R)
Wyden (D)

[RAT]

I haven't had time to look. What was the revised plan?

[MyBrokenJeep]

I haven't had time to look. What was the revised plan?

Best explanation I have been able to find is this one...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081001/D93HV16O0.html

[blkTJ]

nearly 350 pages of pork added to the original plan. BULLSHIT!!! let's do it without massive taxpayer burden.

LET THE MOTHER !!!!ERS FAIL. LET THE PROFITABLE HOLDINGS BE PURCHASED BY PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. INSURE (NOT BUY OUT) THE REST, LOWER CAPITOL GAINS, LOWER CORPORATE TAX... it will fix itself.

the end.

[Schmo]

I wonder what would have happened with WaMu and Wachovia had the bailout been approved a week or two ago. Seems like at least in those cases, things worked out like they should . . . bad decisions were made, stock price drops which creates an opportunity for Chase and Citi to step up and acquire them.

[RAT]

One Government program after another...

Low expectations for homeowner-help program

Posted Oct 01 2008, 09:32 PM by Karen Datko
Rating:
Filed under: housing, banking, spending, Karen Datko

The federal government's new $300 billion Hope for Homeowners program opened for business today with the intent of staving off foreclosure for 400,000 homeowners in trouble. But we just have to wonder how effective it will be.
Here's a clue, from an Associated Press report: "Lenders, rather than borrowers, will decide whether to participate in the program, which requires them to take a loss on the initial loan."
With those conditions, will banks be in a rush to participate? Apparently not. Housing Wire reported: "The emerging consensus among those in the servicing trenches that spoke with HW ... has been that the program will have less impact than legislators might hope."
Patrick Duffy of The Housing Chronicles Blog wrote, "Apparently lenders are saying, 'Thanks for thinking of us, but no thanks, we'll do our own workouts. Have a nice day!'"
Hope for Homeowners is part of the massive Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 passed by Congress in July. The program works like this: People who are struggling to pay their mortgage can ask to refinance to a 30-year fixed-rate loan equal to no more than 90% of the property's current market value. The interest rate will be based on current market rates. The deal works only if the holder of the current mortgage agrees to accept a loss.
The Federal Housing Authority, which will guarantee the new loan, will get 5% of the new loan for its trouble. The FHA -- not the lender -- also will benefit from any appreciation in the home's value if it is sold or refinanced again at a later date.
Homeowners are eligible only if they live in the house, cannot afford the payment, and spend more than 31% of their monthly gross income on their mortgage. They must also be able to demonstrate their ability to afford the new loan. (For other eligibility requirements, click here.)
Lenders have to be willing to do the deal. They also have to be able -- not always the case with mortgages that have been packaged and sold as securities, notes Credit Slip's Adam Levitin in a Wall Street Journal column. Lenders say they'd rather reduce a mortgage's interest rate than take a loss on the principal. They see Hope for Homeowners as a program of last resort.
Meanwhile, lenders haven't been rushing to work with people who are facing the loss of their homes. Far from it. The State Foreclosure Prevention Working Group, made up of state banking officials and attorneys general, recently issued several new findings, including: "Nearly eight out of 10 seriously delinquent homeowners are not on track for any loss mitigation outcome," and "One out of five loan modifications made in the past year are currently delinquent." So much for meaningful loan modifications.
Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, who released the working group's latest report, said, "As Congress considers a $700 billion bailout package, it is our hope that wide-scale mortgage loan modifications will be a condition of any plan. A bailout that does not build in solutions to the foreclosure-driven downward value spiral will not fix the root of the problem."

[USMC 0369]

Bill is passed, right now markets still falling. Great job guys.

[RAT]

I swear to God...

:angry:This is not a joke! Read it, and weep...

By Karim Bardeesy Posted Friday, October 3, 2008 - 12:23pm
On Wednesday, The Big Money published some of the goodies in the 451-page Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 that seemed neither stabilizing nor responding to an emergency. While there were two major nonbailout tax measures included in the bill (changing the alternative-minimum-tax thresholds and revamping alternative-energy tax credits), a number of other, more arcane measures snuck in. Like a lot of omnibus bills, it's hard to detect whose hand was behind which provisions. For the record, Daniel Virkstis of the Senate finance committee majority staff told The Big Money that the first four of the five listed here are "provisions in current law that [are] being extended" and are not earmarks. All estimated costs are from the Senate finance committee's analysis of the provisions.

Rum: Section 308: "Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands."
What does it do? Travelers to some of the United States' finest territories can now help the local economy for a bit longer. The entire excise duty on imported distilled spirits from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands ($13.50 per proof gallon) will get passed on to these islands' administrations until the end of 2009; the duty was due to be cut to $10.50 per proof gallon at the end of this year.
Who put it in? Unclear. As with American Samoa (see next item), neither of these territories has Senate representation.

How much will it cost? $192 million over 10 years.

Help a neglected archipelago: Section 309: "Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa."

What does it do? Extends a provision for two years that gives a tax credit for "certain domestic corporations operating in American Samoa."

Who put it in? According to the Office of American Samoa Governor Togiola T.A. Tulafono, American Samoa's nonvoting representative, Eni Faleomavaega, was involved in supporting this provision. Faleomavaega's office had not returned a call from The Big Money seeking comment by Thursday night.

How much will it cost? $33 million over 10 years.


Vroom! Raceway benefit: Section 317: "Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility."

What does it do? "Extends a special seven year cost recovery period on property used for land improvement and support facilities at motorsports entertainment complexes."

Who put it in? Probably Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. He introduced legislation in February 2007 to make this provision permanent. Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan. had also introduced similar legislation, but he voted against Wednesday's Senate bill. Schumer's office hadn't returned a call from The Big Money seeking comment by Thursday night.

How much will it cost? $100 million over 10 years.

Woolly exemption: Section 325: "Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool research fund; wool duty refunds."

What does it do? Extends a reduction in tariffs for certain kinds of imported wools (the delicious list includes "fabrics of worsted wool," "yarn of combed wool," and "garneted stock," among other types) until 2014 and puts the import duties collected on other wools into the Wool Trust Fund, "which promotes the competitiveness of American wool."

Who put it in? Possibly Senate finance committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana; in 2006, he inserted a provision into a pensions bill that extended the life of the trust. Neither Baucus' office nor the American Sheep Industry Association had returned a call from The Big Money seeking comment by Thursday night.

How much will it cost? $148 million over ten years.

Whose gonna give you a wooden arrow? Section 503: "Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children."

What does it do? For those who are concerned, it's a long-welcome corrective that had had hit church camps and kids recreational programs hard. Archery Trade Association CEO and President Jay McAninch told The Big Money that a flat tax (now at 43 cents) was placed on all American arrows in 2004 after the IRS feared a percentage tax might not be trade-treaty compliant. But children's wooden arrows are cheap; in some cases, the tax was more than the cost of the arrow. So how to help the kids? The Senate bill exempts these wooden arrows from the 43-cent tax.
Who put it in? Sen. Ron Wyden introduced an identical bill (joined by Sen. Gordon Smith) back in 2007. Jennifer Hoelzer, Wyden's spokeswoman, told The Big Money that this provision was not put in at Wyden's request. (He actually voted against the bailout package on Wednesday.) Smith's office did not return calls for comment. Conveniently, some of these wooden children's arrows are made in Oregon, whose senators are Wyden and Smith. McAninch, of the archery association, said that while he'd been working with Congress on the issue, he had no idea this would be in the bill, and he admits that's it not the most urgent national economic situation. But he's not done yet; while "any shaft consisting of all natural with no laminations or artificial means of enhancing the spine" is covered, McAninch still wants to see similar hollow and fiberglass arrows be made exempt, too.

How much does it cost? $2 million over 10 years


I'm going to vote that we get rid of the government...:dunno:

[sarah]

Welcome to fascism, kids... I'm not gonna stand for it, and I hope you're not either!

[RAT]

Welcome to fascism, kids... I'm not gonna stand for it, and I hope you're not either!

My response to fienstien's email that I posted under Franken Fienstien thread in Off Topic:

Dear Senator Feinstein,
I appreciate your response to my request that you vote against the Bailout. I read the entire diatribe you seem so proud of, but can not believe what I read. You obviously care nothing about what constituents think or want, and your choice to vote for the bill instead has made my decision to vote you out of office just that much easier. I have sent your response to everyone that I know, asking them to read it, pass it on to all they know, and so on, and then make a choice for a new senator, one that will hopefully understand that you are there to serve us, not the other way around. Since you seem unable, or unwilling to listen to your constituents, we will find someone that will. You have consistently voted for bills that take away from us the things we hold dearest; freedom to explore our national lands by whatever means we may enjoy as recreation, and now this hopelessly foolish waste of our tax dollars. Shame on you Dianne, shame on you. How do you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning? Well, the word is out, and you will be seeing the negative results of your bad decisions at the next elections.

Sincerely,


Kurt Kauffman

[1 Bad F N Z]

Sending a letter to Feinstein, or boxer is a waste of time. If you disagree with them, they'll just ignore you, or one letter I recieve pertaining to guns, was your opininon is not needed. Welcome boys and girl to the future USSA. United Socialist States of America. Kevin.

[mrthieba]

Republicans and Democrats have had a monopoly on our country for so long, that they don't have to care what we think. Sure, the power switches back and forth between them every few years, which allows each to blame the other party for everything, and neither party takes responsibility. Until there is a viable third party, nothing will cause change short of a revolution. I've voted Republican for almost 30 years, but no more. A vote for either party is a vote for more of the same. I will always vote, but never again for a Rep. or a Dem.....I want our country back!

[RAT]

I will always vote, but never again for a Rep. or a Dem.....I want our country back!

Then vote your mind, not your heart.

[USMC 0369]

Then vote your mind, not your heart.

I recently had an interesting discussion about how I'm "wasting my vote" or even "voting for Obama" if I were to vote for Ron Paul.

Nooooo, I'd be voting for Ron Paul. I'm tired of tactical voting, where I have to vote against someone instead of voting FOR someone. This election has raised a lot of awareness in the U.S. But I fear on November 5th it will be back to the masses of sheep.