How much is the Wall Street bail out costing YOU????  Who knows, Bush/Paulson says $700,000,000,000.00!!
That an estimate, BUT remember this is the same administration that said the Iraq war would cost the tax payers nothing…......There are many saying the cost will soar to above $1 trillion.

This we know now:

1.  Bush/Paulson has ask congress for $700,000,000,000.00 and has ask that no controls be added to the request.  This equates to approx $2325 for every man, woman and child in the USA.

2.  To bail out of Wall Street firms.  On Meet the Press Sunday Paulson added FOREIGN BANKS.  I am now hearing on the news that CREDIT CARD companys are also on the bail out list from Bush/Paulson.

3.  The bail out request also contains a request to raise the National Debt to $11,315,000,000,000.00.
This equates to approx $37,591.00 for every man, woman and child in the USA.

If I have made mistakes feel free to correct.
(to caculate cost per person I rounded the population to 301M)(the 2007 estimate is 301,139,947)

And how much would it cost us if the government let the banks fail?

Be ticked off - but get over it
“You should be angry about the $700 billion plan to save banks. But once the rage subsides, realize that doing nothing would be disastrous.“

There is nothing about Bush or the republican party that prompted our commercial banking system to try and make money off of high-risk loans the way they did.  Do you want to know when this started?  When rules put in place back in 1933 to prevent another depression were removed in 1999.  Do you know who signed this deregulation into law?  Bill Clinton.  It was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

“Economist Robert Kuttner (among others) has criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis.[8] Economists Robert Ekelund and Mark Thornton have made similar criticisms, arguing that while “in a world regulated by a gold standard, 100% reserve banking, and no FDIC deposit insurance” the Financial Services Modernization Act would have made “perfect sense” as a legitimate act of deregulation, under the present fiat monetary system it “amounts to corporate welfare for financial institutions and a moral hazard that will make taxpayers pay dearly”. “

Dan, Did you see any of the meeting of Paulson/Bernanke/Cox/Lockhart With the Senate Banking Committee this morning? I was not able to watch all of the meeting but watched several Senators talk about causes/corrections. The most interesting explanation of cause was by Senator Shelby Republican from Alabama, he listed the date during the last 18 months each had testified before congress on the state of the economy. He repeated the exact words each had used to describe the economy and that each had said the economy was in good shape just as Bush/McCain had up to Monday Sep 15. He did not say that they had lied but sure implied it. Below is some of the conversation.
Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the panel’s senior Republican, was even more blunt. “I have long opposed government bailouts for individuals and corporate America alike,” he said. Seated a few feet away from Paulson and Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal reserve, he added, “We have been given no credible assurances that this plan will work. We could very well send $700 billion, or a trillion, and not resolve the crisis.”
Just because God created the world in seven days doesn’t mean we have to pass this bill in seven days,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas
A third witness, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Christopher Cox, urged Congress to regulate a type of corporate debt insurance that figured prominently in the country’s financial crisis.

“I urge you to provide in statute the authority to regulate these products to enhance investor protection and ensure the operation of fair and orderly markets,” he said. The debt insurance is known as credit default swaps
Congressional Republicans, in particular, piled on the criticism of the administration’s suggested solution to the crisis.

“This massive bailout is not a solution, It is financial socialism and it’s un-American,” said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.

“After reading this proposal, I can only conclude that it is not just our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution, as well,” Dodd said

I think that there was two common item that Senators listed as being a big part of the problem, regulations and the lack of enforcement of existing regulations.
I would like to see more open meetings such as this, not only the bailout but things like energy and the environment.
From watching the so called experts it appears that there is not much that can be done except do a bail out.
It appears that the question now is in what form, what regulations, and who gets what.

The New York Times, September 30, 1999

“Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending”

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

It looks like the reporter that wrote that article knew a lot more about economics than Clinton.  That’s what happens when people opt for a celebrity president.

President Bush has pushed home ownership as one of his policies from his announced run until a couple of years ago.  Google “Bush home ownership"and you will find 900,000 pages where he talks about home ownership.
The first link is Bush housing policy from 2002
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5344/is_200208/ai_n21316979

Bush ties tax relief, home ownership
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4568925/

Bush pushes minority home ownership
http://articles.latimes.com/2002/jun/18/business/fi-homes18

President hosts conference on minority home ownership
http://www.policyalmanac.org/social_welfare/archive/wh_minority_housing.shtml

From Ron Pauls web site
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/gw-bush-on-the-housing-boom-oct-2002/

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020618-1.html

I don’t see Bush’s initiative as a problem or contributing to the credit issue.  He encouraged the building of affordable homes, by providing incentives to the contractors and investors that build the homes.  Clinton had already signed the law that removed the safeguards and logical segregation from the banking system.  So people already had access to the loans, whether they could afford to make the payments or not.  That created a housing shortage, which Bush addressed by encouraging the building of affordable homes.

I was just flipping channels today on News and I thought I heard for people to go to banks and borrow money and use there credit card. If I heard right I think this was Bank Of America saying this. If I am wrong please let me know. I think people have enough debit with out making anymore. Know one right now is going to borrow money to have to be worried of paying it back. This just does not make any since to me.

Sweets, I’m shooting in the dark here, because I didn’t really watch any news today. That being said, it absolutely would not surprise me if you did, in fact, hear what you think you heard. Especially if it came from Bank of America. People being stupid and getting loans and burning the plastic is just going to make them money. So of course they would want people to do that. I’ve even heard some of the “financial experts” encourage people to “go buy.“ Which is great for the economy if you can go out and pay cash for the stuff you “go buy” but not so good in the long run if people go in debt just to “go buy.“

But, you’d be surprised how many people will go out and borrow money right now. After all, that’s how we got into this mess.

Dan East - 02 October 2008 09:35 AM

I don’t see Bush’s initiative as a problem or contributing to the credit issue.  He encouraged the building of affordable homes, by providing incentives to the contractors and investors that build the homes.  Clinton had already signed the law that removed the safeguards and logical segregation from the banking system.  So people already had access to the loans, whether they could afford to make the payments or not.  That created a housing shortage, which Bush addressed by encouraging the building of affordable homes.

Affordable homes…that is what you were suppose to believe and was convinced of at the time..and as you know the banks /mortgage companies pushed that ...knowing damn good and well what was to become of all of it

If you have a affordable home. You are lucky. What happens to the people now that have high mortgages? Does this mean that they will have to foreclose on there home? What will there rate be if they have to refinance? There was a friend of mine who called her bank because there rate changes in two months. The bank told them that there payment could go up or down. So does this mean that they are really going to help people that are haveing to close on there home. Just how many other people will lose there homes?What are they really going to do? Who is going to pay for all of this? It looks bad. People are still loosen there homes everyday.

sweets - 14 November 2008 08:33 PM

If you have a affordable home. You are lucky. What happens to the people now that have high mortgages? Does this mean that they will have to foreclose on there home? What will there rate be if they have to refinance? There was a friend of mine who called her bank because there rate changes in two months. The bank told them that there payment could go up or down. So does this mean that they are really going to help people that are haveing to close on there home. Just how many other people will lose there homes?What are they really going to do? Who is going to pay for all of this? It looks bad. People are still loosen there homes everyday.

I truly feel for your friend. But at the same time, that’s a prime example of how this mess got started; those stupid adjustable rate loans. I remember when I bought my house back in ‘01, VHDA even offered those stupid things. This was the first time I’d ever been through the whole house-buying process, but I couldn’t for the life of me imagine why anyone would agree to a loan where the lender could change the rate practically at will. And now look where we are….those rates have been “adjusted” to the point that many people can’t afford the payments (if they even could have in the first place). I also remember that one of the requirements for a VHDA loan was that you had to go through this joke of a budgeting class where the end result was basically, if you add up all your expenses including your proposed mortgage payment and subtract that from your net income for the month and don’t have a negative, then you can afford the mortgage. They also showed you how to be “more efficient” in your budgeting, which was a cute way of telling you to cut certain things out so that your mortgage payment would fit. Until Americans stop falling in to the debt trap, we as a country are going to be upside down financially. I know I probably sound like a broken record, but evidently, nobody is listening.

you know what? These cars sales man do the same thing. We can get your payment at 400.00$ ,but you can give this up and that up. Who is going to fall for that unless they have the money to do it. Seems like all of the housing and car business are alike. Why should you have to give something up for them to make the money. There are alot of Americans who are still falling in to the debt trap. Thats why I say get away from the credit cards and pay cash for what ever you can and don’t borrow money. I assume thats what they think people will do for the Holidays. You can bet that I am listening. I will do without before I have to use credit or borrow.

sweets - 18 November 2008 09:02 PM

Thats why I say get away from the credit cards and pay cash for what ever you can and don’t borrow money….I will do without before I have to use credit or borrow.

Amen, sweets! That’s what I’m talkin’ ‘bout! We have made the decision to never be in debt again. And once my stupid student loan is paid off, that will be a reality. Maybe the only loan we’ll ever get again will be a mortgage. But you can bet that bad boy is gonna be a 15 yr fixed so we can knock it out in short order.

How much will this bail out cost us? I don’t have a answer. If anyone heard Mr. Obama’s speech last night. I just did not get some of the things he said. How is this going to affect us. I can’t say. But I know that our family and other family’s are in a position that we just can’t go out and borrow money and try to pay these banks back. It all sounds good, but will it work for the people. Just my opinion if they would have given the American people some of this money. People could have spent and got the economy flowing. The last money they sent out people had to buy gas because it was so high that was the only way they had to get to work. 300.00 dollars was not even two weeks of gas and food they had to buy. If anyone heard his speech please explain to me what you thought and what he was trying to say. I’m sure it will help alot of people keep there jobs and also the people who have lost there jobs. But right now. I just don’t see how or where anything is working in the economy. Maybe it will in time. But I know for myself and family and friends its sad when you live from pay check to pay check and can only buy grocery’s once a month or every two weeks. I would just like to know how this money is going to help us. Does anyone have a answer?