I still don't understand the whole picture yet, specially since I don't know how much it will affect my country, and when I try to get some information about it on the news, all the economists give unclear answers ("Maybe it will get worst, maybe not...")
But seriously, I was under the impression that spitefully denying AIG their lifeline would damn the world to depression. So the government really had no choice.
Okay Orange Beltians, gather 'round, it's time for Economics and Finance 101, Serephel Style!
Lesson 1: Finance and investments
Investments are rated by how "risky" they are. When you make an investment, like buying stocks or loaning money, you typically try to get more money back than you paid for. But when you put your money into a risky investment, you are going to want more money for it, right? If you don't get more money for a risky investment, you will simply go for less risky investments for the same amount of money returned.
Chances are most of you are investors and don't even know it. How many of you out there have a savings account? That is an investment. That is why you get interest on money deposited every month, year, or whatever. But when you put your money into a savings account, you get only a very little amount of interest, because it's an incredibly safe investment (most of the time). Your bank will probably not die (ignoring the last few months), and so banks don't need to offer high interest rates on savings accounts.
When you deposit money in a savings account, you are effectively loaning your bank money. They don't take your money, throw it on a mattress in back, and let it sit. They take your money and do things with it. They loan it to other people, they invest it themselves, they do anything they can to make more money. The conditions of your savings account just mean that you have access to your money at any time. Banks of course keep a large stock of cash on hand for customers to withdraw, but in reality it is often not enough for every customer to withdraw all of their savings at the same time.
Lesson 2: Subprime Mortgage Crisis
I'm going to assume that most of you have at least heard of the term "Subprime". As you know, when you want to buy a house, most of you will have to get a loan from the bank. But when banks loan money, they usually need to be careful. They need to loan money only to people who will pay them back. So, they look at your credit history, your net worth, your collateral, and anything else that can help them feel safe that you will pay them back in full.
That's where the different interest rates come into play. Banks look at you as an investment of their money. People who have good credit ratings from long histories of successful payments of credit cards and other loans are not as risky, because they have proven they know how to manage their money. People with less collateral and less credit history have more risk, especially if they have little money to start with.
This is what started the subprime mess. There is a subprime market, aimed at loaning money to those who are poorer. This helps them to have a home. Now this is where it gets more confusing. I don't understand this entirely either, but apparently there was some sort of loophole or oversight in this industry, and when riskier money was loaned out, the return on it investment was projected to be greater. So, banks started going batshit insane in the subprime loan market, loaning lots and lots of money to people who quite literally could never pay it off, barring winning the lottery or some other deus ex machina.
So this profit, although not yet collected, was already accounted for in banks' project earnings for the year, which made them look really rich and powerful. Lots of big bonuses were awarded, and everybody patted each other on the back and jacked each other off.
Then after a while... people weren't making their loan payments. Surprise surprise, the money that some banks loans to hobos who sleep on park benches (I heard rumors this actually happened once, but I can't prove it) wasn't being paid back. And banks started realizing they had no money.
That's all for this lesson. Later I'll post more about buying and trading mortgages, and how it affected the large investment banks that have all collapsed.
2 or 3 generations worth of schmucks who can't manage their money to save their soul, and the idiot banks that are dumb enough to give them money because some boneheaded system made it look like they were actually making money off of it.
Well, the cats out of the box now. And upon inspection Schrödinger's cat is dead and it stinks very much.
Now the government has seen fit to buy a new cat. So now what? Reset the death trap in the box and hope the cat comes out with superpowers next time? Or, y'know we just take the death trap out and feel content to have a live cat-in-the-box. But then we have a death trap sitting around hogging up space on the shelf not doing us any good and costing us a lot of money to maintain so it doesn't go off outside the box and do even more damage.
...
And here I go making odd posts after my bedtime again. I need to stop doing this.
Since the banks blew all their money through their own stupid means, it seems like they should definitely be allowed to sink. A bailout would show that there's no real accountability for these banks and that ultimately, only the little guy gets screwed. But what's the alternative? Sounds like these banks going under would make things much worse than they are now.
Well it's important to note that while this is the major root of the problem, it is not as related to a lot of the stuff that went down this week.
Okay, this will be a small lesson, but it needs to be understood nonetheless in order to understand mortgage swaps and money market funds.
Lesson 3: Buying debt and credit.
Let's use Chris as an example. Let's say I owe Chris $100 dollars. Let's also say that I don't have $100 dollars on hand, so I am paying him back $10 every month. So Chris will get his $100 back eventually, but it won't be until 10 months later, in July.
Now let's say Chris needs his money now, because he has a gambling problem and he needs to keep the angry bookies off his back. It's great that I owe him money, but he needs more than my $10 payment, and quick. Jakey, ever the shrewd entrepreneur, comes along to help out. He sees Chris's need for money now, and he knows about the money I owe him.
Jakey offers to buy my debt from Chris at a reduced price of $80 dollars. The following things happen:
- For each of my monthly payments of $10 dollars, my money goes to Jakey instead of Chris. In the real world, I might not know this even happened.
- Chris gets his money right away. In the long run, he has lost $20 dollars on the deal, but in the short run he has most of his money back now. The bookies don't break his legs. He is content.
- By the end of the 10 month period, Jakey has made a profit of $20 dollars. He uses his wealth to throw a sexy party.
This is a rather crude introduction to derivatives, but I think it suffices. Mortgages, loans, and credit payments are very frequently bought, sold, and traded in the economy. It happens in more industries than you would think.
Since the banks blew all their money through their own stupid means, it seems like they should definitely be allowed to sink. A bailout would show that there's no real accountability for these banks and that ultimately, only the little guy gets screwed. But what's the alternative? Sounds like these banks going under would make things much worse than they are now.
If I'm not mistaken, the reason why they bailed out the banks is because so many people and businesses both in America and other countries would have lost most or all of their money that it would have been a very serious issue. Yeah, the banks fuck up, but its not just them going under, its thousands of people who now can't go to college and hundreds of other businesses. Or at least, this is the impresion I've gotten from what I've read or heard, I'm not going to pretend to really understand more than some of the basics on economics.
I read this in the comments section of the Economist. I laughed so hard I almost choked and died.
FROM MR H.M.PAULSON
WASHINGTON, AMERICA
Dear kind & beloved Sir,
I am Treasury Minister of Republic of America and I need sincere help of most honest and wise man. You are recomend to me by mutual freind as exemplery person. My nation has gone bankruped and will soon cease to be. With great good fortune and help of wise men I have extract sum of 700 billion dollars which I will use to buy all property of failed nation at auction and use to start new Republic.
In meantime I need access to bank account to store this mony where theives and crooked politicians will not look to find til auction start.
Please help so much and I pay you commission of seventy million dollar ($7o,ooo,ooo) for you kind assistance. Forward me you bank account name and number and PIN number to access same. As soon as I get, I deposit $7o,ooo,ooo,ooo. Later I retreive $69,93o,ooo,ooo and leave you with rich reward for urgent help.
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS – 38 minutes ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue for the nation's financial system, ignoring urgent warnings from President Bush and congressional leaders of both parties that the economy could nosedive into recession without it.
Stocks plummeted on Wall Street even before the 228-205 vote to reject the bill was announced on the House floor.
Bush and a host of leading congressional figures had implored the lawmakers to pass the legislation despite howls of protest from their constituents back home. Despite pressure from supporters, not enough members were willing to take the political risk just five weeks before an election.
Ample no votes came from both the Democratic and Republican sides of the aisle. More than two-thirds of Republicans and 40 percent of Democrats opposed the bill.
The overriding question for congressional leaders was what to do next. Congress has been trying to adjourn so that its members can go out and campaign. And with only five weeks left until Election Day, there was no clear indication of whether the leadership would keep them in Washington. Leaders were huddling after the vote to figure out their next steps.
A White House spokesman said that President Bush was "very disappointed."
"There's no question that the country is facing a difficult crisis that needs to be addressed," Tony Fratto told reporters. He said the president will be meeting with members of his team later in the day "to determine next steps."
"Obviously we are very disappointed in this outcome," Fratto said. ". There's no question that the country is facing a difficult crisis that needs to be addressed. The president will be meeting with his team this afternoon to determine the next steps and will also be in touch with congressional leaders."
Monday's mind-numbing vote had been preceded by unusually aggressive White House lobbying, and spokesman Tony Fratto said that Bush had used a "call list" of people he wanted to persuade to vote yes as late as just a short time before the vote.
Lawmakers shouted news of the plummeting Dow Jones average as lawmakers crowded on the House floor during the drawn-out and tense call of the roll, which dragged on for roughly 40 minutes as leaders on both sides scrambled to corral enough of their rank-and-file members to support the deeply unpopular measure.
They found only two.
Bush and his economic advisers, as well as congressional leaders in both parties had argued the plan was vital to insulating ordinary Americans from the effects of Wall Street's bad bets. The version that was up for vote Monday was the product of marathon closed-door negotiations on Capitol Hill over the weekend.
"We're all worried about losing our jobs," Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., declared in an impassioned speech in support of the bill before the vote. "Most of us say, 'I want this thing to pass, but I want you to vote for it — not me.' "
With their dire warnings of impending economic doom and their sweeping request for unprecedented sums of money and authority to bail out cash-starved financial firms, Bush and his economic chiefs have focused the attention of world markets on Congress, Ryan added.
"We're in this moment, and if we fail to do the right thing, Heaven help us," he said.
The legislation the administration promoted would have allowed the government to buy bad mortgages and other rotten assets held by troubled banks and financial institutions. Getting those debts off their books should bolster those companies' balance sheets, making them more inclined to lend and easing one of the biggest choke points in the credit crisis. If the plan worked, the thinking went, it would help lift a major weight off the national economy that is already sputtering.
The fear in the financial markets send the Dow Jones industrials cascading down by as over 700 points at one juncture. As the vote was shown on TV, stocks plunged and investors fled to the safety of the credit markets, worrying that the financial system would keep sinking under the weight of failed mortgage debt.
"As I said on the floor, this is a bipartisan responsibility and we think (Democrats) met our responsibility," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md.
Asked whether majority Democrats would try to reverse the stunning defeat, Hoyer said, "We're certainly not going to abandon our responsibility. We'll continue to focus on this and see what actions we can take."
Several Republican aides said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., had torpedoed any spirit of bipartisanship that surrounded the bill with her scathing speech near the close of the debate that blamed Bush's policies for the economic turmoil.
Without mentioning her by name, Rep. Adam Putnam, R-Fla., No. 3 Republican, said: "The partisan tone at the end of the debate today I think did impact the votes on our side."
I am on a hotel computer now, I am traveling and will post more later.
But the notion that Pelosis speech poisoned the effort infuriates me. I dont care, if you were willing to vote against your country for something that trite, that is beyond disgusting. Those Republicans who did vote against that because of Pelosi should go fucking die, you have no goddamn right playing with our lives.
By TIM PARADIS – 2 hours ago
NEW YORK (AP) — The failure of the bailout package in Congress literally dropped jaws on Wall Street and triggered a historic selloff — including a terrifying decline of nearly 500 points in mere minutes as the vote took place, the closest thing to panic the stock market has seen in years.
The Dow Jones industrial average lost 777 points Monday, its biggest single-day fall ever, easily beating the 684 points it lost on the first day of trading after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
As uncertainty gripped investors, the credit markets, which provide the day-to-day lending that powers business in the United States, froze up even further.
At the New York Stock Exchange, traders watched with faces tense and mouths agape as TV screens showed the House vote rejecting the Bush administration's $700 billion plan to buy up bad debt and shore up the financial industry.
Activity on the trading floor became frenetic as the "sell" orders blew in. The selling was so intense that just 162 stocks on the Big Board rose, while 3,073 dropped.
The Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 Composite Index recorded a paper loss of $1 trillion across the market for the day, a first.
The Dow industrials, which were down 210 points at 1:30 p.m. EDT, nose-dived as traders on Wall Street and investors across the country saw "no" votes piling up on live TV feeds of the House vote.
By 1:42 p.m., the decline was 292 points. Then the bottom fell out. Within five minutes, the index was down about 700 points as it became clear the bill was doomed.
"How could this have happened? Is there such a disconnect on Capitol Hill? This becomes a problem because Wall Street is very uncomfortable with uncertainty," said Gordon Charlop, managing director with Rosenblatt Securities.
"The bailout not going through sends a signal that Congress isn't willing to do their part," he added.
While investors didn't believe that the plan was a cure-all and it could take months for its effects to be felt, most market watchers believed it was at least a start toward setting the economy right and unlocking credit.
"Clearly something needs to be done, and the market dropping 400 points in 10 minutes is telling you that," said Chris Johnson, president of Johnson Research Group. "This isn't a market for the timid."
Before trading even began came word that Wachovia Corp., one of the biggest banks to struggle from rising mortgage losses, was being rescued in a buyout by Citigroup Inc.
That followed the recent forced sale of Merrill Lynch & Co. and the failure of three other huge banking companies — Bear Stearns Cos., Washington Mutual Inc. and Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., all of them felled by bad mortgage investments.
And it raised the question: Which banks are next, and how many? The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. lists more than 110 banks in trouble in the second quarter, and the number has probably grown since.
Wall Street is contending with all of it against the backdrop of a credit market — where bonds and loans are bought and sold — that is barely functioning because of fears that anyone lending money will never be paid back.
More evidence could be found Monday in the Treasury's three-month bill, where investors were stashing money, willing to accept the tiniest of returns simply to be sure that their principal would survive. The yield on the three-month bill was 0.15 percent, down from 0.87 percent and approaching zero, a level reached last week when fear was also running high.
Analysts said the government needs to find a way to help restore confidence in the markets.
"It's probably fair to say that we are not going to see any significant stability in the credit markets or the stock market until we see some sort of rescue package passed," said Fred Dickson, director of retail research for D.A. Davidson & Co.
The bailout bill failed 228-205 in the House, and Democratic leaders said the House would reconvene Thursday in hopes of a quick vote on a revised bill.
"We need to put something back together that works," Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said. "We need it as soon as possible."
The Dow fell 777.68 points, just shy of 7 percent, to 10,365.45, its lowest close in nearly three years. The decline also surpasses the record for the biggest decline during a trading day — 721.56 at one point on Sept. 17, 2001, when the market reopened after 9/11.
In percentage terms, it was only the 17th-biggest decline for the Dow, far less severe than the 20-plus-percent drops seen on Black Monday in 1987 and before the Great Depression.
Broader stock indicators also plummeted. The Standard & Poor's 500 index declined 106.62, or nearly 9 percent, to 1,106.39. It was the S&P's largest-ever point drop and its biggest percentage loss since the week after the October 1987 crash.
The Nasdaq composite index fell 199.61, more than 9 percent, to 1,983.73, its third-worst percentage decline. The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies fell 47.07, or 6.7 percent, to 657.72.
A huge drop in oil prices was another sign of the economic chaos that investors fear. Light, sweet crude fell $10.52 to settle at $96.36 on the New York Mercantile Exchange as investors feared energy demand would continue to slide amid further economic weakness. And gold, where investors flock when they need a relatively secure investment, rose $23.20 to $911.70 on the Nymex.
Marc Pado, U.S. market strategist at Cantor Fitzgerald, said investors are worried about the spread of troubles beyond banks in the U.S. to Europe and other markets.
"Things are dying and breaking apart," he said.
The federal Office of Thrift Supervision, one of the government's banking regulators, indicated that the market was overreacting to the House vote and that its fears about the financial system are misplaced.
"There is an irrational financial panic taking place today, and we support and applaud the continuing efforts of Secretary Paulson and congressional leadership to restore liquidity and public confidence," John Reich, Director of the federal Office of Thrift Supervision, said in a statement.
The plan would have placed caps on pay packages of top executives that accepted help from the government, and included assurances the government would ultimately be reimbursed by the companies for any losses.
The Treasury would have been permitted to spend $250 billion to buy banks' risky assets, giving them a much-needed cash infusion. There also would be another $100 billion for use at the president's discretion and a final $350 billion if Congress signs off.
But Wall Street found further reason for worry overseas. Three European governments agreed to a $16.4 billion bailout for Fortis NV, Belgium's largest retail bank, and the British government said it was nationalizing mortgage lender Bradford & Bingley, which has a $91 billion mortgage and loan portfolio. It was the latest sign that the credit crisis has spread beyond the U.S.
Okay, I'm done traveling (relatively) and I'm at my computer now.
In reality, I highly doubt that any Republicans actually voted against the bill based on Pelosi's speech alone. I would sincerely hope that our elected representatives are not petty enough to hold the country hostage.
But this does bring up interesting points. Why did so many people vote against it? I know that there is the big fucking price tag of $700 billion, but what other motivations could there be?
They could be afraid of political suicide, and they are voting against it to hedge their bets. That way they can stand up later and say that they voted against it, because they had "foresight". I would also sincerely hope that people aren't factoring their careers into something this serious, but this is more likely.
There has to be something else, though. I've also read that some people are just not willing to be rushed into something like this based on fear (War in Iraq, Patriot Act, etc). This is logical. Also people are standing up for financial responsibility, toughing it out, morals, etc.
I've read all this, but I'm not yet satisfied. I've also read that many voters are having their constituents tell them 10-1 to vote against it. Who has this kind of interest?
So, are there other reasons that I'm not seeing? As of right now I am very much for the bailout, as I see it as necessary to keep the world afloat. But it's very possible I'm missing something, and I really want to know why people are voting against this. If given convincing evidence I can change my opinion, but I really want to know all sides of this.
Part of the reason so many republicans in the house voted against it was because they were getting absolutely swamped by angry emails, letters and phone calls from their constituents, and it's an election year.
That's what one of the house republicans said on NPR this morning anyhow.
You forget ryan that there are a lot of republicans who view this as an overt act of socialism in the face of free Market capitalism, and I suspect many, like my father, consider this to be part of a socialist conspiracy.
Look, I am not thoroughly informed on the matter, at all, but at first glance my opinion would be to NOT bail them out. Here we had a major bank crisis on '99, money was lent to banks and almost all went belly-up.
I'm not saying it's gonna be the same over there, and I understand the risks of not doing anything, but it would seem that it's the lesser of two evils.
Comments
But seriously, I was under the impression that spitefully denying AIG their lifeline would damn the world to depression. So the government really had no choice.
Lesson 1: Finance and investments
Investments are rated by how "risky" they are. When you make an investment, like buying stocks or loaning money, you typically try to get more money back than you paid for. But when you put your money into a risky investment, you are going to want more money for it, right? If you don't get more money for a risky investment, you will simply go for less risky investments for the same amount of money returned.
Chances are most of you are investors and don't even know it. How many of you out there have a savings account? That is an investment. That is why you get interest on money deposited every month, year, or whatever. But when you put your money into a savings account, you get only a very little amount of interest, because it's an incredibly safe investment (most of the time). Your bank will probably not die (ignoring the last few months), and so banks don't need to offer high interest rates on savings accounts.
When you deposit money in a savings account, you are effectively loaning your bank money. They don't take your money, throw it on a mattress in back, and let it sit. They take your money and do things with it. They loan it to other people, they invest it themselves, they do anything they can to make more money. The conditions of your savings account just mean that you have access to your money at any time. Banks of course keep a large stock of cash on hand for customers to withdraw, but in reality it is often not enough for every customer to withdraw all of their savings at the same time.
Lesson 2: Subprime Mortgage Crisis
I'm going to assume that most of you have at least heard of the term "Subprime". As you know, when you want to buy a house, most of you will have to get a loan from the bank. But when banks loan money, they usually need to be careful. They need to loan money only to people who will pay them back. So, they look at your credit history, your net worth, your collateral, and anything else that can help them feel safe that you will pay them back in full.
That's where the different interest rates come into play. Banks look at you as an investment of their money. People who have good credit ratings from long histories of successful payments of credit cards and other loans are not as risky, because they have proven they know how to manage their money. People with less collateral and less credit history have more risk, especially if they have little money to start with.
This is what started the subprime mess. There is a subprime market, aimed at loaning money to those who are poorer. This helps them to have a home. Now this is where it gets more confusing. I don't understand this entirely either, but apparently there was some sort of loophole or oversight in this industry, and when riskier money was loaned out, the return on it investment was projected to be greater. So, banks started going batshit insane in the subprime loan market, loaning lots and lots of money to people who quite literally could never pay it off, barring winning the lottery or some other deus ex machina.
So this profit, although not yet collected, was already accounted for in banks' project earnings for the year, which made them look really rich and powerful. Lots of big bonuses were awarded, and everybody patted each other on the back and jacked each other off.
Then after a while... people weren't making their loan payments. Surprise surprise, the money that some banks loans to hobos who sleep on park benches (I heard rumors this actually happened once, but I can't prove it) wasn't being paid back. And banks started realizing they had no money.
That's all for this lesson. Later I'll post more about buying and trading mortgages, and how it affected the large investment banks that have all collapsed.
Well, the cats out of the box now. And upon inspection Schrödinger's cat is dead and it stinks very much.
Now the government has seen fit to buy a new cat. So now what? Reset the death trap in the box and hope the cat comes out with superpowers next time? Or, y'know we just take the death trap out and feel content to have a live cat-in-the-box. But then we have a death trap sitting around hogging up space on the shelf not doing us any good and costing us a lot of money to maintain so it doesn't go off outside the box and do even more damage.
...
And here I go making odd posts after my bedtime again. I need to stop doing this.
Since the banks blew all their money through their own stupid means, it seems like they should definitely be allowed to sink. A bailout would show that there's no real accountability for these banks and that ultimately, only the little guy gets screwed. But what's the alternative? Sounds like these banks going under would make things much worse than they are now.
Okay, this will be a small lesson, but it needs to be understood nonetheless in order to understand mortgage swaps and money market funds.
Lesson 3: Buying debt and credit.
Let's use Chris as an example. Let's say I owe Chris $100 dollars. Let's also say that I don't have $100 dollars on hand, so I am paying him back $10 every month. So Chris will get his $100 back eventually, but it won't be until 10 months later, in July.
Now let's say Chris needs his money now, because he has a gambling problem and he needs to keep the angry bookies off his back. It's great that I owe him money, but he needs more than my $10 payment, and quick. Jakey, ever the shrewd entrepreneur, comes along to help out. He sees Chris's need for money now, and he knows about the money I owe him.
Jakey offers to buy my debt from Chris at a reduced price of $80 dollars. The following things happen:
- For each of my monthly payments of $10 dollars, my money goes to Jakey instead of Chris. In the real world, I might not know this even happened.
- Chris gets his money right away. In the long run, he has lost $20 dollars on the deal, but in the short run he has most of his money back now. The bookies don't break his legs. He is content.
- By the end of the 10 month period, Jakey has made a profit of $20 dollars. He uses his wealth to throw a sexy party.
This is a rather crude introduction to derivatives, but I think it suffices. Mortgages, loans, and credit payments are very frequently bought, sold, and traded in the economy. It happens in more industries than you would think.
I read this in the comments section of the Economist. I laughed so hard I almost choked and died.
FROM MR H.M.PAULSON
WASHINGTON, AMERICA
Dear kind & beloved Sir,
I am Treasury Minister of Republic of America and I need sincere help of most honest and wise man. You are recomend to me by mutual freind as exemplery person. My nation has gone bankruped and will soon cease to be. With great good fortune and help of wise men I have extract sum of 700 billion dollars which I will use to buy all property of failed nation at auction and use to start new Republic.
In meantime I need access to bank account to store this mony where theives and crooked politicians will not look to find til auction start.
Please help so much and I pay you commission of seventy million dollar ($7o,ooo,ooo) for you kind assistance. Forward me you bank account name and number and PIN number to access same. As soon as I get, I deposit $7o,ooo,ooo,ooo. Later I retreive $69,93o,ooo,ooo and leave you with rich reward for urgent help.
Please send today as matter is most urgent.
Your new partner and new friend,
Mr H.M.Paulson
But the notion that Pelosis speech poisoned the effort infuriates me. I dont care, if you were willing to vote against your country for something that trite, that is beyond disgusting. Those Republicans who did vote against that because of Pelosi should go fucking die, you have no goddamn right playing with our lives.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gHs5OM3gFG_DytQQZFbWfgPT08MAD93GN5Q00
In reality, I highly doubt that any Republicans actually voted against the bill based on Pelosi's speech alone. I would sincerely hope that our elected representatives are not petty enough to hold the country hostage.
But this does bring up interesting points. Why did so many people vote against it? I know that there is the big fucking price tag of $700 billion, but what other motivations could there be?
They could be afraid of political suicide, and they are voting against it to hedge their bets. That way they can stand up later and say that they voted against it, because they had "foresight". I would also sincerely hope that people aren't factoring their careers into something this serious, but this is more likely.
There has to be something else, though. I've also read that some people are just not willing to be rushed into something like this based on fear (War in Iraq, Patriot Act, etc). This is logical. Also people are standing up for financial responsibility, toughing it out, morals, etc.
I've read all this, but I'm not yet satisfied. I've also read that many voters are having their constituents tell them 10-1 to vote against it. Who has this kind of interest?
So, are there other reasons that I'm not seeing? As of right now I am very much for the bailout, as I see it as necessary to keep the world afloat. But it's very possible I'm missing something, and I really want to know why people are voting against this. If given convincing evidence I can change my opinion, but I really want to know all sides of this.
-The bill would give bush too much power
-That wouldn't look good on a resumé
So your last two reasons.
That's what one of the house republicans said on NPR this morning anyhow.
*Secret NPR handshake*
I'm not saying it's gonna be the same over there, and I understand the risks of not doing anything, but it would seem that it's the lesser of two evils.