Breaking News Dow down 600 points

[Guest]

The House rejected the bailout

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

[Guest]

I don't read Huffington but IMHO if Pelosi would have keep her foot out of her mouth it would have passed. No wonder women can't get ahead when someone like her is out there.

[Guest]

I don't read Huffington but IMHO if Pelosi would have keep her foot out of her mouth it would have passed. No wonder women can't get ahead when someone like her is out there.

This is so silly....It didn't pass because the Repub free market..no regulation gang wouldn't vote for it. Bush can't strong arm them anymore. It's Bush's problem and the Dems won't let it pass because the polls say the people are against it.

So it is politics as usual on the Hill....I off to drain my saving account so that I have so money when this sucker goes down.

Thank God I have some savings to pay with.

[Guest]

I was making lunch for my husband when they broadcasted her comments and I thought immediately, "that should create a huge firestorm". How much intelligence does it take to know how this situation requires a huge reach across the aisle and she's making her posturing, idiot statements. Who is she trying to kid? She is a one big ole slice of the whole problem in the first place. Gotta run, she's about to share her wisdom with us again, riiiggghtttt!

[Guest]

The market is rebounding. I wouldn't watch it hour to hour. The market always reacts to uncertainty and that is what we have had for days with our government running around telling everyone the sky is falling.

Let the markets work and fire Paulson, then get to prosecuting the Dems. Shame on them for pointing their knarly fingers every which way but at themselves. They will have to find some new ficticious bullies besides Wall Street and oil companies.

[Guest]

The market is rebounding. I wouldn't watch it hour to hour. The market always reacts to uncertainty and that is what we have had for days with our government running around telling everyone the sky is falling.

Let the markets work and fire Paulson, then get to prosecuting the Dems. Shame on them for pointing their knarly fingers every which way but at themselves. They will have to find some new ficticious bullies besides Wall Street and oil companies.it "rebounded" down 777 points!

[Guest]

it "rebounded" down 777 points!
Keep your shirt on. It will rebound. But these fools in Washington need to let the market work itself out like it always does. This was not the sky falling on Wall Street. It is the uncertainty injected by these idiots. A 7% drop is amazingly low given all the hysteria they have created. October 19, 1987, the market fell 25%.

[Guest]

Wow, TallerTrees, I want some of what you're smoking! :MOJE_whot:

[Guest]

Wow, TallerTrees, I want some of what you're smoking! :MOJE_whot:
That's just reality, as opposed to being high on fantasies.

The market goes up - then down - then up - then down. The more it goes up due to credit-based transactions, the less the dollar is worth, so any "gain" is phony anyway.

People look at the stock market as a way to make money without labor. That's gambling! Sometimes you win, more often you lose. If you are lucky, you end up breaking even in comparison to the good old-fashioned savings account.

It was not that long ago (July 22, 2002) when the market dipped to 7,784 due to the dot.com bubble-burst. The dot.com's were bad investments, just like packaged sub-prime mortgages. Stuff happens and we're still here. The economy rebounded without any bailouts to the dot.coms, and the sun still came up over the Eastern horizon.

Why the doom and gloom? A DJIA of 10,365 (today's closing number) is still a long way from 7,784. The glass is nowhere near 1/2 empty.

[Guest]

Wow, TallerTrees, I want some of what you're smoking! :MOJE_whot:Itsa river in Africa called denial

[Guest]

That's just reality, as opposed to being high on fantasies.

The market goes up - then down - then up - then down. The more it goes up due to credit-based transactions, the less the dollar is worth, so any "gain" is phony anyway.

People look at the stock market as a way to make money without labor. That's gambling! Sometimes you win, more often you lose. If you are lucky, you end up breaking even in comparison to the good old-fashioned savings account.

It was not that long ago (July 22, 2002) when the market dipped to 7,784 due to the dot.com bubble-burst. The dot.com's were bad investments, just like packaged sub-prime mortgages. Stuff happens and we're still here. The economy rebounded without any bailouts to the dot.coms, and the sun still came up over the Eastern horizon.

Why the doom and gloom? A DJIA of 10,365 (today's closing number) is still a long way from 7,784. The glass is nowhere near 1/2 empty.Jim Kramer was talkin 8200 tonite...

[Guest]

OK, I'm Jim Smith from Somewhere in Northern USA. I've worked 34 years in my own business servicing freezefrugelers... quite successfully. For the past 4 years my wife and I have been planning on retiring to The Villages. She's 60 and I'm 62. I have hypertension and have had prostate cancer. They tell me I'm cancer free. She's pretty healthy and we have our health insurance through a local HMO which doesn't exist in Florida. In the past 2 years our home (it's paid off) dropped in value from 225,000 to 180,000 and our sole source of retirement, our 401-K has dropped from 500,000 to under 400,000. The experts tell us it'll bounce back. I can't get health insurance because I have a "pre-existing condition". Our assets are down over 20%. I feel I've done everything right for the past 34 years and we'd love to live in The Villages. Can we pull it off ? (I wonder how many people in the USA are in this boat? These are pretty good assets yet things seem too gloomy and frightening to move). What would you do?)

[Guest]

Dow down 778 points, my income down 15% per month and these clowns in Washington still playing games.

Lets get the names of those members of the house who voted against the " Rescue package" and send them home.

I can't sleep, to expensive to drive and as a single guy can not find someone to take me out to dinner.

Think I will pour myself another bowl of Raisin Bran.

[Guest]

AJ, if we send home the ones that voted against the rescue AND the ones that voted for the rescue, we'll probably all sleep a lot better. ;)

[Guest]

WOW! The news pundits on EVERY news channel this AM emphatically stated that House Speaker committed malpractice with her lunatic speech yesterday. Even the liberal channels were appalled.

[Guest]

Dow down 778 points, my income down 15% per month and these clowns in Washington still playing games.

Lets get the names of those members of the house who voted against the " Rescue package" and send them home.

I can't sleep, to expensive to drive and as a single guy can not find someone to take me out to dinner.

Think I will pour myself another bowl of Raisin Bran.Turn on the news this AM... Nancy Pelosi got some splainin to do.

[Guest]

Turn on the news this AM... Nancy Pelosi got some splainin to do.

What stations are you watching? Because I'm seeing that a few hurt feelings should not have stopped the Republicans from putting the "Country First."

All the pundits I've been hearing think this is just a scapegoat excuse on the Republicans part.

[Guest]

What stations are you watching? Because I'm seeing that a few hurt feelings should not have stopped the Republicans from putting the "Country First."

All the pundits I've been hearing think this is just a scapegoat excuse on the Republicans part.

Putting "Country First" is not throwing money at people who haven't fixed the problem which necessitated the money in the first place. Nobody even KNOWS if throwing money at anything will do any good, except to line the pockets of a select few, because there has been NO FIX to coincide with the money-giving.

Common sense (what a concept!) says you fix the hole in the boat so it doesn't sink when you add more weight to it. What's the difference here? So far the only difference has been the "Chicken Little" "Sky is falling" hysterics of a select few.

If it took many months/years to get into whatever this mess is, shouldn't clarification of what caused the mess and what it will take to fix it occur BEFORE you throw money willy-nilly into the air? What's a couple more weeks to do all of anything in a SANE, RATIONAL manner versus acting like an hysterical mob with no proof that what you do will have any effect?

[Guest]

Putting "Country First" is not throwing money at people who haven't fixed the problem which necessitated the money in the first place. Nobody even KNOWS if throwing money at anything will do any good, except to line the pockets of a select few, because there has been NO FIX to coincide with the money-giving.

Common sense (what a concept!) says you fix the hole in the boat so it doesn't sink when you add more weight to it. What's the difference here? So far the only difference has been the "Chicken Little" "Sky is falling" hysterics of a select few.

If it took many months/years to get into whatever this mess is, shouldn't clarification of what caused the mess and what it will take to fix it occur BEFORE you throw money willy-nilly into the air? What's a couple more weeks to do all of anything in a SANE, RATIONAL manner versus acting like an hysterical mob with no proof that what you do will have any effect?

I don't get it. We all agree that the bailout is not a good thing. However, the economists say it is a necessary thing. This credit crunch will cause people to lose paychecks, lose jobs, lose the ability to sell their homes, lose the ability to buy homes. There will be a package and probably on Thursday. What is it you feel they should do then? I'm mystified. Seriously.
Enlighten me.

[Guest]

I don't get it. We all agree that the bailout is not a good thing. However, the economists say it is a necessary thing. This credit crunch will cause people to lose paychecks, lose jobs, lose the ability to sell their homes, lose the ability to buy homes. There will be a package and probably on Thursday. What is it you feel they should do then? I'm mystified. Seriously.
Enlighten me.

This talk about "credit crunch" is because the financial industry has been loaning (e.g., "selling") money to people and businesses who are lousy credit risks, and the sellers make money by getting the loans, packaging them, and then selling them again, but only for a "teeny-weeny" percentage higher to make a profit. This pyramid eventually runs out of buyers, so more pyramids have to be started again with new loan packages in order to keep revenue coming into the sellers.

What this bailout is trying to do is create that "super-buyer" at the top - in essence create one more level higher in the financial pyramids so that there is a buyer willing to be stuck with the junk and the financial industry folk continue to make a profit. That's the mortgage side of the "credit crunch" story - and why no one wants to talk "fixing the problem now" because that would end the crummy mortgage market.

For the businesses, many of them run cash-poor anyway and live off of borrowed money. The game is to get loans based on their accounts receivable so that they can pay today's bills with money due in tomorrow (or a lot later). The "cost of money" becomes part of their rate structure when selling product or services, and added to the end const that the customer for those products/services pays. Depending on the accounting practices, pay-back history, and solidity of the accounts receivable (in other words, will those business' customers really pay on time?) the credit-worthiness of the business is determined, which in turn determines the interest rate of these operating-fund loans, as well as any other terms and conditions to include when repayment is due. Many firms start off with a "short leash" on these type of loans and pay them off rather quickly, but as accounts receivable drag or costs rise (e.g., bonuses and executive salaries as an example), the loans also go up, and the firm stants accruing more debt than it can handle realistically under its accounts receivable. In reality, many of these businesses are already essentially bankrupt, and should go "Chapter 11" and reorganize and seek debt relief, but to do so puts their books before a bankrupcy judge and locks down executive pay and the ability to raid the assets.

Businesses have been doing this shell game financing for a very long time, but eventually everything catches up.

What the Bailout is trying to do is to make a "sugar daddy" out of the federal government so that companies with lousy credit basically have an after-market co-signer for their bad debts, and that co-signer is you and me via higher taxes. What a good deal! They get the money to pay off lousy management decisions and in-house thievery and we get the bill.

How many times has some deadbeat relative asked you to co-sign a loan or help bail them out of a stupid financial decision, and you know if you did you'd be stuck with the bill, they would escape scot-free, and they would get the benefit of the money while you got all the pain.

That's why it is so essential to "FIX" the problem first before releasing any money, or we are screwed even worse than the financial industry is trying to make us believe.

I don't believe in panic-buying anything, and when the elected watchdogs who have been lobbyist-supported forever tell me "hurry up and trust me," I put both hands over my wallet and start looking for my pistol.

[Guest]

What should they do on Thursday? Nothing! Bad loans need to be renegotiated between the lender and the borrower - period! The alternative is the lender gets what they don't want (repossessed property) because the lender is not in the sell-repossessed-property business - the lender is in the sell-money business.

Renegotiating debt is a standard business practice. So let the practice take care of itself. Doing so will not make the financial industry which has been dumping hundreds of thousands of dollars into politicians' coffers happy at all, because it will cut their profit. Like I care!

Bottom line - you don't get better with $700B in placebos. You just stay ill and come back for another$700B in 6 months.