Bush administration sees 4000-point drop in DOW this week if no bailout

[TheBreeze]

The Bush administration is pushing the bailout just like they pushed the Iraq War.

Instead of the imminent threat of WMDs, they are now saying that the Dow could drop 4,000 points next week if the bailout bill isn’t passed this weekend:

One Republican said that the message from government officials is that “the economy is dropping into the john.” He added: “We could see falls of 3,000 or 4,000 points on the Dow [the New York market that currently trades at around 11,000]. That could happen in just a couple of days.

“What’s being put around behind the scenes is that we’re looking at 1930s stuff. We’re looking at catastrophe, huge, amazing catastrophe. Everybody is extraordinarily scared. It’s going to be really, really nasty.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/3094318/Bailout-failure-will-cause-US-crash.html

Instead of being “greeted with roses in Baghdad”, the U.S. will make money on this bailout:

U.S. taxpayers and their proxy, the U.S. Treasury Department, should turn a profit from the proposed $700 billion bailout of the country’s financial services industry, Barron’s said in its Monday edition.

http://www.reuters.com/article/privateEquity/idUSN2825603620080928

It seems like we’ve been through all of this before.

[TheBreeze]

By the way, we may very well see a substantial drop in the DOW from here. But that doesn’t mean that these jokers are going to be able to stop it with some half-baked bailout plan.

[TheBreeze]

By the way, we may very well see a substantial drop in the DOW from here. But that doesn’t mean that these jokers are going to be able to stop it with some half-baked bailout plan.

[TheBreeze]

By the way, we may very well see a substantial drop in the DOW from here. But that doesn’t mean that these jokers are going to be able to stop it with some half-baked bailout plan.

[TheBreeze]

By the way, we may very well see a substantial drop in the DOW from here. But that doesn’t mean that these jokers are going to be able to stop it with some half-baked bailout plan.

[TheBreeze]

By the way, we may very well see a substantial drop in the DOW from here. But that doesn’t mean that these jokers are going to be able to stop it with some half-baked bailout plan.

[peterb]

With $700B failout it will only be a 3500 drop. Whoopie! October could be one of the worst months on record for the DOW, if not the worst ever.

[peterb]

With $700B failout it will only be a 3500 drop. Whoopie! October could be one of the worst months on record for the DOW, if not the worst ever.

[peterb]

With $700B failout it will only be a 3500 drop. Whoopie! October could be one of the worst months on record for the DOW, if not the worst ever.

[peterb]

With $700B failout it will only be a 3500 drop. Whoopie! October could be one of the worst months on record for the DOW, if not the worst ever.

[peterb]

With $700B failout it will only be a 3500 drop. Whoopie! October could be one of the worst months on record for the DOW, if not the worst ever.

[urbanrealtor]

To the author of the thread:

The problem with your assertion (other than it being a shallow, sarcastic, critical project) is that it does not square with history.

It is accurate that the failure of the Iraq war was sold as something similar to the allied liberation of France. Of course invading a sovereign nation is not analogous to this. They sold butchery as a humanitarian effort.

However, the point remains that just as there are wars where invaders play more of a liberator role, so are there government subsidy and remediation programs that end up earning profits or remuneration for the general fund (and, in theory the taxpayers). There is existing precedent for this. Consider some of FDR’s programs.

After seeing the “just trust us” assertions of the executive branch proven wrong in repeated fashion (war, energy, economy, housing)I am also suspicious.

The part I find compelling is that everyone agrees. At least everyone that matters. After hearing Buffet, Paulson, and Bernanke all say similar things and hearing most economically minded friends start fretting about commercial paper, it starts to beg the question of what if? The answer seems to keep coming back that most major employers would suddenly contract spending and lots of jobs would disappear.
On the “good” side, imagine how many jobs would stay in the US if everyone was so poor that other countries came to us for their cheap labor.

[urbanrealtor]

To the author of the thread:

The problem with your assertion (other than it being a shallow, sarcastic, critical project) is that it does not square with history.

It is accurate that the failure of the Iraq war was sold as something similar to the allied liberation of France. Of course invading a sovereign nation is not analogous to this. They sold butchery as a humanitarian effort.

However, the point remains that just as there are wars where invaders play more of a liberator role, so are there government subsidy and remediation programs that end up earning profits or remuneration for the general fund (and, in theory the taxpayers). There is existing precedent for this. Consider some of FDR’s programs.

After seeing the “just trust us” assertions of the executive branch proven wrong in repeated fashion (war, energy, economy, housing)I am also suspicious.

The part I find compelling is that everyone agrees. At least everyone that matters. After hearing Buffet, Paulson, and Bernanke all say similar things and hearing most economically minded friends start fretting about commercial paper, it starts to beg the question of what if? The answer seems to keep coming back that most major employers would suddenly contract spending and lots of jobs would disappear.
On the “good” side, imagine how many jobs would stay in the US if everyone was so poor that other countries came to us for their cheap labor.

[urbanrealtor]

To the author of the thread:

The problem with your assertion (other than it being a shallow, sarcastic, critical project) is that it does not square with history.

It is accurate that the failure of the Iraq war was sold as something similar to the allied liberation of France. Of course invading a sovereign nation is not analogous to this. They sold butchery as a humanitarian effort.

However, the point remains that just as there are wars where invaders play more of a liberator role, so are there government subsidy and remediation programs that end up earning profits or remuneration for the general fund (and, in theory the taxpayers). There is existing precedent for this. Consider some of FDR’s programs.

After seeing the “just trust us” assertions of the executive branch proven wrong in repeated fashion (war, energy, economy, housing)I am also suspicious.

The part I find compelling is that everyone agrees. At least everyone that matters. After hearing Buffet, Paulson, and Bernanke all say similar things and hearing most economically minded friends start fretting about commercial paper, it starts to beg the question of what if? The answer seems to keep coming back that most major employers would suddenly contract spending and lots of jobs would disappear.
On the “good” side, imagine how many jobs would stay in the US if everyone was so poor that other countries came to us for their cheap labor.

[urbanrealtor]

To the author of the thread:

The problem with your assertion (other than it being a shallow, sarcastic, critical project) is that it does not square with history.

It is accurate that the failure of the Iraq war was sold as something similar to the allied liberation of France. Of course invading a sovereign nation is not analogous to this. They sold butchery as a humanitarian effort.

However, the point remains that just as there are wars where invaders play more of a liberator role, so are there government subsidy and remediation programs that end up earning profits or remuneration for the general fund (and, in theory the taxpayers). There is existing precedent for this. Consider some of FDR’s programs.

After seeing the “just trust us” assertions of the executive branch proven wrong in repeated fashion (war, energy, economy, housing)I am also suspicious.

The part I find compelling is that everyone agrees. At least everyone that matters. After hearing Buffet, Paulson, and Bernanke all say similar things and hearing most economically minded friends start fretting about commercial paper, it starts to beg the question of what if? The answer seems to keep coming back that most major employers would suddenly contract spending and lots of jobs would disappear.
On the “good” side, imagine how many jobs would stay in the US if everyone was so poor that other countries came to us for their cheap labor.

[Author]

Posts