They said:

If the bailout does not pass the people are going to loose the money in his bank accounts.

FALSE: THEY ARE INSURED BY THE FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation)

If the bailout does not pass is the end of the world, it’s a financial catastrophe.

FALSE: nothing like that is going to happen because this crisis is a failure of CORRUPTED financial institutions and they are small in number compare with those who are playing by the rules.

If the bailout does not pass the economy are going to sink in to a deep recession.

FALSE: This is another argument they use to hidden the real true and scare the people in “MAIN STREET”. This economy of this country is “IN CONTRACTION STATUS”, this means the power of acquired good for the people every day is less than before. This could be corrected with a good and strong policies reinforcing the INCOME of every American and reinforcing this sectors of the economy that are capable to generate more employment. A good example could be investing this 700 billion in infrastructure around the nation.

If this bailout does not pass you can not get loans to buy house, cars and you can loose your credit card.

FALSE: One of the main problems of this crisis is THE ABUSE and the BAD USE of the credit. They buy houses they couldn’t afford to pay. They buy cars they couldn’t afford to pay. They misused his / her credit card and they couldn’t afford to pay. All this happen for the ambition and mismanaged of the CEOs of this corrupted bankers or institutions.

So what kind of bailout (CORRECTION) would be this, if this money go again to the market with the same purpose as is the mantra of the government and the lawmakers who are supporting this legislation.

Moreover if you want a loan and have a good credit and you can afford and pay your debts do so, but if not, don’t do it!

If this bailout does not pass the entirely banking system are going to crash and people in Main St., are going to suffer for a lot!

FALSE: As I said before, this particular crisis can be solving by the market as is. In this country there are very serious banking institutions that are capable to absorb the failure of the others in a very intelligent manner without compromising his capital.

Bank of America, JP Morgan and other banks are a good example and they will be very happy receiving those people looking loans for homes, cars, boats and credit cards!, working people who are capable and can afford to pay on time his bills.

These bailouts has to pass, to secure more liquidity to the banking systems buying his negative assets and generate the reactivation of the economy, them people in Main St., can get more loans of any kind.

FALSE: The economy of this country is IN CONTRACTION STATUS, people can afford pay his bill because the power of the dollar is less than before. Essentially this MODEL can’t afford print more dollars with the deficit the country had. Actually the difference between this country and countries around the world less wealthy is his ability to PRINT MONEY. This NEGATIVE economic behavior is the main concern of economists around the world. I have no doubt Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke know very well about it, but they prefer to buy time instead to try and get the right solution for this crisis.

If this bailout does not pass the economy could be worsened

TRUE: The economy will be worsened but not because the bailout could be pass or not. The economy is in a bad shape and the solution has to come with a structural correction of the deficit and a best economic practice with the conscientious study of the factors that are generating this contraction in the economy and come up with good, reliable and stable economic practice solutions.

People must remember this on November 4 and remove this politician with the "POWER OF THE VOTE"

Percy H Florez

If this bailout does not pass the economy could be worsened

TRUE: The economy will be worsened but not because the bailout could be pass or not. The economy is in a bad shape and the solution has to come with a structural correction of the deficit and a best economic practice with the conscientious study of the factors that are generating this contraction in the economy and come up with good, reliable and stable economic practice solutions.

People must remember this on November 4 and remove this politician with the "POWER OF THE VOTE" Percy H Florez

These bailouts has to pass, to secure more liquidity to the banking systems buying his negative assets and generate the reactivation of the economy, them people in Main St., can get more loans of any kind.

FALSE: The economy of this country is IN CONTRACTION STATUS, people can afford pay his bill because the power of the dollar is less than before. Essentially this MODEL can’t afford print more dollars with the deficit the country had. Actually the difference between this country and countries around the world less wealthy is his ability to PRINT MONEY. This NEGATIVE economic behavior is the main concern of economists around the world. I have no doubt Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke know very well about it, but they prefer to buy time instead to try and get the right solution for this crisis.

People must remember this on November 4 and remove this politician with the "POWER OF THE VOTE" Percy H Florez

If this bailout does not pass the entirely banking system are going to crash and people in Main St., are going to suffer for a lot!

FALSE: As I said before, this particular crisis can be solving by the market as is. In this country there are very serous banking institutions that are capable to absorb the failure of the others in a very intelligent manner without compromising his capital. Bank of America, JP Morgan, and other banks who are trembled with this financial crisis, they would be very happy good people come to his office requesting loans for homes, cars, boat and credit cards!, the only concern is that they want people who are capable and can afford to pay his loans.

People must remember this on November 4 and remove this politician with the "POWER OF THE VOTE" Percy H Florez

If the bailout does not pass the economy are going to sink in to a deep recession.

FALSE: This is another argument they use to hidden the real true and scare the people in “MAIN STREET”. This economy of this country is “IN CONTRACTION STATUS”, this means the power of acquired good for the people every day is less than before. This could be corrected with a good and strong policies reinforcing the INCOME of every American and reinforcing this sectors of the economy that are capable to generate more employment. A good example could be investing this 700 billion in infrastructure around the nation.

People must remember this on November 4 and remove this politician with the "POWER OF THE VOTE" Percy H Florez

FALSE: nothing like that is going to happen because this crisis is a failure of CORRUPTED financial institutions and they are small in number compare with those who are playing by the rules.

They said:
If the bailout does not pass the people are going to loose the money in his bank accounts.

FALSE: THEY ARE INSURED BY THE FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation)

People must remember this on November 4 and remove this politicians with the "POWER OF THE VOTE"

Percy H Florez

GENTLEMAN'S

IF YOU WANT PUT
YOUR MONEY FROM YOUR OWN POCKET, IT'S YOUR PROBLEM.

By Sebastian Mallaby

Sunday, September 21, 2008; Page B07

With truly extraordinary speed, opinion has swung behind the radical idea that the government should commit hundreds of billions in taxpayer money to purchasing dud loans from banks that aren't actually insolvent. As recently as a week ago, no public official had even mentioned this option. Now the Treasury, the Fed and congressional leaders are promising its enactment within days. The scheme has gone from invisibility to inevitability in the blink of an eye. This is extremely dangerous.

The plan is being marketed under false pretenses. Supporters have invoked the shining success of the Resolution Trust Corporation as justification and precedent. But the RTC, which was created in 1989 to clean up the wreckage of the savings-and-loan crisis, bears little resemblance to what is being contemplated now. The RTC collected and eventually sold off loans made by thrifts that had gone bust. The administration proposes to buy up bad loans before the lenders go bust. This difference raises several questions.

The first is whether the bailout is necessary. In 1989, there was no choice. The federal government insured the thrifts, so when they failed, the feds were left holding their loans; the RTC's job was simply to get rid of them. But in buying bad loans before banks fail, the Bush administration would be signing up for a financial war of choice. It would spend billions of dollars on the theory that preemption will avert the mass destruction of banks. There are cheaper ways to stabilize the system.

In the 1980s, the government did not need a strategy to decide which bad loans to take over; it dealt with anything that fell into its lap as a result of a thrift bankruptcy. But under the current proposal, the government would go out and shop for bad loans. These come in all shapes and sizes, so the government would have to judge what type of loans it wants. They are illiquid, so it's hard to know how to value them. Bad loans are weighing down the financial system precisely because private-sector experts can't determine their worth. The government would have no better handle on the problem.

In practice this means the government would make subjective choices about which bad loans to buy, and it would pay more than fair value. Billions in taxpayer money would be transferred to the shareholders and creditors of banks, and the banks from which the government bought most loans would be subsidized more than their rivals. If the government bought the most from the sickest institutions, it would be slowing the healthy process in which strong players buy up the weak, delaying an eventual recovery. The haggling over which banks got to unload the most would drag on for months. So the hope that this "systematic" plan can be a near-term substitute for ad hoc AIG-style bailouts is illusory.

Within hours of the Treasury announcement Friday, economists had proposed preferable alternatives. Their core insight is that it is better to boost the banking system by increasing its capital than by reducing its loans. Given a fatter capital cushion, banks would have time to dispose of the bad loans in an orderly fashion. Taxpayers would be spared the experience of wandering into a bad-loan bazaar and being ripped off by every merchant.

Raghuram Rajan and Luigi Zingales of the University of Chicago suggest ways to force the banks to raise capital without tapping the taxpayers. First, the government should tell banks to cancel all dividend payments. Banks don't do that on their own because it would signal weakness; if everyone knows the dividend has been canceled because of a government rule, the signaling issue would be removed. Second, the government should tell all healthy banks to issue new equity. Again, banks resist doing this because they don't want to signal weakness and they don't want to dilute existing shareholders. A government order could cut through these obstacles.

Meanwhile, Charles Calomiris of Columbia University and Douglas Elmendorf of the Brookings Institution have offered versions of another idea. The government should help not by buying banks' bad loans but by buying equity stakes in the banks themselves. Whereas it's horribly complicated to value bad loans, banks have share prices you can look up in seconds, so government could inject capital into banks quickly and at a fair level. The share prices of banks that recovered would rise, compensating taxpayers for losses on their stakes in the banks that eventually went under.

Congress and the administration may not like the sound of these ideas. Taking bad loans off the shoulders of the banks seems like a merciful rescue; ordering banks to raise capital or buying equity stakes in them sounds like big-government meddling. But we are in the midst of a crisis, and it shouldn't matter how things sound. The Treasury plan outlined on Friday involves vast risks to taxpayers, huge complexity and no guarantee of success. There are better ways forward.

Washington Post

Page B7 September 21, 2008

By Sebastian Mallaby

Article Link on Internet

Percy H Florez