TPS

you are so yesterday's news. try and keep up with what's posted here...

Even that is an understatement...

Back to your question: if the losses are already recognized, then it will only restore (some) capital if Paulson buys the assets at a premium...gee, wonder who he's going to "represent" in this case? Apparently the stock market isn't impressed either.

Depends where the assets are located. Are they buying bad assets off the balance sheet, or are the banks going to be off-loading assets from off-balance sheet holdings? Also, I don't know if this will get banks start to lending again? Does it end the confidence problem?

I have a feeling things are going to happen too quickly, so I'll post-pone the bet until after the election; which should actually save you, unless you insist on making the bet now...?

Check out Roubini's blog and a conference call discussion below. Some serious sh--. As I posted in another thread, it looks like some type of nationalization of banks may be the "final solution." Roubini blog

I'm fine with it focused on Wall Street, including all FIs. Are you fine with "any additional (past the $700) monetary bailout" of the financials?

No, rather, WE are acting more like Congress--you want to throw out the FDIC obligation, I want to include any rescue plan that might include tax cuts, which is a cost to the public. How about anything targeted at bailing out Wall Street? Which could include another AIG-type bailout?

A terrible plan gets worse... here's an alternative: since this bailout already implies that we're moving toward socialism, why not take a couple $100 billion and buy a few banks across the country (like Wachovia, WaMu, et al), Paulson should be able to oversee them , then use the remaining $500 billion as "lines of credit" for these banks, let them start lending--to good creditors of course. As these publicly owned banks start lending, that should start unclogging the credit markets. Then, similar to the risk that we'd take if we bought all the bad mortgage debt, the government sells its shares at some point in the future. The rest of Wall Street can go fck themselves...

So we have to ignore any trillion dollar taxpayer liability that goes through the FDIC, and the only thing you're willing to bet against is that Paulson, or whoever the T-Sec is, won't come back to Congress with a tin cup? The only wrench at the moment in this bet is who wins the election. But, since I'm really playing with your $50, then I'm willing to bet that, within 6 months after inauguration, the next administration will need to put together another costly rescue package. Can we include another stimulus package of tax cuts as part of that resuce?

Yes, she has talent. Linda Lovelace had talent too....

Which means you wouldn't take a bet of half a trillion without the FDIC?

I thought you would've been tapped for all of the executive positions?

Gee, wonder if he's trying to influence the House vote?

I'd define it as an amount of money necessary to intervene over the 6 months after this $700 billion runs out. If you include FDIC, I"m willing to put the over-under at $1 trillion? I'll take the over.

And it's such a simple solution: Give Paulson $700 billion. Sure, that'll do it...

So you are blaming the Dranes of the world for "causing panic?" Otherwise you would've been correct, that the problem was resolved back then (with B-S)? Maybe it wasn't necessarily "panic." Maybe a few "players" holding bets (CDS) against the firms began shorting in order to realize their bets? As Bears' capital faded, they faced margin calls. Even if this is not a possible scenario, we're still talking trillions of $s of liabilities out there that can not be paid; so yes, it's a panic driven by insiders alright, because they all know who's on the wrong side of the bets. Btw, guess what Billionaire investor bought a huge stake in Lehman mid-year? Hint: he's no frienf of Bush. And in response to another post: I'd define "solve" as they won't need to beg for anymore taxpayer money after this $700 billion. Last thing G, nice pun.

The question to you and anyone else: who has been the most accurate poster about this crisis since it began last year? And for those who think this particular bill has to pass, are you willing to state that it will solve the crisis? If yes, I'd like to make a little wager; if no, then why do you support it?

Ahh yes, our resident experts who have all of the answers, but the only person here who correctly called the extent of this crisis was the Drane. You fellas act as if your OPINIONS are biblical pronouncements. Hey, you guys rule (literally)...PPP. go team!

Regardless, good to see you active on the political again!

Absolutely! He says he doesn't think it's the best plan; he talks about the RFC in 1930s and how it got preferred shares for its purchases of bad assets; he says we may need another stimulus package that should be targeting low and middle income households--mentioning the payroll tax (where have I heard that before? ). And he says no one saw this coming--The Drane did, and it obviously wasn't luck. He says we need to do something now and he would give paulson a blank check. Well gee Warren, you essentially just bought a $5 billion call option on Goldman Sachs shares, so far everything Paulson has done seems to be benefitting his old company. No conflict of interest between the two of you, is there Warren? As William grieder wrote, why not devise a plan that creates a deal like Warren got? Which is essentially what the RFC did. If we're buying bad assets and supplying capital to the banks and other FIs, why not get "shares" (preferred/warrants)? Because the stupid public should only have the possibility of gaining if the assets are saleable at some point in the future. Stiglitz has a better plan. Stiglitz

It speaks to the scum of the right that they have to blame minorities for this crisis. Maybe it plays into "don't vote for Obama because he's black" card. This is the most discusting thing I've seen in this campaign. But nothing surprises me that comes out of the republican camp. I think the proof is in the question someone raised: the majority of the problem loans came from high-end loans--$200K to $500K. Someone please provide the data that shows BLACKS--because that is what this bull sh-- is about, are to blame for those loans. This is the worst bull sh-- I've ever seen pushed by any party.

It's becoming difficult to tell whether I'm watching "real news" or another SNL skit....

I guess you missed the part where I said that FIs were "profit driven"?

Maybe you should try some different web sites...or have a couple of drinks and chill out dude.