Replies

Your failed actions today will cost us eventually, both in market losses and in an ultimate rescue plan that will bear an even greater cost.

Yet the dollar rallies today, meaning gas & everything else will drop in price. I don't see that factored into thie 'businessman's' calculation.

Lousy. The Raw Deal proposed by Paulson et al is the wrong thing to do. Has CRA been repealed? Nope. The cause has not been dealt with. Have Fannie and Freddie been completely privatized? Nope. Note: the market is up today. Let’s not confuse keeping Wall Street banks propped up with public cash. People are afraid and whipped to a frenzy by the M$M. Put. The. Koolaid. Down. The moral hazard quotient in this legislation is way too high. Newt had it right when he said we need to a) cut corporate taxes so businesses can finance their inventories through earnings b) cut the capital gains tax c) change from mark-to-market and use a weighted average asset valuation d) dump Sarb-Ox, it doesn’t help and it costs a bunch e) drill here, now. Take the time to do this right. We’re being herded. Resist the lemmings. The RATs just want socialism and we’re giving it to them by supporting this plan as now structured. And oh by the way, if you’re retired and you have too much of your assets in the stock market, you made a mistake. Not the job of the taxpayers to fix your error.

The damage done to the people who sold into a panic will not be reversible

What about the gains made by people who bought during the panic? Are they "not reversible"?

What if someone bought shares of Freddie / Fannie / WaMu over the last 10 or 20 years? Their losses are real and non-reversible. Are these losses better because it took longer to lose all of your money?

What if the Dow drops 20% over the course of a year? Is that better than if the Dow drops 7% over the course of one day?

In 1987, the Dow dropped from 2200 to 1700 in a single day. Let's say someone sold their entire portfolio at 2200 and never bought another stock again. Let's say someone sold their entire portfolio at 1700 and never bought a single stock again. Is either one really better off than the person who stayed in the market for 21 years?

If someone buys a stock and the stock is worth less now than they paid, should the Federal Government buy the stock from them to preserve the "value" and "liquidity" of their investment? If not, why should the government buy home mortgages to preserve their value and liquidity?

Shouldn't a bailout bill address the root cause for the reason we need a bailout? If it does not, won't there be need for another bailout in the future? Isn't the concept of an "asset that Americans just won't buy" similar to the concept of a "job that Americans just won't do"?

This guy is just another whiner looking for a government handout. “I was careless with my investments wa wa wa you have to bail me out wa wa wa”. We don’t need a bailout to free up liquidity. Don’t believe those that say doing nothing is not an option. The bubble will burst and markets will correct as they should. Come on people, government is the problem not the solution!

>>>>>>Excellent.

How so?

I really don't get what everyone finds so great about Hugh Hewitt. Hewitt's entire article is based on the House NOT passing legislation that most Americans view as socialist intervention of the federal government into the free market. The side issue in all this is politics. The central issue is stopping the Feds from ripping off the American taxpayer.

So Hewitt can rail against Pelosi, use Giuliani's rhetoric and the remarks of someone called David Parker to make his point. But the American people are still not buying this government boondoggle.

Tuesday’s market will also be a costly experience for the American people as well

Dow is +326 at 1:30 pm today, genius.

Socialism isn't the answer - that's what the failure of the bill yesterday said. Not that Congress is likely to listen for long...

Unlike the proposed Rescue Plan where the Treasury would have received a reasoned return on its investment (like unto Chrysler and the S&L Rescue Package) ...

Could someone assist this historic-detail challenged FReeper with some definitive instruction regarding? When Uncle Sam helped out Chrysler, did it do so by providing the SecTreas with unlimited authority, no oversight, judicial review? Same goes for the S&L rescue, did the RTC creation include the ability of the secretary to buy whatever real estate instruments he wanted at whatever price he wanted, no mandating they be the lowest possible? I'd like a bit more comparison on these two situations before acceding to their "same thing now" labels.