TPS

I thought you would've been tapped for all of the executive positions?

Gee, wonder if he's trying to influence the House vote?

I'd define it as an amount of money necessary to intervene over the 6 months after this $700 billion runs out. If you include FDIC, I"m willing to put the over-under at $1 trillion? I'll take the over.

And it's such a simple solution: Give Paulson $700 billion. Sure, that'll do it...

So you are blaming the Dranes of the world for "causing panic?" Otherwise you would've been correct, that the problem was resolved back then (with B-S)? Maybe it wasn't necessarily "panic." Maybe a few "players" holding bets (CDS) against the firms began shorting in order to realize their bets? As Bears' capital faded, they faced margin calls. Even if this is not a possible scenario, we're still talking trillions of $s of liabilities out there that can not be paid; so yes, it's a panic driven by insiders alright, because they all know who's on the wrong side of the bets. Btw, guess what Billionaire investor bought a huge stake in Lehman mid-year? Hint: he's no frienf of Bush. And in response to another post: I'd define "solve" as they won't need to beg for anymore taxpayer money after this $700 billion. Last thing G, nice pun.

The question to you and anyone else: who has been the most accurate poster about this crisis since it began last year? And for those who think this particular bill has to pass, are you willing to state that it will solve the crisis? If yes, I'd like to make a little wager; if no, then why do you support it?

Ahh yes, our resident experts who have all of the answers, but the only person here who correctly called the extent of this crisis was the Drane. You fellas act as if your OPINIONS are biblical pronouncements. Hey, you guys rule (literally)...PPP. go team!

Regardless, good to see you active on the political again!

Absolutely! He says he doesn't think it's the best plan; he talks about the RFC in 1930s and how it got preferred shares for its purchases of bad assets; he says we may need another stimulus package that should be targeting low and middle income households--mentioning the payroll tax (where have I heard that before? ). And he says no one saw this coming--The Drane did, and it obviously wasn't luck. He says we need to do something now and he would give paulson a blank check. Well gee Warren, you essentially just bought a $5 billion call option on Goldman Sachs shares, so far everything Paulson has done seems to be benefitting his old company. No conflict of interest between the two of you, is there Warren? As William grieder wrote, why not devise a plan that creates a deal like Warren got? Which is essentially what the RFC did. If we're buying bad assets and supplying capital to the banks and other FIs, why not get "shares" (preferred/warrants)? Because the stupid public should only have the possibility of gaining if the assets are saleable at some point in the future. Stiglitz has a better plan. Stiglitz

It speaks to the scum of the right that they have to blame minorities for this crisis. Maybe it plays into "don't vote for Obama because he's black" card. This is the most discusting thing I've seen in this campaign. But nothing surprises me that comes out of the republican camp. I think the proof is in the question someone raised: the majority of the problem loans came from high-end loans--$200K to $500K. Someone please provide the data that shows BLACKS--because that is what this bull sh-- is about, are to blame for those loans. This is the worst bull sh-- I've ever seen pushed by any party.

It's becoming difficult to tell whether I'm watching "real news" or another SNL skit....

I guess you missed the part where I said that FIs were "profit driven"?

Maybe you should try some different web sites...or have a couple of drinks and chill out dude.

It's the very nature of a profit-driven system. Financial institutions make money by making loans. When those who meet the "sound criteria" run out, well..let's just start loosening the criteria. Financial institutions are the ones who create the credit, and they set the criteria. Btw, how does one define too much debt? And if one knows how to define it, then shouldn't one know when they've issued too much?

Aren't finance companies supposed to evaluate one's credit rating? yes, our consumer-driven economy and narcotic demand for credit play a role, but ultimately the banks (and other FIs) are supposed to "draw the line."

It's Paulson's job to let Congress know the extent of the crisis, and work with them to craft a solution, but he did not present it that way. He, bush and bernanke essentially "threatened congress" to accept his three-page proposal last week, else all hell would break loose. Fortunately they weren't able pull a "patriot act" on congress this time. Not sure who started a thread about her inexerience. I started one though about what a complete idiot she is...

thanks. I wish people would give up on this dems vs reps blame BS--both parties take money from the industry and both parties are accomplices, but much of the blame lies squarely on Wall Street. One of the reasons I asked you if you thought this $700 bil. bailout would solve the crisis is something they point out: To me, it really is the trillions of dollars CDSs that represent the rest of the iceberg, and until that gets sorted out, we haven't resolved the crisis.

Lots of wrenching fists and gnashing of teeth about the failed bailout vote. And wow, the markets lost over $1 trillion in equity; so where'd it go? This was not the best package that could be put together, and Paulson should take the blame for the way he (initially) presented it: "Give me $700 billion, no questions asked; else we're doomed! We're doomed, I tell ya..." That pissed a lot of people off and congress heard from "the poor ignorant masses." It's about damned time the American public got pissed off about something and moved the congress! That said, there will be a bailout bill, and hopefully it won't be so wall street-centric. And the markets will rally. The process of cleansing the system will take some time, and we will probably experience more crises. But we will survive this week, so enjoy a cocktail or two as the Bills get to 5 and 0....

You're right, they gave it to Goldman Sachs... AIG bailout

you're assuming people are building in those markets now--I don't think that's the case. Haven't new builds been shrinking? Prices are falling because people are being forced to sell unable to make payments or banks have taken the assets and trying to sell.

That doesn't resolve the problems that current homeowners face, which is the root cause. Read about a program in Philadelphia that requires lenders and borrowers to meet in courts and try to resolve delinquencies and bankruptcies. Something like half to 2/3s get resolved: borrowers get terms they can live with, and it's cheaper than going to bankruptcy court for the banks.

Maybe that's the plan...

I heard someone on cspan touting this plan too, and when he said $450,000, I cringed like I was watching a Sarah Palin interview...

I wonder if it's Goldman's turn to buy a large bank on the cheap?

Every election. Btw, being an idiot doesn't disqualify one from becoming president or vice president of the U.S.