[Anhil8tor]

bird basically he said he agrees with me now that the buyout shouldn't have occurred.


We'll see if snarg calls us stupit now.

[BIRD33]

bird basically he said he agrees with me now that the buyout shouldn't have occurred.


We'll see if snarg calls us stupit now.

I havent done anything like that and the fact that your reading comprehension is so poor explains why you opposed the bailout in the first place.I'm for the bailout but with limits on how the companies that are bailed out can spend their money.this view of mine hasnt changed since this all came about.How am I agreeing there should have been no bail out?

8 what do you think the stock market would have done with if there was no bailout?Do you think it would have remained open especially after seeing how far it fell even with the government propping up these banks?How can you say now that we didnt need the bailout?Your stock portfolio would be worth nothing with out it.

[Anhil8tor]

alot of the banks will still fail. the bailout helped out those who fucked the system.

believe what you want

[BIRD33]

alot of the banks will still fail. the bailout helped out those who fucked the system.

believe what you want

Answer my question on if the stock market would have fell far enough for it to close.

What would that have done to your stock portfolio?

[Anhil8tor]

Answer my question on if the stock market would have fell far enough for it to close.

What would that have done to your stock portfolio?

I have no idea.

My guess is that most people are getting their money out because of sheer terror but I'm letting mine ride... Actually I will be buying more now that its actually adjusted itself.

[BIRD33]

Way to play dumb.

[Anhil8tor]

the market is cyclical in nature to begin with. It will always adjust itself when its over valued...

[BIRD33]

the market is cyclical in nature to begin with. It will always adjust itself when its over valued...

That wasnt the question and I'm pretty sure you know this crisis isnt part of some cyclical nature of the market.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

the market is cyclical in nature to begin with. It will always adjust itself when its over valued...

Yeah, that was one bad ass cycle we went through after 9/11. What a coincidence that these cycles always come at the worst time.

[Anhil8tor]

didn't it come back up?

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

didn't it come back up?

Yeah, after the government bailed out the airlines. Shut the market down for a week. And the American people realized that we were attacked by a small group of nutjobs that got pretty fucking lucky and couldn't pull that kind of thing off whenever they wanted.

I can give you a clue though. That was not a cycle. That was an over-reaction to a circumstance that everyone was panicking over. It took a long time to calm investors down, but as it turns out there was minimal damage to our economy. The airlines took the brunt of the hit and have still never really recovered.

But, this mess right now IS the market. It is wall street. You can basically say that the DJIA is having a heart attack and no one can stop it and if we do its going to take a long time to recover.

[snarg]

bird basically he said he agrees with me now that the buyout shouldn't have occurred.


We'll see if snarg calls us stupit now.

no prob there
you are stupit

Way to play dumb.

he ain't plain', li'l guy

[BIRD33]

The funny thing is 8 probably has more on the line than anyone here in the stock market(I just do the normal long term retirement stuff) and he doesnt even realize how much the bailout helped him.

[Anhil8tor]

The funny thing is 8 probably has more on the line than anyone here in the stock market(I just do the normal long term retirement stuff) and he doesnt even realize how much the bailout helped him.

At last check I have lost a whole lot...


it'll come back though...


right? :melt:

[snarg]

if ya let it ride, all will be well
the bailout helped you, gator
it won't take as long to come back
look at it as the lesser of two evils

[Anhil8tor]

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Inv...?GT1=33002

Not only will I let it ride but I'll be putting more into it every month till it gets to 11K again.

[BIRD33]

So in less than one page 8 agrees with me now that the bailout was a good thing.

[Flumper Barflusterbutt]

The funny thing is 8 probably has more on the line than anyone here in the stock market.

Not only will I let it ride but I'll be putting more into it every month till it gets to 11K again.

Um. That would be "no".

[snarg]

:loool:

[snarg]

Three points need to be made about the bailout legislation. First, conservatives in the House torpedoed the initial bill, calling it too expensive at $700 billion, then voted for the second version, bloated to $850 billion. Now there's a profile in courage! Second, the bill was originally three pages -- and grew to 451 pages as enacted, as giveaway after giveaway was tacked on. The United States Constitution and all amendments is about 20 pages; it takes 451 pages to legislate a bank recovery payment? Super-long legislation is both inherently too complex and litigation-prone -- last year's Warner-Lieberman greenhouse gas regulation bill, which almost passed the Senate, was 491 pages -- and invites giveaways. In a brief, straightforward bill, a tacked-on special-interest favor stands out and looks embarrassing to the sponsor. In a gigantic laundry-list bill with hundreds of pages of special favors, none stand out. Everybody else's constituent is getting a handout, where's mine? Proposal: Congressional legislation should be limited to the word length of the United States Constitution. If Congress can't say something in fewer words than the Framers required to found the country, then Congress shouldn't say anything.

Third, why do members of the national legislature give away your money as fast as it can be borrowed? Because they want campaign donations. Polls show Americans don't like the idea of public funding for House and Senate elections, because it seems like a giveaway. But the public already funds congressional elections, just in an incredibly overpriced, inefficient way. Members of the House and Senate give away billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks to special-interest groups, in order to get back thousands of dollars in campaign donations. The $150 billion or so in sweetheart handouts in the bailout legislation will probably result in several million additional dollars given to House and Senate members as campaign donations. It would be far, far cheaper for taxpayers just to fund congressional campaigns! Suppose the public funded each House race at $1 million (435 races every second year) split between the parties, and each Senate race at $5 million split (roughly 34 races every second year), then banned campaign contributions. (Skip whether the Supreme Court would allow the latter, this is a thought experiment.) The cost would be about $600 million every second year, when there are national elections. That's peanuts compared to the amounts House and Senate incumbents give away to PAC-backed lobbies in order to inspire campaign donations. Federal financing of House and Senate races would save the public tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars.