So the shrub says there will be no money available to borrow for things..

[Virginia Dare]

like college education. Why are people borrowing money for college from commercial banks anyway? 700 billion would go a long way to make funds available on a sliding scale according to yearly salary for everybody to afford a college education if they want it and qualify for acception. Just my 2 cents.

I also don't think we should go back to the days where money is so easily available that people are foolishly borrowing against their house to take European vacations and the like. I'm not willing to throw out 700 billion dollars for that kind of crap to go on again.

[shadowknows69]

1. That should be in the language of the Bill

Guaranteed low interest student loans. You want our tax money? Send our kids to school.

[Virginia Dare]

2. Excellent idea, I'm firing off an e-mail to my congresstool...n/t

[KitchenWitch]

46. Screw the loans, GRANTS

Guaranteed grants for our kids to go to college

[glowing]

3. If the Gov. made a bank themselves, then people can still borrow money

We already own 2 mortgage co's and an insurance firm.. Why not expand and accept deposits... If WE had a bank, we'd be making a lot of money off of the interest from mortgages and other loans... This bailout is nothing more than handing tax money to big businesses.

[pnutbutr]

4. unfortunately he's right

If lending stops so does our economy. The fiat money system is directly tied to lending.

[Virginia Dare]

5. What's the point in propping up a proven disaster?

Somebody made a good point, how does the 700 billion guarantee that the lending will immediately commence once again? The banks may decide to hold onto the money.

[pnutbutr]

6. Doesn't work that way

The banks have to lend money in order for the economy to work. By bailing out the banks it puts money in their hands to start lending again. It will be slow and careful but will keep everything working. The Government in the mean time sits on the mortgages it purchased until the market picks back up, may be 5 years, may be 10 but eventually it will pick back up and the properties it's sitting on will appreciate at which time it will sell those properties and bring in hopefully more than it initially spent buying them.

[Virginia Dare]

8. That's the way THEY say it's going to work..

pardon me for my skepticism.

[pnutbutr]

12. that's how

a fiat money system works. There is no way around it.

[Virginia Dare]

15. It sucks, and I don't want to prop it up anymore...

we may just have to live with a "long painful recession", as the shrub says, but we need a big adjustment in our financial systema and our economy. There's probably no way around that either, with or without the 700 billion in Wall Street's pockets.

[pnutbutr]

18. gold standard

This is when the gold standard crowd will start screaming again. As I said before though, the gold standard has it's own set of problems far worse in my opinion than the fiat system.

[SteelPenguin]

43. Or worse

I think we'll have a long painfull recession even with an effective bailout. Without one we're looking at depression, imho.

[NNN0LHI]

13. 5 to 10 years but eventually it will pick back up and the properties it's sitting on will appreciate

In 5 or 10 years of sitting empty they will be uninhabitable.

Don

[pnutbutr]

20. Why

would they be uninhabitable? When the housing market picks back up these homes would make an excellent investment for someone even if they do need a bit of repair.

[NNN0LHI]

21. Same reason insurance companies won't cover vacant houses

http://www.insure.com/articles/homeinsurance/vacant.html

Vacant houses can be tough to insure

By Insure.com

If you are planning an extended vacation or business trip, or have moved into a new home and not yet sold your old house, you might have a problem with your homeowner's insurance. Don't make your empty home a target for vandals, thieves, someone needing a place to spend the night, or teenagers looking for a place to hang out.

Insurance companies usually try to avoid insuring vacant homes, unless they know there is someone frequently checking on the home. Without someone checking on a regular — almost daily — basis, the risk for claims-inducing damage soars. Not only is there a greater risk of vandalism and fire, but if no one is checking on the house, there is the potential for flooding from burst pipes, which can cause extensive damage, or infestations of insects or other vermin.

Often, insurance companies will give you a window in which a house can be vacant, such as 90 days. After that, they may reserve the right to cancel the home insurance policy. Home insurers will often work with you if you have a special situation — for example, if you bought a new house and are waiting to sell your vacant house, but are still checking in on it.

[pnutbutr]

23. uninsurable

doesn't mean uninhabitable. All those things listed are a big maybe.

[Virginia Dare]

26. Are we paying for upkeep too?

You have to make sure the grass is mowed, the landscaping is tended, roofs are fixed, termites are controlled etc etc.

It takes money to keep a house up. If they're sitting there for 5 or 10 years with nobody to look after them, then yes, many of them will be uninhabitable.

Lots of homes have pumps to keep out water when it floods which run on electricity, no electricity, no pump, flood, mold.

Not to mention you have to be vigilant about squatters.

We've got many foreclosed homes in our neighborhood and these are just some of the issues we've faced just in the last year or so.

[pnutbutr]

28. probably be left to

the local governments which we will most likely see in the form of increased property taxes.

[Virginia Dare]

30. Right. All of that on top of the 700 billion

are you seriously suggesting that it will fall on local governments to bear the expense of keeping up these houses? It won't happen. I agree with the other poster, they will fall into disrepair. Nobody will want them.

[pnutbutr]

34. Some already are

taking on the upkeep responsibility of foreclosed homes.

I'm not sure what alternative we have. Bail out the banks to allow the lending continue or let the economy fail and have millions of people lose their jobs forcing more foreclosures, loan defaults and driving us even deeper.

[annabanana]

7. Their argument for the bailout is counterintuitive for most Americans.

(The lucky ones who aren't in dire straits right now)

What B*sh is saying here is that you can't survive if you can't borrow. Individuals have other options.. put off college, rent, cut back on the Christmas presents etc..

[SteelPenguin]

44. Well think of everything we do on 'credit'

your car break down? Better hope you have the money straight up to buy a new one. No cash out there to loan people for cars. Need a new home? No mortgage for you. Need a new TV? Can't put it on your credit card as it either has closed, the interest is prohibitive, or you'd still have to pay it off in a month ala the original American Express.

Families that live month to month and scrape by on payday loans, or credit cards will be hit first and it's going to trickle up fast to everyone. No money to spend, no money to borrow, people stop spending, the economy completely tanks, more people lose their jobs, more people aren't spending, less money, and it's even worse.

We're on the cusp right now. It's not unavoidable, but without something done soon, we will eventually reach the point of no return.

[ljm2002]

9. What he doesn't say...

...is what that $700Bn is really buying: it's buying back fraudulent financial instruments.

Let's get real. Our financial system is about to crash and burn because our financial traders palmed off fraudulent paper on unsuspecting buyers around the world. When those buyers found out that the "Class A" securities they had bought were really "Class D", and that on top of that, they had no way to take ownership of the collateral backing those securities, they were not happy about it, not happy at all. The credit that would dry up is credit from other nations to ours. This is not just an internal problem, and the primary reason for the problem is outright FRAUD perpetrated by traders who know how to package things up in complex instruments for their own gains. And these perpetrators of FRAUD are doing very well for themselves, while you and I have to foot the bill for the bailout. That is why it is only the American taxpayer who is held responsible -- because the FRAUD was perpetrated primarily by American traders.

Disclaimer: I am not an economist nor do I have training in that area. This is my own take on the matter.

[Virginia Dare]

11. I think that is an excellent take..

they also resorted to fraud in that the real estate market was artificially inflated so that banks could make more money on the loans, and they hired appraisers who would validate these outrageous values.

When less people could afford these falsely inflated properties, they just loaned them the money anyway, thus causing the foreclosure crisis, which touched off the dominoes.

[wishlist]

10. He's a liar, Govt backed student loans will still be available regardless

Even ABC Good Morning American debunked that worry, saying that even with no or poor credit, students will still be able to get the Govt guaranteed student loans with or without this bailout.

As far as business as usual with other loans, no one should expect the easy irresponsible credit that got us into this mess in the first place.

[sinkingfeeling]

14. Bush is a proven LIAR. There is little to no evidence that there is a credit crisis. I received 3

offers for signature loans up to $25K in yesterday's mail alone! I just took out a fixed 30-yr. mortgage on a second house.

This 'bailout' is a scam, just like the invasion of Iraq was a scam.

[Virginia Dare]

16. Exactly, I just don't see how banks will refuse to lend to people.

who legitimately qualify for a loan for a good reason. A lot of banks will fail no doubt, and those would be the stupid and reckless ones. There will be some solid conservative financial institutions who will still be around.

[pnutbutr]

19. take them all down

The banks that are failing will bring the others down along with them. The banks are all tied together through the financial system. Spending X amount per person now on a bailout is much cheaper than the FDIC paying out up to $100,000 on everyone's savings and having that money be worthless as inflation skyrockets.

[sinkingfeeling]

24. Easy solution to that... the same as was used in the 1930's. The government takes control of the

comerical banks.

[pnutbutr]

29. Just seize them?

That's something I don't want to see happen. When the government starts seizing private business without compensation we are in for trouble.

[Virginia Dare]

32. We're already in trouble pnutbutr...

what I don't want is Wall Street seizing government funds without compensation.

[pnutbutr]

36. I don't either

and the government is buying from those banks. The banks are not seizing anything. The compensation is the hope that the government will eventually be able to sell. There aren't many options we have right now except to hope this works and the money comes back at some point.

[Virginia Dare]

39. And now we've come full circle..

they're hoping that they'll eventually be able to sell a bunch of run-down turkey properties that the local governments have hopefully been keeping in sellable condition. Sounds like a plan!

[sinkingfeeling]

35. Is there a crisis or isn't there?

[pnutbutr]

37. Nope

Everything is fine. Life will continue as usual without intervention.

[Virginia Dare]

25. Do you have statistics to back that up?

Just curious because I'm skeptical about that too.

[Virginia Dare]

27. Literally every bank in the country is going to fail? I doubt that.

What about the credit unions? They'll still be around.

[pnutbutr]

33. If the

big banks fall the markets crash and the economy crashes. If the economy crashes, the small banks fall also because the national economy has crashed. If we had monetary systems that existed outside the fed those small banks may be able to survive. As it exists right now, they use the same money as everyone else.

[Virginia Dare]

40. I just have to get back to my original point..

that it makes no sense to continue to prop this house of cards up. Sorry, but I just don't buy into this being the last best solution to this issue. I think we need to go into recession to figure this out. Let the 700 billion create the jobs that are lost.

[pnutbutr]

41. recession

:rofl: We are in a recession. Doing nothing will put us into a depression the likes of which has never been seen.

[Virginia Dare]

42. No guarantees that this money will prevent that either..

it's a hope, but it very well might fail. Then we're left with NOTHING.

[bdamomma]

17. financial shock and awe on the American people

is it pitchforks and torches time. We need an all out massive demonstration now. We need to get out there. This is a full frontal assault on us.

[Toucano]

22. Good point.

Prices got artificially high precisely because the money was flowing so freely.

[earth mom]

31. They say it's to keep credit liquid, yet they've already raised the credit scores.

How much ya'll wanna bet that only the rich and their buddies will have access to credit, since most of the population don't have high enough credit scores? :grr:

[pnutbutr]

38. um

Yeah, lets continue giving loans out to those with bad credit and no capital. That wasn't a major cause of this mess anyways. :eyes:

[earth mom]

45. Do you know how much the top tier of credit is now? It went from a 640 score to a 720 score.

That is perfect credit they are talking about.

Which means you are shit out of luck if you forgot to pay a bill or paid it late or had a small bump in your credit score for whatever reason even though your credit was perfect before that for years and you are still on time with everything else.