Dow Down 500 Points as House Rejects Bailout – Market Overview – CNBC.com
So let me get this straight. The “free” market as represented by the Dow-Jones and the NYSE falls through the floor because the US Government did not vote in a program that would represent government control of a free market. What is wrong with these people?
The market screamed as the House vote on the Wall Street bailout bill teetered on the edge of a cliff — and then fell off.
The bill initially failed to get enough votes, sending the market into a tailspin, as congressmen and women huddled to try to shore up the votes to save it. To no avail: The bill was ultimately rejected, leaving the future of the bailout in question.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 701.93 at one point
#85 – Ranger007
>>Maybe…those opposed just don’t think this is
>>the way to fix the situation.
Well, if they’re opposed, they’re opposed, and they should just say so.
However, any arrested-development twit who says “welll, I was for it, but then Nancy was mean to me, so now I’m against it” should be taken out into the yard and shot through the back of the head.
#90 Mr Mustard said
“However, any arrested-development twit who says “welll, I was for it, but then Nancy was mean to me, so now I’m against it” should be taken out into the yard and shot through the back of the head.”
But, that just is the point. They never were for it, they were being pressured by Republican Leadership to vote for it. She gave them a reason to say _______ you! No!
Shows her leadership ability, arrogance sensitivity …(you pick a word).
Dummy! is a nice way to put it.
J, as far as I understand there isn’t a unanimous agreement among economists that credit will freeze sans a bailout. Could you explain why you believe a credit freeze is inevitable?
But if Nancy says the bailout is the fault of the Republicans, then it makes it more likely those Republicans will turn around and not support it!
Nancy should really think before she speaks. If she doesn’t like the bailout, then just leave. That’s also leadership. If she’s going to say it is needed to avert a catastrophe(which she did), then take ownership of that too.
“That doesn’t mean that the current failures of credit manipulation should be bailed out.”
I don’t want to bail them out but there is no other way, not that I have heard or has a chance in hell of passing congress, to loosen the credit market up.
“Are there no other ways to do it? ”
Maybe, probably but people could loose there jobs and people will panic. They will stop spending money and it snowballs from there.
“The leg analogy doesn’t work because we have more time. ”
No we really don’t, Many companies could fail in less than 30 days without credit lines.
“I never borrowed to make payroll or install a phone system. ”
You never used a credit card short term? like 30 days? That is the type of credit we are talking about. Imagine a large corporation that does that in the 10’s of millions.
“Had to rent my offices because I couldn’t affort to build my own. ”
Don’t you think that the owner needed credit to buy them?
“We as a nation need to save more rather than credit spend our children into debt, why not start now?”
Again, that isn’t the type of credit we are talking about. The bigger the business the bigger the problem.
# 89 brm
“Totally different statements. ”
No they are not. If you understand the stock market you know what a point drop means and nothing else is implied. My statement was 100% correct.
9% biggest drop in two decades.
Standard & Poor’s 8.77% biggest in two decades.
Nasdaq composite more than 9%
Good enough for you?
#91 – Ranger007
>>They never were for it, they were being
>>pressured by Republican Leadership to vote for
>>it. She gave them a reason to say _______ you!
>>No!
Well, they should have waited for a better reason. If a few unkind remarks from a politician of the other party is all it takes, they’ve undercut my already low opinion of them as spineless prevaricating pussies.
Can they really say that with a straight face? “I was for it [snicker], but that Nancy Pelosi was so mean in her speech, I just had to vote against it”??
That’s almost pre-schoolish in its immaturity.
They should be taken out into the yard and shot in the back of the head.
#74MikeN “On the other hand, they adjourned til Thursday, which means we are guaranteed that the oil drilling moratorium will expire. Oil prices dropped $10.”
Yes! Keep the congress out of DC. Things will correct and straighten out.
Freeze the whole of Fed Gov’t and we’ll be a lot better off.
# 92 brm
“Could you explain why you believe a credit freeze is inevitable?”
It has already started dipshit.
#95 Mister Mustard said
“Can they really say that with a straight face? “I was for it [snicker], but that Nancy Pelosi was so mean in her speech, I just had to vote against it”??”
Now remember, I don’t cuss (much)
I would have said “____ that bitch” – “you (meaning the Rep leadership) pressured me to vote for something I didn’t believe in, knowing that damn near everyone who votes in my district is opposed to it.” I’m not doing it and you can KMA!.
BTW, if you don’t believe party leadership (both Dems and Repubs) pressure members to vote “for the good of the party”, welcome to the real world.
#97 J:
Okay, could you please explain to this “dipshit” why you believe a long-term, debilitating, credit freeze is inevitable when these 200 economists:
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/mortgage_protest.htm
who have better things to do with their time than post on a blog all day, apparently disagree with you?
#99–brm==I was disappointed by that statement. Criticism is way too easy. Any such document that does not at least point to the nature/outline of a solution really is academic chickenshit. They could have at least stated why they thought the meltdown would only be a short term disruption?
J–I wish I could be more dogmatic, but I don’t know enough. I see more trust in your response than analysis as well. Why would collateralized loans be obviously worse than a bailout?
I’ve heard only one report so far of the Chinese saying they won’t extent credit without federal action. Looks like the amputated leg scenario is upon us?===or more like the guy with a rock on his arm? Should we amputate banks for the good of the rest of the economy and why wasn’t this concern shown for so many other aspects of the economy==like manufacturing, etc, blah, etc, blah.
Dismal indeed.
# 99 brm
“Okay, could you please explain to this “dipshit” why you believe a long-term, debilitating, credit freeze is inevitable when these 200 economists:”
OK dipshit
1) That was Sept 24 it is a different plan that they voted on today. The updates on the 27th is still for the plan on the 24th.
Since, I know some of the people on that list personally because I am alumni of the University of Chicago I have spoken with many of them about this issue. You might be surprised how many things they agree with me on. The one I know that is.
2) They NEVER say that they disagree with the potential credit freeze possibility.
3) THE FREEZE HAS ALREADY BEGUN!!!!!!!
4) You are too stupid to know what you are posting
LOL man you are stretching arn’t you?
#100 bobbo:
Yeah, thin on details the document is.
I’d imagine any of the economists on the list would have a lot more to say if Congress consulted with some of them. That seems to be what the protest is anyways – a call to take the time to really analyze the situation instead of shooting from the hip (remind you of Iraq?)
Instead, we have the Fed, the Treasury, and the banks apparently getting a lot of face time on the measure.
#101 J: “I know some of the people on that list personally because I am alumni of the University of Chicago I have spoken with many of them about this issue.”
Prove it.
# 103 brm
“Prove it.”
LOL That is pretty funny? You have no evidence to back up your clam and then you ask me to prove mine? LOL
What proof could I even provide over the internet.
I won’t be giving you their names if that is what your asking.
#104 J:
Pics or it didn’t happen. Graduation pic? A scan of your diploma? At this point I’d consider a Facebook or Linkdin profile as some kind of proof that you went to U.Chicago.
I am making statements that rely solely on my ability to argue. You are making an appeal to an authority, and so for it to work, you have to back it up. Since it’s a statement whose validity can’t be determined by “arguing,” you have the relatively simple task of simply showing me your damn diploma.
I am not at all surprised by your response.
LOL
It just occurred to me that I could tell their names and you would have no way of verifying it.
What are you going to do email them and ask do you know a guy named J. LOL
You sir are a DIPSHIT!
#106 J:
I’m not even asking for proof that you know anyone on that list. I’m simply asking for some shred of evidence that you graduated from the University of Chicago.
Even if you can prove this, it still doesn’t prove your claim that you spoke to any of those economists.
I don’t believe you. How does this make me a “dipshit?”
# 105 brm
“showing me your damn diploma”
First I could post anyone’s diploma and you wouldn’t know if it was true. I could Photoshop one or borrow one. So you and I know that the request is nothing more than a stunt on your part.
I have pointed out many times on this blog that I have received a degree from there. So you can either accept it or reject it. If you reject it, disprove the rest of my argument that doesn’t rely on that fact.
Second I am not going to provide detailed personal information about myself to you or anyone else. I don’t use Facebook and I don’t use Linked in nor myspace or any other social website.
“You are making an appeal to an authority, and so for it to work, you have to back it up. ”
You can ignore that comment and you STILL can’t defeat the rest of my argument.
THEY DON’T SAY WHAT YOU CLAIM THEY SAY!!!
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2931779020080929
AND THE FED, still gave them money..
#108 J:
I’ve lost interest in arguing economics with you, because it’s more entertaining watching you try to worm your way out of this.
The internet is great because we can all get together and deal solely in facts and ideas. The moment you introduce something into the discussion that we can’t verify, especially when you’re using it to bolster your argument, the burden is on you to prove it, even if you have to drop the anonymity.
You’re insulting the rest of us when you say that just because you “have pointed out many times on this blog that I have received a degree from there” we should believe you.
So, dollars are getting scarce cause all those with over 100,000 bucks in the bank are pulling the extra cash and are putting the cash into T-bills. Hmmm. So, a bank like Bank of America who has many small accounts and are able to have the FDIC stand behind most of their assets will weather this storm better. So, the bailout really helps the banks with big depositors (ex-depositors). So, those banks didn’t do due diligence on loans and screwed their own depositors who balked and walked and now those banks want to screw us the taxpayer. Does that about sum it up?
#113 – Berm
>>You’re insulting the rest of us when you say
>>that just because you “have pointed out many
>>times on this blog that I have received a
>>degree from there” we should believe you.
Aw, who gives a fuck if he received a degree from there or not? Maybe he got one from Harvard, or from East St. Louis Community College? What does it matter? This is getting tedious.
Just stick to the issues at hand, please.
#115:
Because it’s fun. Don’t read our comments, if it really bothers you. I didn’t realize this was such a serious forum.
Besides, at post 115, the thread seems pretty much dead.
# 115 Mister Mustard
How do I post a picture to this site? I need to shut this ass hat up. lol
#117 – J
I don’t know, if it’s on your local computer. The only time I’ve posted pictures they’ve been pics I could link to on a public server somewhere. I guess you could post it in Flickr or Photobucket or some online photo sharing service and link to that.
I wouldn’t do that with my real account though. Too easy for the Nosey Parker to go poking around through your other photos. I wouldn’t give out that kind of information here for a million bucks! Too many wackos!
“You’re insulting the rest of us when you say that just because you “have pointed out many times on this blog that I have received a degree from there” we should believe you.”
Like I said you can ether accept it or not. That is up to you. My argument doesn’t require that I prove that because it isn’t dependant on it. It is just a side note
Of course there is always the possibility that I have been for over two years now stating the fact that I have a degree from the University of Chicago just so I could use it against you in an argument when you posted that petition.
DIPSHIT!
# 118 Mister Mustard
“I wouldn’t give out that kind of information here for a million bucks! Too many wackos!”
Yeah no shit. But such is my dilemma. I have something to prove his request is in error and nothing more than a stunt. I will look into the Flicker thing but I am not real keen on signing up for accounts just to bash some hopeless dolt into the pavement.
Personally, I think a better plan would be the following:
Give a 700 billion dollar tax rebate (that should be around 3,500 each tax payer if there are now 200 million tax payers) with the following caveat:
You must immediately deposit your money into one or more banks or financial institutions for at least 6 months before spending. You may electronically transfer any amount at anytime during this period.
The institutions will compete for their piece of the 700 billion.
Let the bad loans fail or folks like Warren Buffet may buy them at highly discounted values.
Another consideration:
Place a freeze on the paper money supply for 6 months. They (the FED) may not print up anymore money during this period.
This would be a bailout for “main street not wall street”, so the Democrats should be happy. It is also a “free market solution”, so the Republicans should be happy.
In addition, the taxpayer will not lose any money, unless they make a very bad choice or take a very high risk with their $3,500 investments over the next 6 months.
The FED did a bad thing by making interest rates artificially low.
� anyway, just a thought.
FYI – interesting take on the whole thing:
http://mises.org/story/3131
# 116 brm
Here is my response to your request.
DIPSHIT!
Is that enough proof? If not why not? I think that makes my point. What now is your argument about the rest of what I said considering I proved you wrong when you claimed they backed you up WHEN THEY DIDN’T!!!!!