TPS

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.

Makes Dan Quayle look intelligent. First: I have not voted for either major party in the presidential election since 1992. Second, after watching her interviews, I have to throw my 1 cent in on this: you've got to be smoking crack if you defend this idiot. No wonder McCain is going to make sure there is no VP debate--she is a !@#$ing dolt! Christ! I understand most of you vote your party lines, but anyone who tries to defend her is a total party hack. Hey, if she (errr...he) wins, maybe AD will be the next Treasury Secretary...

Here's an interesting perspective. banks made bad bets?

I think the more important question is if it's a "clear majority of registered voters." What percentage of the poorest 50% actually vote relative the top 50%?

Of course, that is how the system has always worked--the weak are weeded out in downturns. I know this is no typical downturn (it's the "perfect storm" of downturns), and I have not argued against this latest phase of bailing out Wall Street; I just don't think it is the be all end all either--I do believe you need to do something to stop the downward spiral in real estate, otherwise those assets that aren't purchased and look good now, won't be later. As I said, each time the bandaid gets bigger. Do you think this will end it?

There's no doubt that credit is tight and it is trickling down to main street, that is how credit crunches work. So I'm not denying that reality. However, your original article/example seems to be more a consequence of GM's reliance on truck and SUV sales back-firing in a slowing economy with $4/gal gas. As that article states, many dealers will go out of business since they don't sell what consumers now demand. I simply disagree with your assesment on that ONE. The 'Big Three" are paying the consequences of relying on sales of gas-guzzlers when $4/gal gas prices hit in the middle of a credit crunch. So you get a double whammy--falling sales and inability to raise funds.

The article states that "bad auto loans" were responsible. Once they started having problems with their loans, GMAC pulled out last summer. As it further states, GM's sales are down some 2 million cars, and that the number of dealerships will decline. His problems were NOT caused by lack of credit. Could he have survived if GMAC stayed in? I highly doubt it.