I've of course heard about it but I don't know much about global economies. I know no one really want s to bail out these companies and I'm not even sure which party initiated the idea, but i think it's a necessary evil at this point, the government cant just let these companies collapse without it hurting the economy even more.

Paying out all that money sucks, but I think it will be even worse for us taxpayers if they don't.

But I agree, I'll be even more pissed if I have to hear that one of those CEO's left with a 6 figure pension or bonus or something.

That isn't entirely accurate.  The deregulation makes this scenario possible.  It does not however make it impossible to refuse buying a bad loan.  Being able to buy and sell loans allows for more risk yes, but without Fannie and Freddie being run in an insane manner for back door socialism, there would be no massive housing bubble right now.  With no one to sell the $200k mortage with zero down for a guy making $30k a year to, they wouldn't exist in anything approaching large numbers.

It is the politicians pushing the bad loans that have made it systemic instead of a fringe practice that occasionally sinks a company here and there.  We are paying the price of socialism, not deregulation.  Without that deregulation, they'd have just found another way to get Fannie and Freddie backing the bad loans and we'd still be on the hook for it.

That's fair enough if you limit your argument to the sub-prime market. But the problems are far broader than that--the sub-primes were just where folks started admitting that things were out of hand. Before this is over, we'll all know a lot more about how "sovereign funds" from around the world own part most US citizens' credit card debt. In between, we'll learn more about how easy credit, the house-flipping fad, and outright lust for "too much house" have driven ludicrous housing prices across the board.

My cousin killed himself nearly two years ago as a direct result of the deregulation situation we are in thanks to the republicans since Regan and his stupid "trickledown economics" epically failed theory. My cousin simply could not make his mortgage payments as well as his bills. This is so since he lost his job due to a downturn in the local economy where he lived and he could not find a new job and he could not qualify for any benefits so no help for him, his wife and his three daughters. The mortgage payments keep going up and he was hounded none stop after he maxed out his credit cards which also had ungodly interest rates that would make the mafia blush he simply gave up and decided his family would be better without him.   

This coupled with the fact his father who recently had a heartache at the wheel of his car resulting in a near tragic accident racked up several hundred thousand in hospital bills. Consequently he lost his ability to work and as an insult to injury he has basically lost everything he built up over the past 40 years of back breaking work to the insurance companies and hospital. What the hell is wrong with this country anymore?

There are people making millions a day for bullshit work hours and paying nearly nothing in taxes and average guys losing everything due to situations beyond their control. It is simply gut wrenching to say the least.

The republicans yell "let the market take care of itself" all the time, at least throughout my entire life and yet every time the market is poised to strip wealthy families of much of their assets there is always a "national interest" need argument proposed, at the public's expense that it is time the government step in and save industries (but without tight control attached). What about all the little guys who lost everything over the past several decades of this crazy wild west deregulation period?  Who will help them? Seems to me they are the ones that we have a national interest in protecting not these guys who make more in a week then most entire families will make in a couple generations.  

On a side note, I'm a firm believer in anything that is required by law needs to NOT be privately owned or controlled. There is simply an inherent conflict of interest that I can never get over when I think about such shit.

Lets get some things straight before you got off the wall.

I do agree with this paragraph.  Its insane that the current methodology for high-end positions allow for people to screw a company over royally and get off scot free (usually even better off than before).  Based on your comments you're obviously one of those types who has never done any research into why it is that way (and there is a reason), so I'd encourage you to look into that.

I won't respond to the stories, suffice to say I suspect your cousin was like most American's in that situation, unable to adjust his standards of living to meet his new needs.  And for reference, I had similar situation happen to an Uncle and Aunt.  Uncle took a nose dive off a bike that decided to go from 60 to 0 in an instant and my Aunt couldn't get a job to take over the lack of his income as well as his medical bills.  Instead she sold (rented originally, sold it later on) their house, moved to Nowheresville Indiana where she could afford a cheap house on a cheap paycheck and slowly but surely nursed my Uncle back into as normal as he wasn going to be.

Also the de-regulation that caused some of the problems associated with the current crisis was not laid solely at the feet of the Republicans.  Hell, people are quick to point out that Clinton had no power to veto the GLB Act, but they conviently ignore the fact that Clinton personally (as well as his administration) made it possible for the Citigroup merger which brought about the GLB Act in the first place.  Not to mention the GLB Act was passed with an overwhelming majority in the House and Senate, which isn't even possible without strong support on both sides.

You make more money, you pay more taxes, that is how it works.  You may like to think otherwise, or argue against it, but that is how it works.  Now, I'm not so naive as to believe the rich don't do everything in their power to aovid paying taxes, but they will pay more than Middle/Lower-class do as long as they aren't breaking the law.

Get off the crack.  The "de-regulation" binge was only recent thanks to the GLB Act.  Banks and Finacial Instituations have long been regulated do (mostly) to the Glass-Steagall Act put forth during the Great Depression.  Yeah, the big GD, as in 1930s.  The GLB Act, which changed the status quo, only came into effect in the late 90s.  Besides, no matter how you look at it the little guy is protected by other programs that are still in place (such as the FDIC), as usually they sink or swim on their own stupidity.

How does this relate in any way to the current crisis?  There are numerous factors to blame, sure, but the primary factor (which no one will admit too, damn lack of personal responsibility in the present) is incredibly stupid people taking incredibly stupid loans.  You can argue that the GLB Act made it possible for banks to offer those loans, but that doesn't mean those idiots had to accept the loans.  And when those people started crashing, it caused the rest of the real estate market to dive which led to the current issue at hand.

Also, where in the world is it law to give out a mortgage?

Yay, I get to prove how much of a heartless dick I am...

Your cousin got a variable rate mortgage.  Your cousin racked up credit card debt.  Your cousin didn't sell his house when he could no longer afford it.  Your cousin lived outside his means.  Perhaps he understood that his own actions were the cause, not the brightest reaction to an epiphany, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

When everyone is screaming about the economy being in the toilet, I still see hiring signs left and right.  If you can't keep the place you're in, you sell it and get something you can afford.  You don't wait around trying to find another job that will let you keep it.  You get what you can and live within your means.  If it's a job at McDonalds, it's still a job.

His father is a different issue, but it still boils down to self responsibility.  If he had insurance, there shouldn't have been hundreds of thousands of dollars in hospital bills.  That's why you get insurance, to cover those catastrophic costs.  Idiots that get 80/20 insurance that pays 80% of everything from the first dollar are idiots.  Idiots that get even worse insurance deals are even bigger idiots.  If he had an intelligent insurance plan, he wouldn't have any sizable bills, just his deductable.

Sob stories of relatives harmed by their own choices are just that, sob stories of relatives harmed by their own choices.  I prefer to live in a society where I can control my own life, than in one where I don't have the option.  It's not someone elses responsibility when your being an idiot causes you harm.  Shit happens, deal with it.

Jonnan, you like reading right?  Try this.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act did not have any bearing on Fannie and Freddie, they were already exempt from the ban on bundling mortgages into securities.  That's their purpose, to take risky mortgages the banks aren't ordinarily dumb enough to make, bundle them, and then sell them as guaranteed securities.  Banks stopped buying the other securities over a year ago when it was obvious that the housing bubble was about to pop.  They got sucker punched anyway because Fannie and Freddie have been lying about their mortgages and they aren't nearly as solvent as they're supposed to have been.  The guarantees aren't real.

The boom in subprime mortgages has been blamed on the repeal, but the real reason is Fannie and Freddie are the ones that back nearly all of them.  Subprime mortgages increased from about fifty billion dollars to 150 billion dollars from 1997 to 1998.  The percentage share of the market was a change from about one percent to ten percent, a very dangerous level.  The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act wasn't passed until November of 1999, a full year late to be causal.  Clinton's insane housing initiatives are the true culprit, and we can blame Bush and Congress for not stopping them eight years ago when the idiot left office.

I consider blaming future conditions for a change to be dishonest, but I'm one of those crazy right wingers.

Edit:  Er... odd question, but I'm posting from sins, why?

Thankyou, F-Bombs are often edited out by the Mods and i was just curious as to where you were posting from. I am compiling a list of sites within Stardockia that more readily allow such language, that way when i loose a few bombs off myself i can at least make sure it's on a site that doesnt mind too much...Even though any post can be viewed from just about anywhere in the tangled SD web.

Dont sweat it mate. Kryo has slapped me down more than once and some how i still have managed to get by, with a promotion no less!!!

I think, provided that your F-Bombs and other infractions are not used in flaming members or going out of your way to be disruptive, you can get by quiet well.

Yeah... that's what the other infractions are...

Factual inaccuracy: a 54-44 party line (1 Dem in favor, no GOP against) vote in the Senate for Gramm Leach Bliley Act does not exactly scream 'massive bipartisan support in both houses, although the house vote was more one-side, 90+% of the GOP and exactly 2/3rds of the Democrats voted for the final version there - but that's still a rather distinct difference between almost 100% support in the GOP and a decent majority among Democrats.

Well, no, actually not - the right hand side of the income curve makes far more of their money from things classified as 'capital gains', which have a much lower tax rate - Long term capital gains (Held over a year) is taxed at 15% - the income tax in my tax bracket. So, per dollar, Warren Buffet is paying the same tax rate as I am, and less than his secreatary is (Or so he has said - as I make almost exactly average U.S. Salary, I can only presume she is paid somewhat better than average for for jog - {G})

Personally, I think capital gains should be taxed as income - the argument about "but investment helps the economy" seem to me to assume "and working for a living . . . doesn't" - but if you *really* believe in markets, you have to assume that Bob the Company Owner/President/CEO is paying money where it does *him* the most good - so if he's paying $30,000 dollars for a worker, he's paying $30,000 for a bond his company issued, and he's paying $30,000 to his stockholders, he's kinda saying 'these three are worth the same to me - we know this because I was willing to pay the same amount for each of them.".

So taxing them at different rates actually seems rather like market manipulation to me - either,

A. You're trying to encourage living off of investments rather than living off of work. Kinda silly - given a choice I know *I* would choose to live off of investments rather than working for a living. Try me - anybody, give me money that I can equal my current salary with just investments, there won't be a momentary thought - I'll invest the money and quit my job, even if I was paying *higher* taxes.

You don't have to trust me on this BTW - give me the money and we'll test the theory. I will sacrifice, for the sake of economic science, I swear.

B. You feel that either investments don't actually pay what they should for how much they contribute to the economy, or contrawise, that regular workers are overpaid for what they do because they *don't* contribute to the economy. But somebody is actually making a decision - "Should I use this $300,000 of profit to pay ten average workers, two really important people, invest in equipment, post it to my stockholders as a profit, or use it to pay interest and or buy back some bonds - or some combination thereof?", and taxing these at different rates kinda assumes he doesn't really know WTF he's doing.

So, to be perfectly honest, I think it's kind of unfair that Paris Hilton is actually paying the same taxes on her trust fund money that I'm paying for working for a living.

Jonnan

Just mine more crystal!

The best part is that I have not seen a single person say that this bailout will solve the current crisis. My bet is it will be $700 billion dollars down the drain.  This country (government, companies, and individuals) has been living outside it's means for far to long (thanks to easy credit). Now Wall Street and the Fed are holding it hostage.