theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 26, 2008 12:27:00 GMT -5
Couldn't have said it any better Pushy. There is ALOT of debt rolling over before the end of the year. Right now even topflight investment grade companies are having trouble with their financing needs. If companies aren't able to recapitalize, we're screwed. I just hope something is done quickly whether it's the purchase of illiquid securities, injecting equity in these banks and having them write it off and then taking an ownership stake or converting exisitng debt into equity. We just need to act fast because our economy is about to fall off a cliff. I'm part of the "anti-bailout" club. There's a big difference between no bailout and $700B that gives SECTREAS lots of unchecked powers. Of course, I was anti-bailout earlier, when everyone was saying that we'd just be bailing out one bank, and everything would be cool, and it would fix all the problems. The Bailout to End All Bailouts, as it were.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Sept 26, 2008 12:30:56 GMT -5
This news comes as a surprise to Minority Leader Boehner. No WMD in Iraq also came as a surprise to Minority Leader Boehner. It also came as a surprise to EVERY SINGLE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD. Can't stand all these morons that pretend they knew better before the war. There was consensus around the world, even among the Russians, Germans and French, that Iraq likely still had WMD.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 26, 2008 12:40:21 GMT -5
No WMD in Iraq also came as a surprise to Minority Leader Boehner. It also came as a surprise to EVERY SINGLE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD. Can't stand all these morons that pretend they knew better before the war. There was consensus around the world, even among the Russians, Germans and French, that Iraq likely still had WMD. For the record, one of the very few dissenters was INR, State's in-house intelligence agencies.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 26, 2008 12:43:30 GMT -5
Any math majors feel free to correct my interpretation of this, but this is all starting to look to me like a giant prisoners' dilemma, where the likeliest outcome is inaction. Lemme explain by taking a look at what's at stake for each party:
We have a few scenarios (obviously, this is simplified):
1. A bailout passes with bipartisan support, and it succeeds in shoring up the economy. 2. A bailout passes with bipartisan support, and the economy remains unchanged. 3. A bailout passes with bipartisan support, and the economy gets worse. 4. A bailout passes with only Democratic support, and the economy gets better. 5. A bailout passes with only Democratic support, and the economy remains unchanged. 6. A bailout passes with only Democratic support, and the economy gets worse. 7. A bailout doesn't pass, and the economy gets better. 8. A bailout doesn't pass, and the economy remains unchanged. 9. A bailout doesn't pass, and the economy gets worse.
In scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 9, blame or praise will be spread equally between both parties. No. 4 will benefit the Democrats to the detriment of the Republicans, and vice-versa for Nos. 6 & 7. Neither blame nor praise is likely to occur for scenarios 5 & 8.
Furthermore, let's order the desired outcomes for each party involved from most desirable to least:
1. sole praise, blame for others 2. no praise, blame for others 3. sole praise, no blame for others 4. shared praise 5. no praise or blame for either 6. shared blame 7. sole blame, no praise for others 8. sole blame, praise for others
Let's also premise that avoiding blame is a stronger motivator than earning praise, and that Senators are more motivated to come to a deal than House members, due to the former not being up for re-election in a month.
Given all this, it makes complete sense that House Republicans are balking on the bailout deal. There is little opportunity for them to earn sole praise, and many opportunities to avoid or share blame. Additionally, the Democrats have only a small chance to earn sole praise, and it's a giant risk. It's much safer to move for shared praise or blame by enlisting the GOP in their efforts. Without Republican cover, it's likely that they too will balk.
In this context, Obama's moves here make sense, as he's simply echoing the moves of his party. McCain's moves seem risky, though, as he's banked his credibility on reaching a deal, which he can't possibly get sole credit for if it succeeds.
Overall, the prospects for a deal look bleak. Both parties have an incentive to reach a deal, but the incentives to avoid being blamed for a boondoggle seem much higher. Since the Republicans can't win much by agreeing to a deal, and the Democrats can only manage their risk with Republican support, it seems both parties will take the less risky option and not support a bailout.
Again, I could be talking out my ass here, if anyone's more familiar with higher mathematics, please feel free to correct my reasoning.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 26, 2008 12:46:31 GMT -5
tables, I am not going to go any further on the issue after this. Maybe it is more of a regional term, I don't know. In any case, it describes almost a clique type of mentality. It is commonly used of frat boys for instance: "Biff and all his B-Bs," for example. I understand that it could simply be used as a derogatory term for those of a certain lifestyle. That isn't the case here. It has a hint of that, but really in a kidding sort of way. No one takes it seriously in that sense. If you understand what I am saying, then I think you will see that it isn't the offensive term, at least in the context which you are familiar. Either way, I am done with that issue and "pals" will now suffice from here on out. You know, Southerners also had regional term for African-Americans that a lot of frat boys used back in the day. This didn't make such a term excusable, and your rationale is just as weak. If you can't engage this board without using racist and homophobic epithets, you should find another board to frequent. The internet is a big place, and we're certainly not going to miss you around here.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Sept 26, 2008 12:47:52 GMT -5
It also came as a surprise to EVERY SINGLE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD. Can't stand all these morons that pretend they knew better before the war. There was consensus around the world, even among the Russians, Germans and French, that Iraq likely still had WMD. For the record, one of the very few dissenters was INR, State's in-house intelligence agencies. For the record, it is in State's DNA to find reasons to look the other way at anything that might lead to fighting anywhere anytime. Never has a more spineless organization existed in the annals of federal bureaucracy.
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Sept 26, 2008 12:58:02 GMT -5
If nothing happens and the economy gets worse, well, I think that's a bigger motivator than you (bando) are giving it credit for, because the economy stands to get much worse. After all, there is an election upcoming.
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Sept 26, 2008 13:02:33 GMT -5
My question is: when senator shelby is walking around with a piece of paper purportedly containing the opinions of "top economists" that the Paulsen Plan is a P.O.S., what do they propose in the alternative? Certainly not idleness, right?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Sept 26, 2008 13:10:54 GMT -5
I'm having trouble finding anything describing the House Republicans' version. The one thing I did find suggested that it was based around banks paying the US government to "insure" them. At least with Paulson's plan there's an upper limit you lose (however much he buys) - insuring banks sounds like an absolute disaster.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Sept 26, 2008 13:10:23 GMT -5
Any math majors feel free to correct my interpretation of this, but this is all starting to look to me like a giant prisoners' dilemma, where the likeliest outcome is inaction. Lemme explain by taking a look at what's at stake for each party: We have a few scenarios (obviously, this is simplified): 1. A bailout passes with bipartisan support, and it succeeds in shoring up the economy. 2. A bailout passes with bipartisan support, and the economy remains unchanged. 3. A bailout passes with bipartisan support, and the economy gets worse. 4. A bailout passes with only Democratic support, and the economy gets better. 5. A bailout passes with only Democratic support, and the economy remains unchanged. 6. A bailout passes with only Democratic support, and the economy gets worse. 7. A bailout doesn't pass, and the economy gets better. 8. A bailout doesn't pass, and the economy remains unchanged. 9. A bailout doesn't pass, and the economy gets worse. In scenarios 1, 2, 3, and 9, blame or praise will be spread equally between both parties. No. 4 will benefit the Democrats to the detriment of the Republicans, and vice-versa for Nos. 6 & 7. Neither blame nor praise is likely to occur for scenarios 5 & 8. Furthermore, let's order the desired outcomes for each party involved from most desirable to least: 1. sole praise, blame for others 2. no praise, blame for others 3. sole praise, no blame for others 4. shared praise 5. no praise or blame for either 6. shared blame 7. sole blame, no praise for others 8. sole blame, praise for others Let's also premise that avoiding blame is a stronger motivator than earning praise, and that Senators are more motivated to come to a deal than House members, due to the former not being up for re-election in a month. Given all this, it makes complete sense that House Republicans are balking on the bailout deal. There is little opportunity for them to earn sole praise, and many opportunities to avoid or share blame. Additionally, the Democrats have only a small chance to earn sole praise, and it's a giant risk. It's much safer to move for shared praise or blame by enlisting the GOP in their efforts. Without Republican cover, it's likely that they too will balk. In this context, Obama's moves here make sense, as he's simply echoing the moves of his party. McCain's moves seem risky, though, as he's banked his credibility on reaching a deal, which he can't possibly get sole credit for if it succeeds. Overall, the prospects for a deal look bleak. Both parties have an incentive to reach a deal, but the incentives to avoid being blamed for a boondoggle seem much higher. Since the Republicans can't win much by agreeing to a deal, and the Democrats can only manage their risk with Republican support, it seems both parties will take the less risky option and not support a bailout. Again, I could be talking out my ass here, if anyone's more familiar with higher mathematics, please feel free to correct my reasoning. I disagree with the Prisoner's Dilemma logic here. That's cool if you're talking about an appropriations bill for Energy. I keep on hearing words like "financial meltdown" and "Great Depression" bandied about. Issues are a heck of a lot more serious than gamesmanship. Once again, calls running over 95% opposed. Lots and lots of money being discussed. Pressure to make an immediate decision. A response to the fiscal crisis is needed, but it needs to be smart and doesn't need a Sunday by 4pm deadline.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 26, 2008 15:01:47 GMT -5
No WMD in Iraq also came as a surprise to Minority Leader Boehner. It also came as a surprise to EVERY SINGLE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY IN THE WORLD. Can't stand all these morons that pretend they knew better before the war. There was consensus around the world, even among the Russians, Germans and French, that Iraq likely still had WMD. I am with you 100% and I will take it a bit further. We all understand that we have fundamental disagreements. That's ok. We all understand that we have different opinions as to what direction we should go in any particular issue. That too, is ok. But it's comments and claims that are 100% fluff and feel good nonsense that bothers me. There are two perfect examples that are still thrown about to this day. One is the issue of WMD. Silly claims of Bush "lying" about Hussein having them and the administration misleading us about both his possession of WMDs as well as his being a danger in general. I trust I don't need to ge dig up that list again with quotes from Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy and virtually every other prominent democrat voicing major concerns about Hussein and in many cases, of his reluctance to comply with UN resolutions regarding his WMDs. And as you mention, it wasn't just domestic opinion either. Intelligence from all over the world was essentially in agreement on the issue. Personally, I'm still somewhat interested in those caravans of trucks that fled into Syria just prior to and during the initial fazes of the military operation in Iraq. I'm still not convinced that Hussein did in fact dispose of all of his WMDs but just chose to keep that information secret from the UN inspectors. I guess that is certainly possible, but I think that sounds a bit suspicious at the very least. Still, the point is that Bush gets singled out as creating some sort of conspiracy with regards to WMDs and that simply isn't the case. The second issue that people still bring up when they have nothing better to do is the 2000 election. Phrases like "stealing" the election just raise my ire. We all understand that it was an incredibly close election. We all understand that it was a hotly contested election. That much is ok. Bush won the election fair and square, albeit by the thinest of margins. Yet some still throw around crap claims of stealing the election. There was very specific policy in the State Constitution with regards to how issues of dispute are to be handled. Katherine Harris gets lambasted by following the law. Had she done anything else, she would deserve the criticisms. But she followed the Constitution, which the last time I checked is specifically what state employees are sworn to do. Additionally, numerous independent agencies have since recounted the votes and every single one of them has confirmed the same result. In fact, at least one recount which was sponsored by the New York Times, confirmed the result regardless of which standard was used in all but one instance. If just the ballots from the democratic stronghold in south Florida were recounted and then dimpled chads included, then Gore would have won by the slightest of margins. But no one thinks it would be fair to only recount select counties unless there was some reason to expect fraud or other impropriety. I'm sorry for going on about this, but antics like that drive me crazy. In retrospect, at this point, it appears that Hussein didn't have a stockpile of WMDs, contrary to what every intelligence agency in the free world thought. To try to then place the "blame" for that error solely on Bush is absurd.
|
|
vcjack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,875
|
Post by vcjack on Sept 26, 2008 15:04:16 GMT -5
I imagine that if some of these House Republicans were from a different generation, they would have been working with the Hoover administration railing against the "temptations" of veering away from unrestricted free markets and a need to be firm Rugged Individuals at all costs.
Their blind devotion to an economic ideology they don't really understand will ruin us
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 26, 2008 15:14:51 GMT -5
tables, I am not going to go any further on the issue after this. Maybe it is more of a regional term, I don't know. In any case, it describes almost a clique type of mentality. It is commonly used of frat boys for instance: "Biff and all his B-Bs," for example. I understand that it could simply be used as a derogatory term for those of a certain lifestyle. That isn't the case here. It has a hint of that, but really in a kidding sort of way. No one takes it seriously in that sense. If you understand what I am saying, then I think you will see that it isn't the offensive term, at least in the context which you are familiar. Either way, I am done with that issue and "pals" will now suffice from here on out. You know, Southerners also had regional term for African-Americans that a lot of frat boys used back in the day. This didn't make such a term excusable, and your rationale is just as weak. If you can't engage this board without using racist and homophobic epithets, you should find another board to frequent. The internet is a big place, and we're certainly not going to miss you around here. I'm not going to keep digging up this issue. All I was saying is that sometimes terms will have regional meaning that isn't the same in other areas. Your example is a bit different. Although it is used in friendly terms among blacks, it pretty much means one thing when used by non-blacks. Such is not the case with the "b-b" term. In any case, I hope you and your pals now understand and as I said, I will refrain from the term.
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,848
|
Post by thebin on Sept 26, 2008 15:16:21 GMT -5
I agree about being sick to death of hearing about people claiming the 2000 election was "stolen." Yeah we get it genius, it was extremely close and your guy lost and in any such case you can point to a hundred maybe irregularities to support either side. Brilliant. The only outcome that would have been more suspect than Bush winning that election by such a razor thin margin would have been Gore winning it. But yeah, it was "stolen" if it makes you feel better.
|
|
HoyaNyr320
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,233
|
Post by HoyaNyr320 on Sept 26, 2008 16:11:09 GMT -5
After duking it out for the past couple of days, I have some comments that we might all be able to agree on (we'll see):
1.) I think this bailout fiasco is a clear indicator of the vacuum of Presidential power at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I can't think of another moment in our recent history in which another President has proposed something described as "critical" and not just gotten opposition from his own party, but an outright revolt! However, this is the SECOND time this happened to the current President with the last time being the immigration proposal. Did anyone else watch Bush's 5 minute statement this morning right as the market opened saying that the legislative process is difficult but a deal will be made? That didn't seem to sway the members of his own party.
2.) Totally unrelated- Yes, I tend to watch CNN and the Situation Room. However, that doesn't mean I'm a Wolf Blitzer fan. I get sick and tired of him saying "stand by"- he must have said it 50-100 times yesterday alone! I get that there's more coverage ahead- you don't have to tell me to "stand by". It's like he's repeating what the people in the control room are telling him- "Mr. Blitzer, President Obama will be available for an interview in 5 minutes- stand by." Anyone else notice this?
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Sept 26, 2008 16:17:55 GMT -5
I agree about being sick to death of hearing about people claiming the 2000 election was "stolen." Yeah we get it genius, it was extremely close and your guy lost and in any such case you can point to a hundred maybe irregularities to support either side. Brilliant. The only outcome that would have been more suspect than Bush winning that election by such a razor thin margin would have been Gore winning it. But yeah, it was "stolen" if it makes you feel better. The only aspect of the election that was stolen was that the Supreme Court decided a political question. I really have no care who won the election, that is irrelevant, but I am concerned with the decision Bush v Gore, which is not worth the paper its written on...and the justices agreed, as they noted it should not be used as precedent. How can you decide one of the more compelling cases in modern history regarding electoral mechanics and then say "please, disregard this in the future because we know its bollocks"?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 26, 2008 16:34:49 GMT -5
Let's not lose sight of how the dEms wanted Obama to waltz in to the meeting and take over. Their play was to make him look like de facto President and then lionize him for leadership and the ability to get things (any things) done.
That little plan failed when he went in there without his teleprompter and as ill-prepared as he's always been to lead.
He might be able to lead 80,000 converts at Invesco, but the country, no way.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Sept 26, 2008 16:34:58 GMT -5
I agree about being sick to death of hearing about people claiming the 2000 election was "stolen." Yeah we get it genius, it was extremely close and your guy lost and in any such case you can point to a hundred maybe irregularities to support either side. Brilliant. The only outcome that would have been more suspect than Bush winning that election by such a razor thin margin would have been Gore winning it. But yeah, it was "stolen" if it makes you feel better. The only aspect of the election that was stolen was that the Supreme Court decided a political question. I really have no care who won the election, that is irrelevant, but I am concerned with the decision Bush v Gore, which is not worth the paper its written on...and the justices agreed, as they noted it should not be used as precedent. How can you decide one of the more compelling cases in modern history regarding electoral mechanics and then say "please, disregard this in the future because we know its bollocks"? I understand your point and it is a bit unsettling that there was a 5-4 essentially partyline vote coming from the judicial branch -- the branch that isn't supposed to have party affiliation. We all know that judges, just like senators or other congressmen, have an underlying ideology to their thinking. But presumably they are fully capable of putting such bias aside in a determination of law. Still, with regard to the particular verdict, I truly believe that they got it right and not because my guy won. Had they ruled the other way, then it would be very clear that there was legislation coming from the bench. At least in ruling the way they did, they determined that it is NOT their job to write law.
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Sept 26, 2008 17:50:52 GMT -5
Ladies and gentleman, our economy is about to implode and we are debating BvG. Spectacular.
P.S. I'm truly shocked at how inconsequential people think the credit market is. I have it on good word that China is going to sell their treasuries if we don't get something done. If that happens, well, holy we can't let happen. They own a lot of our debt.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Sept 26, 2008 17:55:36 GMT -5
Ladies and gentleman, our economy is about to implode and we are debating BvG. Spectacular. P.S. I'm truly shocked at how inconsequential people think the credit market is. I have it on good word that China is going to sell their treasuries if we don't get something done. If that happens, well, holy Edited we can't let happen. They own a lot of our debt. How exactly can the Fed loosen the credit market? You didn't seem to know earlier in the thread, but I'm hoping you might know now. Would an interest rate cut be not enough at this point? I only say so because it now seems there's no more firms to bail out. Every investment banking institution has either folded, been bailed out previously, or been bought out by competitors. Isn't buying up bad mortgages a reaction to a problem that's already resolved itself? Is anyone on the Hill talking about stimulating the credit market directly?
|
|