America's bail out

Do you agree with the 700B Bail out??

  • NO (It's just a Wall St.. Bail out of G.W.B. Buddies)

    Votes: 15 55.6%
  • YES (it's required, needs to be passed)

    Votes: 1 3.7%
  • RENEGOTIATE (Agreement needs to be changed)

    Votes: 11 40.7%

  • Total voters
    27

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
29,695
11,111
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Kreskin, it's good to get some perspective on this...honest perspective. All the "doom & gloom"
talk is depressing, and it's not going to be any fun for many in the USA, but there is a light at the
end of the tunnel and in five years we'll all be able to look back on this with hindsight, and be able
to rank it in the pack with the other seven....and not as the end all be all.

Canada will not (and has not) walked away from this unscathed...but we do have tighter banking
regulations and a resource rich nation, so we should weather this better than some might expect.
We have (and will continue to, I'd expect) take a kick in the seat of our manufacturing pants but
with the USA being our largest trading partner, once their purse strings loosen in a year or two,
our manufacturing economies will pick up to. This will be a real incentive to make efforts to
diversify our export partners in the future. The USA is just such an easy market for us when their
economy is in better shape.

People will B*tch and Moan 'cuz that's what we do, but we land on our feet eventually as we
don't have much choice. Many on this forum that whine the loudest must have a roof over their
heads and food in their cupboards before they pay for an internet connection, so I take them with
a grain of salt. I'm just going to keep my head down and nose to the grindstone, and walk my dogs
for another half a decade....then I'll look back on this thread with open eyes and laugh at most of
the postings (maybe even my own).
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
I have worked in the financial services industry for 22 years. I understand what you're saying. There are many who can blame themselves for their own mess but there are also many who get screwed innocently for any number of reasons. The ordinary person doesn't expect a housing market collapse when things are going well. The average person needs to be educated on what they do. If the person in front of them with the knowledge doesn't provide any common sense advice then this will happen every time. Most people don't realize that if their mortgage rate goes from 4% to 6% their actual mortgage payment will go up about 25%. Financial institutions in Canada have a fiduciary responsibility not to lend people into jeopardy because those institutions know how much stuff can get out of hand. For example, when doing an investment mortgage the lender should qualify a person by showing their payments increasing by 25% and their rental income dropping by 5-10% because that's the kind of stuff that happens and the banks know it. They need to educate the people in front of them. If the client can't service that on paper then they need to have other assets or potential income sources for plan B. If the client then understands the risks and still goes ahead, well that's the price to pay. But this present situation sounds more like salesmanship by financers than responsible lending.

There are definitely people who need to take the blame for their own situations. There are also a lot who've been taken to the cleaners by salespeople working on behalf of large institutions.

I just think that's a copout. How can people be so stupid as to not ask "how much can my payment adjust"? They were greedy and wanted houses they couldn't really afford. They bought houses under the assumption they'd be able to sell for much more than they paid for them before the ARMs adjusted. That was stupid. Real estate has gone up and down for decades. They couldn't have guessed that maybe they'd be stuck with a property longer than they had planned? Stupid, stupid, stupid. And now they all get free money too. We all complain about the businesses getting bailed out, but what is a foreclosure or a short sale if not a bail out for the individual? They'll have a negative mark on their credit report for a time, but they are basically getting to walk away from money they owe. I looked at a condo yesterday. Someone bought it for less than 200K, then took 70K worth of equity out of it last year. It was foreclosed on in August. So the previous owner not only gets to walk away from his original mortgage, he gets to keep whatever he bought with the 70K and the bank just eats it. Why shouldn't they get the same bail out?

I don't know a lot about financial matters but I knew I couldn't afford to buy a home here 3 years ago, so I didn't. I probably could have gotten a shady loan and lived beyond my means because of some slick mortgage broker but I made the common sense decision not to. Now it galls me to hear people portray themselves as victims of slick salesmen, especially knowing I'll be picking up the tab for their stupid choices.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
That's an interesting take on it Tracy. And you're right... a citizenry that's conditioned itself to live in debt needs to take some accountability. It's a bit of a snake eating its tail scenario.

And the thing is so few people see it. I hear so many complaining that their ARMs adjusted and the payments are too much. Well, why did you accept a loan that could adjust to that level if you couldn't afford it? I'd be embarassed to admit to being so stupid, but they just don't see their mistake. That's a concern because it just means they'll probably repeat it.

I think I'm especially annoyed because people make it seem like the financial stuff was just too complicated for simple people. I admit the legal mumbo jumbo is hard to understand, but the basics have always been the same. People ignored them and now don't want to pay their bills.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Death Rattles of a Criminal Class

by Glen Ford / September 25th, 2008
The world of finance has accumulated a gigantic mass of fictitious capital that does very little to improve the human condition and the preservation of the environment. – from “Mad Finance Must Not Rule Us,” an open letter from former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, five former European prime ministers, two former presidents of the European Commission, and five former economics or finance ministers, published in Le Monde (Paris), May 21, 2008.
The Mother of All Bubbles
The same corporate forces that brought us one gargantuan financial bubble after another, each more destructive than the last, also surround the United States in a semi-sealed information bubble, impervious to facts that are inconsistent with the corporate narrative. Thus, few Americans outside the marginalized Left were even vaguely aware of what Europe’s most distinguished social democratic politicians were shouting at the top of their lungs: a huge bubble of “fictitious capital” in the form of “derivatives” and other complex instruments “notionally” valued at $500 to $750 trillion menaced the world — and especially the US — economy. Schmidt and his colleagues warned that the West must not succumb to “rule” by this Mad — fictitious! — Capital, which “represents 15 times the gross domestic product (GDP) of all countries” - for, “when everything is for sale, social cohesion disintegrates and the system collapses.”
Just four months later, the “fictitious capital” bubble has definitively burst, the system collapsed, but corporate henchmen brazenly bum-rush the populace into accepting direct and absolute “rule” by the corporate El Cid, Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury and former warlord of the Wall Street marauder, Goldman Sachs. The sheer brutality and arrogance of Paulson’s grasp for powers unfettered by any Earthly Entity - powers greater than “even the president enjoys,” said one shocked economist - mimics the bank robber’s deployment of instantaneous terror to demoralize and cow customers and tellers. “Down on the floor! Shut up! Give me all the money!” No time or presence of mind to do anything but accept the inevitable.
The criminals relentlessly press their advantage, aided by the enveloping information bubble that has rendered Americans wholly unprepared for their Night of the Living Dead, in which the denizens of deceased corporations rise from the rubble of their socially destructive rampage to put the bite on the still-living and infect the entire society with their stinking morbidity.
There is no organized opposition within the two business parties to the Wall Street Extortionists; no alternative proposition that refuses to accept the centrality — the absolute indispensability — of the “banksters” to the resuscitation of a “system” they have already killed and eaten. Instead, the Democrats and Republicans want to give the bandits $700 billion to try to blow their balloon up again, wipe off the guts and gore, and emerge from the dead. Then they’ll extort $300 billion more.
In the process, the business parties will kill off what’s left of the productive part of the US economy. The only sane course is for the public sector to embrace its de facto stewardship of productive society, as the only big economic engine still running — a captaincy already bought and paid for in the bailouts already undertaken.
Under no circumstances should the public attempt to re-inflate the housing bubble, although no feasible efforts should be spared to alleviate the misery inflicted on home buyers (and renters) by the predators of Wall Street, now (and hopefully forever) deceased.
Menaces to Society
Wall Street, meaning finance capital, is currently dead in the sense that it is incapable of organizing non-fictitious money in ways that can even sustain itself, much less promote productive economic value and growth. Its incessant bubble making is a symptom of finance capital’s terminal state. No longer capable of meeting investor demands for ever-increasing rates of return in anything remotely resembling productive ways, the Lords of Capital conspire (yes, every board meeting is a conspiracy) to artificially raise the “value” of…anything! (Remember Helmut Schmidt’s admonition, that “when everything is for sale, social cohesion disintegrates and the system collapses.”) In manipulating land and housing prices ever upward, the banksters multiplied the price of property almost by fiat, reaping huge benefits while inflicting society with grotesque housing affordability problems and spiraling debt. Then the banksters bundled mortgages and all kinds of other debts as money, to feed the mega-bubble that grew to “15 times the gross domestic product (GDP) of all countries [$750 trillion, compared to the Global Domestic Product of only $50 trillion],” as Schmidt reported.
It is important to understand that the Mother of All Bubbles is comprised of a universe of derivatives and other trickster finance exotica. Subprime mortgages, although a big problem in the US, can only represent a small fraction of a bubble-construct so galactic in notional size it dwarfs the value of the puny efforts of every living human being to supply actual goods and services to the planet. The US subprime crisis provided an early warning of the much larger bubble’s existence — a global menace that compelled Schmidt and his fellow social democrats to sound the alarm. But US banksters and their political servants persist in leading the public to believe that the crisis is largely limited to mortgages, and can be overcome on that discreet scale and ground. It’s a lie. The financial crisis became acute when capital institutions stopped buying each other’s exotic instruments, whatever was bundled inside.
It is “notional” (or fictitious) money as a general category of curse, not just bundled bad mortgages, that choked the system. And a measly one trillion Federal Reserve dollars can do nothing but disappear when deployed against the humongous $500-$750 trillion dollar Mama Bubble. The bankster’s criminal enterprise will still be dead — that is, incapable of acting as an engine of productive growth — but the U.S. public sector will have, as Barack Obama put it, Tuesday, “shot its last bullet.” At that point, the country will have difficulty saving itself, while the bankers will have spent a cool trillion in ways designed to serve themselves in their next lives.
Nature of the Beast
John McCain and Barack Obama now rage in much the same words about Wall Street “greed” and “corruption” as the fountains of failure — as if the core imperatives of the investment banking system did not dictate executive behavior. Finance capital’s refusal to invest in productive, socially useful enterprise is rooted in the corporate capitalist necessity to realize ever-increasing rates of return. Ultimately, they must be bribed by the public sector to engage in any useful project. As parasites that produce nothing, they (quite logically) attempt to suck up and absorb every public dollar in sight, while constantly working to weaken the public sector’s ability to perform its legitimate functions.
Why, then, should anyone be surprised when Goldman Sachs alumnus Henry Paulson demands the last drop of blood — the “last (trillion dollar) bullet” — from the American public, and dares to attach dictatorial terms to his acceptance of the money? It is the nature of the bankster beast to manipulate political and market conditions to achieve unfair advantage - and the nature of the multinational corporation to be devoid of national loyalties.

If We The People must bet our futures on schemes to revive productive economic activity, then let us bet on our collective selves, rather than on the thieving bankers who are, in any case, no more useful to society at this juncture than an unburied body. With the Federal Reserve now the lender and investor of last resort, progressives should welcome the people’s technical ownership of mechanisms for growth, and fight to make The Fed responsive in fact to the development needs of the larger society. As Green Party presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney has declared:
This means that the people are becoming the owners of the primary instruments of U.S. capital and finance. This now means that the people have a say in how these instruments are to be used and what their priorities ought to be. The people should now have more say in how their tax dollars are spent and what the priorities of government and the public sector must be. We the people must now set our demands to ensure and promote the public good.
In place of the of the self-serving bankers’ moribund capital formation mechanisms, why not “seize the time,” as McKinney urges, to push for a public mega-development corporation, funded in amounts rivaling that which the banksters are attempting to steal. “The Federal Reserve should operate in the interests of the U.S. taxpayer and not the interests of the private, international bankers that it currently represents,” said the former Georgia congresswoman. “This, of course means that the Federal Reserve…must undergo a fundamental ownership and mission change.”
Let us break, fully and finally, with the rule of “Mad Finance and Fictitious Capital.”
 
Last edited:

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Quoteing Kreskin
"Ron, I don't want to pretend to know where the economics of this going because I'm not an economist. My work is primarily financial planning, i.e. estate and retirement planning. The credit crunch is certainly a significant economic risk. This is definitely the most publicized and politicized financial downturn I've seen. Each crisis has a different foundation for its cause. This one is quite serious. But lets not forget that these are the kind of times when the real money is made. It isn't made at the top of a bull market."

No one has seen a "financial downturn" or more correctly a fraud and robbery of this magnitude.
"Real money" ? the only real money is in tangebles that is the buildings, bridges ,and land the rest is vapour. Real money is made by real labour and that will become abundantly clear to even the thickest citizen in very stark terms very soon. The bailout will not prevent global financial meltdown it will only enrich the culprits.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Why do people make it seem like ordinary Americans are victims of this mess? They are the cause of it too. They chose to accept easy credit and shady loans then defaulted in record numbers. I'm as annoyed by them as I am by the bankers.
--------------------------------------Tracy--------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a good point.

But let's do a quick hypocrisy check.

Are the ratios of debt any different in the average Canadian citizen's budget?
You guys up there hold any mortgages, credit cards ?

Okay, quick do your research to show you are better.

Then consider what easier credit terms mean, and what tighter credit terms mean.

In either case, the little guy gets hurt or denied access.

Credit terms were loosened up for those who were often denied access to the "American Dream (or whatever else you choose to call it )"

The lower proletariat masses could dream of buying a better house in a better neighborhood.

When credit terms tighten up, the doors will close this access.

When the economic train is going good, alot of people can gain access, get credit, as long as they don't lose their jobs !!!!

Final hypocrisy check?

How many paychecks away are Canadians from going broke ?

You think you got enough cushion ?

Well do ya ?

:)
 

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
You're right Jim. The average person isn't to far off from going broke at the best of times.

The problem is, the average person is not privy to having a crystal ball for market or economic information. The average person can't be faulted for keeping their money in a failed bank. How many average people right now think it might be a good time to buy real estate? What if 2 years from now it dropped another 25%, interested rates doubled and gas prices tripled? Hindsight would be easy to suggest they should've kept renting and bought a bycycle instead of a car. But what If the so-called professionals told them it's a great time to buy and to take out a variable rate mortgage because rates will no doubt come down more, and that no matter what they'd be fine?

I don't feel sorry for greeder speculators but the average person just wants to live in a house and figure out a way to get to work and put food on the table. And they can't sit on the sidelines forever peering into a crystal ball waiting for the best time to do it.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The average person cannot make a determination of the merits of investment because that portion of our education has been systematically removed from the schools and univercitys of the western world. Common sence has long ago been rendered old fashioned and out of touch with todays manufactured reality.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Bank borrowing from Fed reaches record $188 billion a day

Fed Keeps Banks Afloat as Money Market Crisis Deepens
By John Parry and Jamie McGeeever
Reuters
Thursday, September 25, 2008
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE48O9B920080925
U.S. banks and money managers borrowed a record amount from the Federal Reserve in the latest week, nearly $188 billion a day on average, showing the central bank went to extremes to keep the banking system afloat amid the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.
The data on borrowing from the Fed closed out another day of high anxiety in global money markets. Key measures of funding stress hit record levels on both sides of the Atlantic as nervous market participants awaited developments from Washington on a $700 billion U.S. financial bailout plan.
Federal Reserve data showed on Thursday the total amount banks borrowed nearly quadrupled the previous record of $47.97 billion per day notched just the week before.
"This looks like the balance sheet of a central bank that is keeping the financial system on life support," said Michael Feroli, U.S. economist with JPMorgan in New York.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
The problem is, the average person is not privy to having a crystal ball for market or economic information...
-----------------------------------------------Kreskin------------------------------------------------------

Apparently not even the experts can predict, eh?

So, not having a crystal ball is not the problem.
Also, putting your money in a failed bank, also is not a problem if you know your rule about money insured up to 10k.

The dilemna is when to expand or decrease credit, when to increase or decrease the money supply.

You'd have to be God to figure that one out.

No one wants to slow down a train or stop a train when everyone's 401k or pension or investments are doing well.

And who is to say if you're right about when to slow that train down?

Sometimes a little slowing causes an adverse market reaction, and from boom to bust you go in a heart beat.

Some people want to resurrect the uptick rule where short sellers can't bring down a stock. But in this computer age a million transactions can occur in a millisecond before you can halt trading.

Everything was going well until people started losing jobs and couldn't make their payments.

Seize on that statement !

Show me your* rabbit in the hat trick.

* all you readers out there.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Why do people make it seem like ordinary Americans are victims of this mess? They are the cause of it too. They chose to accept easy credit and shady loans then defaulted in record numbers. I'm as annoyed by them as I am by the bankers.
--------------------------------------Tracy--------------------------------------------------------------------

That's a good point.

But let's do a quick hypocrisy check.

Are the ratios of debt any different in the average Canadian citizen's budget?
You guys up there hold any mortgages, credit cards ?

Okay, quick do your research to show you are better.

Then consider what easier credit terms mean, and what tighter credit terms mean.

In either case, the little guy gets hurt or denied access.

Credit terms were loosened up for those who were often denied access to the "American Dream (or whatever else you choose to call it )"

The lower proletariat masses could dream of buying a better house in a better neighborhood.

When credit terms tighten up, the doors will close this access.

When the economic train is going good, alot of people can gain access, get credit, as long as they don't lose their jobs !!!!

Final hypocrisy check?

How many paychecks away are Canadians from going broke ?

You think you got enough cushion ?

Well do ya ?

:)

I'm actually down here in the US, so it isn't an issue of Canada vs the US for me (though you don't hear of as much "creative financing" there). My bank accounts are with Washington Mutual which just failed. Thank god for FDIC.

I completely understand people wanting a better house in a better neighbourhood. I do too. I just don't feel sorry for people who showed no impulse control when making the biggest financial decision of their lives (whether they are Canadian or American). If you can't afford something, you aren't entitled to it. Don't buy it.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
You're right Jim. The average person isn't to far off from going broke at the best of times.

The problem is, the average person is not privy to having a crystal ball for market or economic information. The average person can't be faulted for keeping their money in a failed bank. How many average people right now think it might be a good time to buy real estate? What if 2 years from now it dropped another 25%, interested rates doubled and gas prices tripled? Hindsight would be easy to suggest they should've kept renting and bought a bycycle instead of a car. But what If the so-called professionals told them it's a great time to buy and to take out a variable rate mortgage because rates will no doubt come down more, and that no matter what they'd be fine?

I don't feel sorry for greeder speculators but the average person just wants to live in a house and figure out a way to get to work and put food on the table. And they can't sit on the sidelines forever peering into a crystal ball waiting for the best time to do it.

Renting isn't the worst thing in the world.

If you buy a home here you can get a fixed rate for the life of the loan. Your payment won't change. As long as you keep working you should be able to keep making your payments, so it doesn't matter if the value drops or interest rates double. If you're more conservative and get less of a mortgage than you qualify for you can even absorb price increases like we've seen with gas. When you're making a 30 year commitment, those are things you should consider. You can't plan for everything, but you can substantially lower your odds of foreclosure if you do things the old fashioned, common sense way (put 10% down, get a fixed rate loan, make sure your payment doesn't eat up too much of your income, have enough cash in the bank for 6 months of mortgage payments in case something happens to you, have disability and or life insurance, etc...). If you can't do those things then renting may be better until you can.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Tracy, I'm not so sure all those foreclosures were because of someone's lack of impulse control.

As long as they had their job, the whole deal was viable and do-able.

Let's look at ourselves.

How many months can we go without a job and not make the payments on a mortgage?

What percentage of people in foreclosures lost their job?

Now that would be a germane stat.

When 50 percent of Canadians and 50 percent of Americans earn around 31k or under and contribute less than 3 percent of all collected income tax, then you realize how many millions of people are only one or two paychecks away from bankruptcy.

It appears that the results are the same in two different economic systems in two different western democracies.

Interesting.
 

tracy

House Member
Nov 10, 2005
3,500
48
48
California
Tracy, I'm not so sure all those foreclosures were because of someone's lack of impulse control.

As long as they had their job, the whole deal was viable and do-able.

.

People here in California are largely losing their homes because they took out adjustable rate mortgages. Their payments were low because interest rates were low. They knew that rate only lasted for a certain period of time and then the rate would adjust and their payments would change. So they were taking the risk that they would be able to either

A: make the increased payments, which many can't regardless of keeping their jobs or not since their income hasn't increased enough to afford the payments at a higher interest rate.

OR

B: Sell the house before the interest rate adjusted. If you have a 7 year ARM, and you can sell in 6 years, there is no problem. You'll never have to make the higher payments that will come when the rate adjusts.... oh, unless you can't sell your place because housing values decrease.

Both of those options were extremely risky. People who just have a run of bad luck such as illness or job loss have my sympathy. The majority of the people I see defaulting or having trouble aren't poor, unemployed or sick. They just took those silly risks and now we all have to bail them out.

BTW, I have a 6 month emergency fund. It's 6 months because that's when my job's disability coverage kicks in at 70% of my salary. I'm lucky my employer chooses to offer this benefit and I realize it isn't the case for everybody. I think more employers should.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
I hear a lot of radio public service announcements encouraging people in trouble NOT to do nothing. A lot of people don't refinance to avoid a coming balloon or uptick in the interest rate. They do nothing.

In fact there's VERY FEW people out there who have enough cushion who can afford NOT to be vigilant.

But it still remains to be argued how many people defaulted because they lost their job.

How many people default because they chose to do nothing when a balloon or adjustable rate went up?

I'm still saying that when times are good, credit terms ease up to encourage more growth.

No one wants to slow down the credit expansion when that train is going GOOD AND PLENTY GOOD AND PLENTY.

And if they do, they could be accused of irresponsible wrecklessness of stopping a good economy.
 

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
It's not hard against Boomer, all you have to do is double check the crap he posts here.:lol:

"The Glass-Steagall Act, which was passed in 1933 as a result of the Great Depression, was intended to enforce, by law, some of the divisions outlined above to protect our country’s financial system against the kinds of abuses we see bringing it to its knees right now. As decades passed and a collective amnesia set in, major financial interests on Wall Street began feeling too confined by the “old-fashioned and restrictive protections” of Glass-Steagall and eventually convinced legislators in Washington, DC to overturn it. This formally happened in November, 1999 when president Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law."

I can see your source was wikipedia.org. :roll: Which clearly lays blame with both Republicans and Democrats. FINE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_crisis_of_2008

I'm not sure if you are watching the news... but there seems to be a bank run going on as people are in panic mode... that's not good.

Say Avro, how come you don't post on www.CanadaKA.net - oh yeah forgot you were banned for being a troll. :lol:
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Let me start by stating that CNBC's Jim Cramer can be loud, obnoxious, annoying and even -- as he would admit -- occasionally boorish.

His rant a year ago on how he thought the Federal Reserve was making a horrible mistake when it raised rates in the face of a global credit crunch is the stuff of legend. (Which is why CNBC plays it over and over and over again.)

But Cramer is a very smart guy, and he's offering the best explanation I've seen on why Congress and the White House should pass a financial rescue plan.

The Bush administration -- especially Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke -- are doing a terrible job selling the plan, he says. And he's right. They're explaining it in terms only Wall Street bankers, analysts and economists can understand.
How would Cramer do it?

The plan, he said Wednesday, "is about keeping people in their homes. It's about making sure banks have money to lend "so your kid can go to college."

Indeed, he said, Paulson should be selling the plan as "Invest in America."

Paulson talks about "unfreezing the mortgage market," Cramer said. As an explanation, it's out of touch with the reality that most of us deal with.

"The next time you hear Hank Paulson or any of the plan's defenders talking about the plan freeing up commercial paper," Cramer said, "just insert 'Being able to buy a new car with a loan.'"

The administration should stop talking about "making banks whole from their own mortgage mistakes." Rather, he said, "they should start talking about making sure there will be cash in the ATM when you need money next week."

How serious is the credit crisis? Perhaps Cramer is guilty of big-time hyperbole, but here's what he thinks the stakes are:

"This plan is about averting an economic disaster that would make you have to work two, maybe three jobs so you don't get foreclosed on."

The language the administration is using is awful. "Wall Street gibberish" is Cramer's phrase, and he's right.

If you look at the history of the Great Depression, the single-largest problem was that banks in the United States stopped lending money. To anyone. And the result was a massive contraction of cash out of the economy and a near collapse of economic activity.

When you hear people talk about the credit crunch now, this is what it means: It's hard to get a loan for a house, a car or going to college, or starting a business. Sound familiar?

Hank Paulson is right: If we want to get prevent the economy from falling apart, we need to ensure that banks do their jobs, which is to take in deposits or investable dollars and lend it out again.

Cramer is also right: Paulson and the administration are flunking Salesmanship 101.

http://blogs.moneycentral.msn.com/t...jim-cramer-s-defense-of-the-bailout-plan.aspx


Related reading:
Jim Cramer's bad bets
Cramer's flip-flip: I've evolved
Buffett's Goldman deal is great -- for him
The FDR solution: Flashback to the 30s