Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The plan is structured in such a way that investors face very little risk - in fact, the most valid criticisms of the plan are just the opposite of what you claim. It's the government who is facing taking the risk - not the partner investors.
Fortunately I think the risk for the government is slight. I think at this point much of the so-called toxic assets are undervalued and with most of the risk removed, private investors will rush buy these up.
Ken
Investors face very little risk,with the government taking the risks and even at that, you think the risk for the government is slight. Let's remember that it's OUR money the government is using. Of course, the government has little risk. WE are the ones taking the risk.
Think about it - this is sort of a "distribution of wealth" plan in reverse. We are backing the fat cats and taking on the risk by "buying up" their worthless "assets" with OUR money, and we didn't have any say in the matter. So far, each family in this country will get a bill of over $116,000 to cover the "government's" debt. And that's not a final bill. It'll grow.
Of course Wall Street rebounded. They're guaranteed to get an infusion of our money into the banking system, with us taking on all the risks. Like I said, redistribution of what little wealth the citizenry has.
By the way - if the plan is so good, why has the administration dropped the term "toxic assets"? I forget now what they are trying to substitute for that term ("Legacy assets" comes to mind). Maybe someone else knows. However, no matter what you call it, it's still toxic.
"Toxic" -- containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation <toxic waste> <a toxic radioactive gas> <an insecticide highly toxic to birds>
Investors face very little risk,with the government taking the risks and even at that, you think the risk for the government is slight. Let's remember that it's OUR money the government is using. Of course, the government has little risk. WE are the ones taking the risk.
Think about it - this is sort of a "distribution of wealth" plan in reverse. We are backing the fat cats and taking on the risk by "buying up" their worthless "assets" with OUR money, and we didn't have any say in the matter. So far, each family in this country will get a bill of over $116,000 to cover the "government's" debt. And that's not a final bill. It'll grow.
By the way - if the plan is so good, why has the administration dropped the term "toxic assets"? I forget now what they are trying to substitute for that term ("Legacy assets" comes to mind). Maybe someone else knows. However, no matter what you call it, it's still toxic.
"Toxic" -- containing or being poisonous material especially when capable of causing death or serious debilitation <toxic waste> <a toxic radioactive gas> <an insecticide highly toxic to birds>
You're missing the big picture..
This plan will finally free up the frozen financial market - the market recongnized that and went up BIG TIME today!!!
Say what you want - no plan is perfect - but this one resulted in a one day increase of 7% in the market...
The plan is structured in such a way that investors face very little risk - in fact, the most valid criticisms of the plan are just the opposite of what you claim. It's the government who is facing taking the risk - not the partner investors.
Fortunately I think the risk for the government is slight. I think at this point much of the so-called toxic assets are undervalued and with most of the risk removed, private investors will rush buy these up.
I think it is a good plan and it will work.
Clearly Wall Street feels the same way (hence the 500 point gain today for the DOW).
Ken
I think we need to examine what's going on here without market reaction (whether the market reacts positively or negatively that shouldn't influence our decisions as a voting populace).
This plan is good for the banks. If I was a bank and you were buying my crappy assets of course I'd be delighted. My issue is that what is good for corporations isn't neccesarily what is good for the population.
I'm pretty sick with this whole constantly trying to prop up failing organizations, money being funneled to people that still run those companies is a waste. It's a wealth transfer to people that are already wealthy.
I dunno, I don't like where this is heading. The foundation is rotten and it's almost like we're trying to stimulate a second housing bubble to get over the present one.
I think we need to examine what's going on here without market reaction (whether the market reacts positively or negatively that shouldn't influence our decisions as a voting populace).
This plan is good for the banks. If I was a bank and you were buying my crappy assets of course I'd be delighted. My issue is that what is good for corporations isn't neccesarily what is good for the population.
I'm pretty sick with this whole constantly trying to prop up failing organizations, money being funneled to people that still run those companies is a waste. It's a wealth transfer to people that are already wealthy.
I dunno, I don't like where this is heading. The foundation is rotten and it's almost like we're trying to stimulate a second housing bubble to get over the present one.
Say what you want, but my 401K is ecstatic about this new plan from Treasury..
And if you want to blame someone - BLAME DUBYA - he's the moron who gave us the mess we are in...
The haters will never give Pres. Obama & his administration any credit no matter how successful his policies are. Remember Fat arse Rush and his followers want Obama to fail so I guess today was a rough day for em.
Say what you want, but my 401K is ecstatic about this new plan from Treasury..
And if you want to blame someone - BLAME DUBYA - he's the moron who gave us the mess we are in...
My point is that what got us into this mess is your 401k. Corporations don't act for the benefit of morality or the common good, they operate for the bottom line. Sometimes those things coincide but in others they do not, and in this case I think we're getting fleeced as we were with the TARP.
Basically I can predict the Dow with relative accuracy:
Gov't gives finance money: Yay! Up points!
Gov't gives anyone else money: Booo! We want that money! *market tanks*
And I'm not blaming anyone, look at my post history if you want to take cheap shots.
Edit: As a note this goes the other way as well. If they announce a policy that is good for the population but it tanks the market that doesnt mean it's a bad policy. It just means it's bad for some traders on wall street.
Last edited by FinkieMcGee; 03-23-2009 at 06:25 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
