It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Senate Sets Bank-Rescue Vote, House May Act Friday

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Senate Sets Bank-Rescue Vote, House May Act Friday


www.bloomberg.com

Oct. 1 (Bloomberg) -- The Democratic and Republican leaders of the U.S. Senate predicted that a $700 billion financial-rescue package would win approval tonight and urged opponents in the House to drop their objections to the bill.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 03:31 PM
link   
So basically "bloomberg" is saying it's a done deal. Now it's up to Congress... The question I have been asking is why the big fuss over the number 700 billion? I mean they have already spent more than that, plus the fed has proven it will and can print more money at will. So is this "bill" even about the money at ALL?

GL all.

www.bloomberg.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 03:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by LaoTzu


So basically "bloomberg" is saying it's a done deal. Now it's up to Congress... The question I have been asking is why the big fuss over the number 700 billion? I mean they have already spent more than that, plus the fed has proven it will and can print more money at will. So is this "bill" even about the money at ALL?

GL all.

www.bloomberg.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


More then the money part of it, the bill should concern the American people because of the powers it gives the Treasury. The fact that in the bill it states no court or congress can hold this new branch of government responsible! So yea just a little troubling.


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Not one of these Senators should be reelected.

Each has knowingly undertaken the circumvention of the Constitution, with full intention of executing an 'end-run' around the law of the land.

They have accepted, by taking the oath of office, the responsibility to defend the sentinel document at the heart of our republic, and tossed it aside because the 'big money' was going to 'go away' and leave them behind if they didn't.

They prostituted themselves to the transnational banking elite.

As far as I'm concerned, they are guilty of treason, failure to perform their duty, and I would not be severely surprised to find they were all bribed or blackmailed - or both.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
What I don't understand is why does the Senate expect the House to
pass an $800 billion dollar measure when they voted down the $700
billion dollar package?



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by carewemust
What I don't understand is why does the Senate expect the House to
pass an $800 billion dollar measure when they voted down the $700
billion dollar package?


Maybe our Congress was holding out for more? lol Just kidding. But, listening to some of the congressional speeches prior to the vote of 700 billion, there seems no way it will ever pass.

Even if it does not pass, the Fed will continue injecting taxpayer money into the fire. But like I said earlier, I really do not think the "amount" of money is even a factor here.

I must say (living in Seattle), life has been pretty good in terms of not much changin. So hopefully the kings allow us commoners to keep living our lives reasonably unchanged.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by carewemust
What I don't understand is why does the Senate expect the House to
pass an $800 billion dollar measure when they voted down the $700
billion dollar package?


Yeah! Wait, what? Where did this $800 Bil figure come from suddenly? I didn't see that in the Bloomberg article nor have I heard of it anywhere today.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by LaoTzu
 


Because all that money wasn't used to buy up bad assets. We are putting all this liquidity into the market, but the bad assets are still there. The only way they are going to start lending normally is if the risk goes down. Risk will only go down when the bad assets disappear.

Not saying its right, just explaining, thats what this money is for. The other money was just to try and free up the market in other forms.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Burdman, there was another $100 Billion in "Add-ons" added to the
package by the US Senate in order to make the package more
appealing to taxpayers.

See: abcnews.go.com...

But the imminent failure of a "houshold name" insurance company is
what made my hair stand up. That's the industry I work in.
-cwm

[edit on 1-10-2008 by carewemust]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by LaoTzu
 


Because all that money wasn't used to buy up bad assets. We are putting all this liquidity into the market, but the bad assets are still there. The only way they are going to start lending normally is if the risk goes down. Risk will only go down when the bad assets disappear.

Not saying its right, just explaining, thats what this money is for. The other money was just to try and free up the market in other forms.


Ok so let me see if I am getting this straight. So the 630 Billion was not for "bad assets", and that the 700 ( 800 ) billion bill is to cover these "bad assets"

So the Treasury only has to pass a bill through senate/congress to spend Billions of taxpayer dollars if the assets are bad?



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
The economists who keep their pulse on the economy said that $700
Billion was barely enough money to unfreeze the credit market from the
start. Plus additional billions are needed every single day that this
"rescue" package isn't enacted. I bet somewhere around a trillion dollars
is needed by now to provide sufficient liquidity. This is all so surreal.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:14 PM
link   
So now it's a rescue plan and not a bailout. Hmm!

I rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, but this stinks!



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I think now it is called Bank-Rescue package instead of Bail out Plan makes it more palatable to congress


A rose by any other name would still stink as sweetly.




posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:23 PM
link   
This bailout is completely uncalled for. If the banks that are in trouble would have stuck with traditional lending in the first place then they wouldnt be where they are today. This bailout makes me sick. Are they going to be there to help any of us when things go sideways? No! So why should we be there when greed causes failure in financial institutions? Let nature take its course and the strongest will naturally survive. To make an omelette you have no choice but to break some eggs.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by carewemust
 


Unfortunately we have already spent about a trillion, without even this extra 700 billion thats still on the table.



The fed has spent about one trillion dollars bailing out wall street so far this year, and those are just numbers we can keep track of. The total amount of liquidity that has been pumped into the markets is not available to the public. We do know the fed dropped 180 billion dollars into the markets, last Tuesday, and on Monday 630 Billion more was poured in, that's almost another trillion in just two days worth of injections. They add more nearly every day. The printing presses have been running non-stop, (that's why they call him helicopter Ben Bernanke) and it goes on with or without congressional approval. Our dollar has already collapsed.


www.opednews.com...

So maybe a few trillion eh?

Mod Edit: Use External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/1/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   
Not that it'll do a lick of good, but I already contacted both senators from my state and urged them to vote against this.
If they both vote yes I will be sure to remember when they are up for re-election.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by carewemust
 


Ah, now I see. Thank you.

As for that insurance company bankruptcy, I like the backpedalling in the ABC article. That was a mighty specific comment Reid made to just be brushed aside as "he was speaking metaphorically" by his spokesperson.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:33 PM
link   
If the dollar is weak, why aren't people earning more $$$ on the job?
When the PESO crashed many years ago, people in Mexico went shopping
pushing wheelbarrows of money to the store. Everything seems to be
working AGAINST the average person in this particular crises.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Yep.. Senators and Congressmen on certain committees know what's
going to happen to specific companies long before the public finds
out, but they've taken an oath to remain mum. Harry Reid shouldn't
have said anything, but I suppose he's trying to impart the seriousness
of this credit crises upon the public.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by LaoTzu
 


The 630 billion was emergency funds to stop the banks from seizing up and cutting lending off when the market was taking that disgusting dive.

The problem is, that kind of move doesn't restore credibility to businesses or trust in the market. All it does is add liquidity to the market for a short amount of time. Thats the REAL bandaid.

This bailout isn't a bandaid, its an attempt to wipe the slate clean. Pumping 630 billion in liquidity, THAT is a bandaid. It solved nothing, and just was a backstopper.

IMO, that is 630 billion dollars wasted because the bailout did not come fast enough/failed. The liquidity is there, its the trust and the credibility that isn't. 630 billion doesn't do much for faith and credit, it just lets banks go "alright, we can continue lending cautiously for a bit longer."

Until these bad assets get wiped off the slate, none of these banks will trust eachother, or other companies. It will become a hoarding race to be prepared. Lehman brothers could not raise the capital they needed to as a result of there debt. These other banks don't want to face that fate. As a result, they are hoarding. They won't stop hoarding till the risk is gone(the bad assets are no longer threatening their business).



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join