This bail out is retarded

[jigsaw]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qB-OhTfplYE

[waveomatic]

Without a Bailout Plan, What Will the Cost Be?

By JUSTIN FOX 37 minutes ago

By voting down the proposed $700 billion financial bailout package (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/time/us_time/storytext/withoutabailoutplanwhatwillthecostbe/29302636/SIG=120qthvro/*http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1845512,00.html) - and causing a spectacular stock market rout - a majority of members in the House of Representatives made a clear statement that they didn't want to put taxpayers on the hook for the failures of financial institutions.

http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=e3VKQUWTVvroH9YYSMjluwDeSxYvp0jhvqcAB_QB&T=1drgqmt7u%2fX%3d1222753959%2fE%3d2022250433%2fR% 3dnews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3 d2417163912%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50 PSJzdG9jaztIb3VzZTtpdDtGZWRlcmFsIFJlc2VydmU7dHJhZG luZztJdDtsb2FucztQYXVsc29uO0ZlZDtCZXJuYW5rZTtHb3Zl cm5tZW50O2ludmVzdG1lbnQ7V2FzaGluZ3RvbjtNdXR1YWw7Ym FuaztmdW5kO2Jhbmtpbmc7cmVmdXJsX3d3d195YWhvb19jb20i IHJlZnVybD0icmVmdXJsX3d3d195YWhvb19jb20iIHRvcGljcz 0icmVmdXJsX3d3d195YWhvb19jb20i%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3dD3519345&U=13ff5cqs5%2fN%3dcx85DkWTWUU-%2fC%3d679462.12970947.13224644.1442997%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d5484571%2fV%3d1
But there's a catch: taxpayers are already on the hook for the failures of financial institutions, (http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/time/us_time/storytext/withoutabailoutplanwhatwillthecostbe/29302636/SIG=11u9ua6g6/*http://www.time.com/time/topics/wall-street/0,30939,,00.html) and it's possible that the bill will actually be larger without bailout legislation than with it. That's because the regulators who mind the financial industry - the Federal Reserve, Treasury and FDIC - will keep doing what they've been doing: stepping in to prevent the chaotic failure of banks and other large financial institutions. This means continuing to put hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at risk, but in a way that adheres to no clear plan of action and doesn't require members of Congress to explicitly approve their actions.



On Monday afternoon, Wall Street basically stopped trading to watch TV - mainly CNBC - to see how the House of Representatives would vote on the $700 billion bailout package. When it first started looking like the bill would fail, the Dow plummeted 389 points, or 3.6%, in just seven minutes. If it had continued at that pace for much longer, this would have been perhaps the most harrowing day in stock market history. It didn't, but things were still really, really bad. The Dow ended the day down 778 points, or 7%, and the S&P 500 - a better measure of the overall market - was down 107 points, or 8.8%, its worst performance since the 1987 market crash. And markets for bonds and short-term loans were, for the most part, nonexistent.



So what happens now? On Capitol Hill, House leaders said they'll try again soon. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson practically begged for a revised deal in his brief appearance after the market carnage. "Our tool kit is substantial but insufficient," he said. The market's traumatized reaction today may change some minds and some votes.



In asking Congress 11 days ago for the authority to spend up to $700 billion to buy troubled assets, Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke were hoping to share some of the responsibility and the blame - and get the freedom to boost companies that weren't already on the brink of failure. Instead, they're back to being crisis managers for the moment - and maybe for the duration of the crisis.



That's not all bad, especially now that most of the endangered financial institutions are commercial banks. The Federal Government has clearly defined that authorities take them over, merge them out of existence or shut them down - whereas it had to make things up as it went along with investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers and insurer AIG. That's why the demise of giant banks Washington Mutual and Wachovia, arranged over the past week by the FDIC, occurred in a far more orderly fashion than the non-bank meltdowns.



But orderly isn't the same as cheap. To get Citigroup to absorb Wachovia, the FDIC agreed to share the risk on a $312 billion portfolio of loans (Citi has to eat the first $42 billion in potential losses; anything above that hits the FDIC fund).



Also, the fact that every big FDIC deal so far in this crisis has been different - IndyMac was allowed to fail, with only insured deposits safe; WaMu was seized, but all depositors were protected; and Wachovia was sold in a deal that protected both depositors and owners of the company's bonds but left shareholders with very little - has left investors guessing about the fate of the rest of the banking world. Hardest hit in today's market sell-off were regional banks like Sovereign Bancorp and National City, perhaps because they seem too small to get special FDIC treatment.



Federal authorities are going to keep doing whatever they can to keep the financial system from collapsing. Taxpayers will bear the risks and the costs of that, whether Congress votes to put them there or not. And it's possible - although nobody can know for sure - that this ad hoc approach will end up costing more than an up-front $700 billion bailout.

[Ge0m3tRiC]

The stock crash after the rejection of the bailout was execs selling out on purpose to shock. They then purchased back up for cheap immediately after and started others buying raising their stock.

[jigsaw]

Waveo, you are hilarious broseph.

The Fed can of course interject with whatever the hell it wants to do, IT IS A PRIVATELY OWNED FOR-PROFIT company. Look up the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to find out why the Fed exists in the first place, and then why it has the power to act however it will.

This however, does not mean- that the US should interject 700 billion dollars of taxpayer moneyzores.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/749js/harvard_economist_miron_bankruptcy_not_bailout_is/

[waveomatic]

http://www.tshirthell.com/images/contestpics/a249_004.jpg

[jigsaw]

and from what i understand it is failing, most epic style.

[waveomatic]

wow, sounds like your happy.....don't worry, your republican homegirl Palin is gonna save the day...just don't ask her what the Bush Doctrine is...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgMWhrCzbdk

[jigsaw]

i know about Palin and the Bush Doctrine...

she was totally unaware of the anticipatory attack debate.

Anyways, the real dirt on Sarah is how she claims she said thanks but no thanks to the bridge to nowhere...
Alaska still took the 223 million dollars

[inventfmc]

Dont forget. She built the ROAD to no where. Didnt it cost like millions to build? Its 3 miles and dead ends where the bridge to no where is supposed to go. But then theyre talking about a cheaper bridge but it would go to a different part of the island and the road would not be used.

Having said can anyone explain why the stock market is failing miserably yet the bank stocks keep rising?

[jigsaw]

because all this debt we're racking up is owed to them, so in essence, business is better than ever.

[inventfmc]

Oh's yah... forgots about that....


dude... the federal reserve is a conglomeration...
pretty soon it'll be the ONLY bank.

[Matt]

That video is unfair about the Bush Doctrine because technically the interviewer fucked up the definition too...wikipedia the Bush Doctrine the definition has changed like 5 times.

[waveomatic]

Alaska panel finds Palin abused power in firing

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 6 minutes ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Sarah Palin unlawfully abused her power as governor by trying to have her former brother-in-law fired as a state trooper, the chief investigator of an Alaska legislative panel concluded Friday. The politically charged inquiry imperiled her reputation as a reformer on John McCain's Republican ticket.

http://us.bc.yahoo.com/b?P=qiKD7kWTVvroH9YYSMjluw97SygzMkjwE6AAAOBn&T=1aoj3sg56%2fX%3d1223693216%2fE%3d8903521%2fR%3dn ews%2fK%3d5%2fV%3d2.1%2fW%3dH%2fY%3dYAHOO%2fF%3d13 29933630%2fH%3dY2FjaGVoaW50PSJuZXdzIiBjb250ZW50PSJ SZXB1YmxpY2FuO2l0O0l0O2VsZWN0aW9uO0RlbW9jcmF0O2Nya W1pbmFsO2NoaWxkcmVuO3JlZnVybF93d3dfeWFob29fY29tIiB yZWZ1cmw9InJlZnVybF93d3dfeWFob29fY29tIiB0b3BpY3M9I nJlZnVybF93d3dfeWFob29fY29tIg--%2fQ%3d-1%2fS%3d1%2fJ%3d96519345&U=13flsqbsl%2fN%3dO5srBkWTWUU-%2fC%3d674272.13016843.13223622.1442997%2fD%3dLREC %2fB%3d5406809%2fV%3d1
Investigator Stephen Branchflower, in a report by a bipartisan panel that investigated the matter, found Palin in violation of a state ethics law that prohibits public officials from using their office for personal gain.
The inquiry looked into her dismissal of Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan, who said he lost his job because he resisted pressure to fire a state trooper involved in a bitter divorce with the governor's sister. Palin says Monegan was fired as part of a legitimate budget dispute.
The report found that Palin let the family grudge influence her decision-making even if it was not the sole reason Monegan was dismissed. "I feel vindicated," Monegan said. "It sounds like they've validated my belief and opinions. And that tells me I'm not totally out in left field."
Branchflower said Palin violated a statute of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act.
"I disagree," said Palin attorney Thomas Van Flein. "In order to violate the ethics law, there has to be some personal gain, usually financial. Mr. Branchflower has failed to identify any financial gain."
The statute says "any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that (public) trust."
Palin and McCain's supporters had hoped the inquiry's finding would be delayed until after the presidential election to spare her any embarrassment and to put aside an enduring distraction as she campaigns as McCain's running mate in an uphill contest against Democrat Barack Obama.
But the panel of lawmakers voted to release the report, although not without dissension. There was no immediate vote on whether to endorse its findings.
"I think there are some problems in this report," said Republican state Sen. Gary Stevens, a member of the panel. "I would encourage people to be very cautious, to look at this with a jaundiced eye."
The nearly 300-page report does not recommend sanctions or a criminal investigation.
The investigation revealed that Palin's husband, Todd, has extraordinary access to the governor's office and her closest advisers. He used that access to try to get trooper Mike Wooten fired, the report found.
Branchflower faulted Sarah Palin for taking no action to stop that. He also noted there is evidence the governor herself participated in the effort.
Wooten had been in hot water before Palin became governor over allegations that he illegally shot a moose, drank beer in a patrol car and used a Taser on his stepson.
In proceedings revealed by the report, former Alaska State Trooper Col. Julia Grimes told investigators that Sarah Palin called her in late 2005 to discuss why Wooten hadn't been fired, and Grimes told her the inquiry was confidential by law.
"Her questions were how can a trooper who behaves this way still be working," Grimes said. "I asked her to please trust me, that because I can't tell her details I would ask her to please trust me that I would take the appropriate action if and when I knew what the findings were. ... I couldn't have another conversation with her about it because, again, it's protected by law."
Grimes said Todd Palin also contacted her by telephone in late 2005 to discuss the confidential investigation of Wooten.
Wooten's disciplinary case was settled in September 2006 — months before Palin was elected governor — and he was allowed to continue working as a trooper.
After Palin's election, her new public safety commissioner, Monegan, said he was summoned to the governor's office to meet Todd Palin, who said Wooten's punishment had been merely a "slap on the wrist." Monegan said he understood the Palins wanted Wooten fired. "I had this kind of ominous feeling that I may not be long for this job if I didn't somehow respond accordingly," Monegan told the investigator.
For months afterward, Todd Palin filed complaints about Wooten, saying he was seen riding a snowmobile after he had filed a worker's compensation claim and was seen dropping off his children at school in his patrol car. Monegan said Wooten's doctor had authorized the snowmobile trip and his supervisor had approved his use of the patrol car. Monegan said Alaska's attorney general later called him to inquire about Wooten, and Monegan told him they shouldn't be discussing the subject.
"This was an issue that apparently wasn't going to go away, that there were certainly frustrations," Monegan said. "To say that (Sarah Palin) was focused on this I think would be accurate."

[waveomatic]

Hockey Mom gets booed by Hockey Fans.....


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd4wQd_gbj8