This might be a good day to move your IRA from mutual funds to an insured cash account.
Jon Radder said:It already is............
This might be a good day to move your IRA from mutual funds to an insured cash account.
There are still two major constitutional problems that need to be addressed. First, the latest text does not sufficiently narrow the scope of authority delegated to the Treasury secretary; i.e., the law provides no “intelligible principle” to guide and direct the secretary’s actions. Our Constitution allows no czar, with standardless discretion to prop up or manage various industry sectors. Language does exist that can both provide Treasury with the tools it needs while protecting liberty. Hopefully, conservatives in Congress will fight for such measures.
The second constitutional problem arose only after Congress tried to fix the first. Instead of finding language that properly directed executive action, Congress punted by creating a new “power-sharing” arrangement: the Financial Stability Oversight Board. Composed of the chairman of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury secretary, the director of the Federal Home Finance Agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission chairman, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) secretary, this quasi-executive entity would have unprecedented structure and power. A majority of these board members are not removable by the president except for cause.
Congress has never attempted to give the discretion and responsibility to one cabinet official who is directly answerable to the president, and then subject his actions to the direction, modification and veto of another board — especially one not wholly subject to the president’s direction and control. This oversight “fix” makes it harder for the American people to hold their elected leaders accountable. It remains dubious whether such an entity would pass muster in the courts, as it clearly offends Article II and the lines of democratic accountability that it established.
According to the Los Angeles Times, “Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson is about to become the most powerful mortgage financier of the modern era — most likely of any era.” The Washington Post reports: “[Paulson] would stand largely unfettered by traditional rules, largely unrestricted in his ability to spend $700 billion of federal money.” The New York Times notes, “one overarching aspect of the initial plan that remains is the vast discretion it gives to the Treasury secretary.” Lawmakers need to have a spirited debate to make sure they get this massive transfer of power right…
Nobody’s life,liberty of property is safe while the legislature is in session. As long as all they are doing is talking, I feel more comfortable.
Well I made the call to my broker and he strongly advised against liquidating. For today, I’m still in.
In 1929 my grandfather owed a chain of 10 pharmacies. He was close friends with the banker who held his operating capital which was significant for the time, probably around $2 million. The banker pleaded with my grandfather to leave his cash in the bank reasoning that if the businessmen would trust the banks they would get past the problem. My grandfather agreed and a few days later the bank failed and he lost everything. All 10 stores were lost to creditors and my grandfather went from being a wealthy entrepreneur to working for someone else as a pharmacist. All because he trusted a banker. He died only a few years later. My father is convinced that that decision killed him.
That family experience makes it real hard to trust my broker.
The logical argument for staying in is that you’ve already lost money and it will be difficult if not impossible to time when to get back in. The market could make a dramatic rise while your holding a cash position and you miss the gain that would have recovered some of your losses. The flip side of that argument is that liquidation is a stop-loss. If the market continues to tank, the sooner you get liquid the less you loose.
Anyone have a coin ?
I’ve been trying to get on my US Congressman’s government run web-site all day with no luck.
I can get on my Senator’s site, but get a 404 error when trying to submit a comment.
Really inspires confidence in my Government when they can’t even properly run a web-site.
What we have hare is a failure to communicate :o
Ralph
Jon Radder said:
Well I made the call to my broker and he strongly advised against liquidating. For today, I'm still in.In 1929 my grandfather owed a chain of 10 pharmacies. He was close friends with the banker who held his operating capital which was significant for the time, probably around $2 million. The banker pleaded with my grandfather to leave his cash in the bank reasoning that if the businessmen would trust the banks they would get past the problem. My grandfather agreed and a few days later the bank failed and he lost everything. All 10 stores were lost to creditors and my grandfather went from being a wealthy entrepreneur to working for someone else as a pharmacist. All because he trusted a banker. He died only a few years later. My father is convinced that that decision killed him.
That family experience makes it real hard to trust my broker.
The logical argument for staying in is that you’ve already lost money and it will be difficult if not impossible to time when to get back in. The market could make a dramatic rise while your holding a cash position and you miss the gain that would have recovered some of your losses. The flip side of that argument is that liquidation is a stop-loss. If the market continues to tank, the sooner you get liquid the less you loose.
Anyone have a coin ?
Jon,
Ask the broker if he will cover any and all of your losses; the answer will tell you plenty!
Oh BTW all my RRSPs are sitting in GICs. Yes I know, utterly stupid … errrr … it was up to last year when all of us got the first glimpse at the mess that was heading down the pike.
Some one buy me a beer before its all gone please…
Verbage…was this a “bail out” or “equity line”? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder…
Can somebody PLEASE explain to me what I missed?
From what I saw the events of yesterday were as follows: First Speaker Pelosi made rather vitriolic and VERY partisan speech about the bailout bill BEFORE the house voted on it, then it bombed, then she and Barney Frank held a BIG press conference saying on how those nasty Repuglicans were to blaim for “putting politics before the American people”… Ooookay, It’s an election year in Washington, that I understand, I think it’s total bullshit, but I understand…
BUT next thing that I’m hearing is a lot of stuff about how it’s all McCain’s fault that it failed. Maybe I missed the connection, but what the HELL does a Senator, even one running for president, have anything to do with a vote in the House?
And, just for shits n giggles, WHO is it that is really “putting politics ahead of the American people” here? The Repuglicans or Dummycrats, or just certain people in either with hidden (or not so hidden) agendas? I THINK I know, but please enlighten me anyway.
truth is WE ALL MISSED IT, or at least slept thru it…I hope everybody’s wide awake NOW…
Mik said:
Can somebody PLEASE explain to me what I missed?From what I saw the events of yesterday were as follows: First Speaker Pelosi made rather vitriolic and VERY partisan speech about the bailout bill BEFORE the house voted on it, then it bombed, then she and Barney Frank held a BIG press conference saying on how those nasty Repuglicans were to blaim for “putting politics before the American people”… Ooookay, It’s an election year in Washington, that I understand, I think it’s total bullshit, but I understand…
BUT next thing that I’m hearing is a lot of stuff about how it’s all McCain’s fault that it failed. Maybe I missed the connection, but what the HELL does a Senator, even one running for president, have anything to do with a vote in the House?
And, just for shits n giggles, WHO is it that is really “putting politics ahead of the American people” here? The Repuglicans or Dummycrats, or just certain people in either with hidden (or not so hidden) agendas? I THINK I know, but please enlighten me anyway.
More Republican’s voted against the bill than Democrats by a wide margin. First time I’ve been proud of some Republicans in a long time.
But yet the Republicans are blaming the bill’s failure on the Democrats. If they think I am stupid enough to believe that obvious lie, Wall Street has some derivatives to sell them.
As for John McCain…as the Republican Presidential candidate, he has assumed a leadership role in the party. He failed to rally his “troops” to get the bill passed.
As for me…my Congressman Heath Shuler voted for the bill. ( correction: he voted against the bill) I let him know if he votes for the bailout again, he has forever lost my vote.
Ralph
I read many post with great interest! I can remember some history, let see 1929 the Street went south and the pres proposed some action but the congress said no! we’ll wait for the election and get our man in the White House then fix it all up! If I am not mistaken we are still paying that bill! even WWII did not get out of the hole! I like the email going around now about the AIG bailout-don’t give the money to AIG but give it to the American people 18+ as a dividend, after taxs it would be some where around a quarter of a million dollars, not bad - could pay off ALL the bills and the house and even buy some things and get the economy going again! Now that is how you help the people (Tax Payers) out.
I say let them all sink or swim on their own, no wait can’t do that - the talkers in DC would not have their cash cows!!
Turn then ALL out of office and get some real people who work for a living in there to run things and oh yes they can serve for ONLY 6 years then they are out!!!
Keep your powder dry, you may need it soon!!
Paul
I thought it went west…
John McCain wants the President to circumvent the Congress and buy one trillion dollars worth of mortgages.
Ralph
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080930/ap_on_el_pr/mccain;_ylt=A0wNcwJwieJI.gkBVBWs0NUE
Guy’s & Gal’s,
Stock market is up by 500 points as of 3pm… Looks like the sky quit falling… Looks to me like it is time to regroup!!
Round 2 starts Thursday!!!
This thing could go either way–a mild recession, and not voting for the bill looks like a good thing. Lots of Democracts =voted against it as well. It was a bad bil, tta handed too much to the sec. of the treasury
Or we could have a disaster, and not voting for the bill will look like a huge mistake. Market’s looking up. Seems maybe it’s not as bad as they thought?
mike omalley said:
This thing could go either way--a mild recession, and not voting for the bill looks like a good thing. Lots of Democracts =voted against it as well. It was a bad bil, tta handed too much to the sec. of the treasuryOr we could have a disaster, and not voting for the bill will look like a huge mistake. Market’s looking up. Seems maybe it’s not as bad as they thought?
It probably is not as bad. But the market reacts to President Bush saying he needs the 700 billion or we will have a financial collapse.
Fear mongering is a strategy used by the administration before.
Ralph
Bob Burton said:These kinds of day to day stock market fluctuations are largely caused and controlled by very large institutional 'investors' (actually robbers), who take advantage of any opportunity to fleece the little folks. And, IT WORKS!
Guy's & Gal's, Stock market is up by 500 points as of 3pm.. Looks like the sky quit falling.. Looks to me like it is time to regroup!!
I saw several ‘man on the street’ interviews (done in front of stock brokers’ offices) yesterday where the little old ladies and retired folks were selling all their stocks in response to the market drop. That really means they sold after the drop.
Today, the large holders run the prices back up, and many of those same folks will be down there buying the stocks back at a premium over yesterday’s selling price. Absolute robbery, but with no criminal violations, and no gun required!
You can be certain the sky will fall again whenever the large ‘investors’ want it to.
Not only are these large ‘investors’ the same people who caused most of the current crisis, and will reap the benefits of the proposed government bailout, but with the current ‘consolidations,’ being brokered and approved by our treasury and executive departments, they will also own most, if not all of our banks. Even many of the relatively small (still independent) main street banks have lots of bad mortgage paper and are looking for someone to buy them. The large ‘investment bankers’ are more than happy to oblige, especially with the impending purchase of all the bad debt by our federal government.
Anyone want to join a ‘tea dumping’ event?
Happy RRing,
Jerry
Jerry,
You have it nailed.
Ralph