Is Soaring Debt The Lesser Of Two Evils?

Some Economists Say Any Ill Effects Stemming From Massive Bailout Better Than The Alternative

(CBS/AP)  The economy could suffer a massive hangover from the government's efforts to rescue the financial system in the form of a soaring debt burden. But the alternatives look infinitely worse.

The $700 billion the administration is seeking from Congress as the upper bounds of what it will need to take a mountain of bad loans off the books of financial firms is certainly an eye-popping figure.

To get the funds to buy up the bad mortgage loans that have threatened to bring the financial system to its knees, the government will have to borrow. And that borrowing will come at a time when the federal budget deficit is already soaring.

The deficit for this budget year, which ends on Sept. 30, is expected to rise to $407 billion, a figure that is more than double the $161.5 billion imbalance for 2007, reflecting what the economic slowdown and this year's $168 billion economic stimulus program are already doing to the government's books.

The Bush administration is estimating that the deficit for the budget year that begins Oct. 1, which will cover the new president's first year in office, will hit $482 billion, a record in dollar terms.

And that forecast doesn't include the $200 billion the administration committed to spending two weeks ago when it took over the nation's two biggest mortgage companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And it doesn't have any of the $700 billion the administration is seeking to soak up the bad mortgage-backed securities that have been at the heart of the severe credit crisis the country has been struggling with since August 2007.

The legislation Congress passed this summer that gave the authority to rescue Fannie and Freddie boosted the limit on the national debt by $800 billion to $10.6 trillion.

The legislation the administration is now seeking to authorize the financial system bailout, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press, would boost that debt limit to $11.3 trillion, up another $700 billion.

It is the rapidly rising debt that is cause for concern. The government is already spending more than $400 billion a year just to pay interest on the national debt. The higher that debt goes, the higher the government's borrowing costs and the less it has to spend on other programs.

Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are both running for president, making campaign promises about what new programs they will implement once in office, promises that could be severely constrained by the costs of a financial bailout.

The escalating borrowing also means that the government is competing with the private sector for loans, driving up interest rates. And then there is the matter of the country's large trade imbalances which mean the United States has to borrow $2 billion a day from foreigners.

Will foreigners still want to lend as much to the United States if there are concerns that all the borrowing could weaken the dollar's value against other currencies.

But even with all these threats, economists said the government has to take decisive action because the alternative of letting the financial system slide into even deeper problems which could jeopardize the routine loans that businesses and consumers need was simply not an option.

"It was critical to arrest the downward slide in financial markets," said Sung Won Sohn, an economist at California State University, Channel Islands.

The dire situation was dramatically demonstrated this past week when the Federal Reserve, working with the central banks of other nations, poured billions of dollars into the financial system without any significant impact because of the fear keeping banks from lending.

The financial system has already been staggered with $500 billion in losses from the mortgage mess and the International Monetary Fund has estimated the ultimate price could be $1 trillion.

What the administration's plan would do is at least establish a price for the mortgage-backed securities, which at the moment no one wants to own.

Officials who have briefed Congress on Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's plan have suggested that one approach would be for the government to buy the toxic debt through a reverse auction process in which companies wanting to unload their mortgage-backed securities would propose a price to the government - say 50 cents on the dollar - and those offering the lowest price would win the bid.

By establishing a price for assets no one currently wants to buy, it could allow a market to develop and allow financial firms to get on with the effort of taking their losses and getting the damaged assets off their books.

"This could go a long way toward solving these problems," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, who has written a book on the mortgage meltdown.

And the final cost to the government?

No one knows for sure.

"The federal government is going to have loans that aren't repaid," Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland, told CBS News. "That's the American public, and in turn it will take possession of the houses and have to resell them."

Morici estimates Americans might end up permanently responsible for half the debt - up to $300 billion, reports CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier.

But Zandi said if the experience with cleaning up all the assets left over from the savings and loan mess is any guide, it should be less than the $700 billion that the administration is seeking.

In the S&L crisis, the government was able to recoup about two-thirds of its initial costs when it sold the assets it had obtained from the failed S&Ls.

"Obviously there is a big upfront cost to taxpayers," Zandi said, "but the ultimate cost may be measurably lower."

[samthetvcat]

---"It is the rapidly rising debt that is cause for concern. The government is already spending more than $400 billion a year just to pay interest on the national debt. The higher that debt goes, the higher the government''s borrowing costs and the less it has to spend on other programs."---

Is the idea still that you need to spend money to make money? But really the rule is that you need to be able to make more money than you''re spending for it to be worth your while, isn''t it?

I trust that the plan must be necessary if everybody''s saying it is. I just wish everybody would see curbing spending as equally necessary! :(

[samthetvcat]

---"The federal government is going to have loans that aren''t repaid," Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland, told CBS News. "That''s the American public, and in turn it will take possession of the houses and have to resell them."---

From a profit-making perspective, that''s like the ''best-case'' scenario isn''t it because then you don''t just have appreciation, you''ve also got rental income. But from a human perspective, the best-case scenario would be to renegotiate a bad loan so people can stay in their homes. And the Government''s obligated to put humanity first, aren''t they?

I still don''t understand whether the Government is even inheriting the mortgages themselves, or is it so down the chain they only have the mortgage-backed securities (?)

[payasyougo]

Keep your eye on this one. Next there will be a wonderful plan by government to give these taxpayer bought houses to low income folks so they can live the dream of home ownership.

It will be more of the same from the Income Redistribution Service (IRS), the governments arm of vote buying.

[nolalou]

The problem stems from people buying homes who cannot afford them, but were convinced by lenders to commit to variable rate mortgages, ultimately leading to foreclosures when they couldn''t pay increased interest rates.
I put the blame for this mess squarely where it belongs, on the Bush administration and the Republican Party! First, they are the party of deregulation, that allowed banks and lending institutions go unchecked with predatory lending practices, second it was a Bush policy to increase home ownership, especially among minorities! His policy created INCENTIVES to lenders to loan money to people without a down payment and with out the means to pay!!
This quote is from an article by Paul Krugman
"Owning a home lies at the heart of the American dream.%u201D So declared President Bush in 2002, introducing his %u201CHomeownership Challenge%u201D %u2014 a set of policy initiatives that were supposed to sharply increase homeownership, especially for minority groups."

[pollroller1]

It''s such a wonderful day in the neighborhood. Can you say depression? Folks you ain''t seen nothing yet. Just wait until the soup lines and the tent cities arrive.

[shortestfuse]

Yes some people bought loans who couldn''t afford them - they they paid the consequence by losing their home. What are the consequences for the big banks? Nothing - they are bein bailed out at OUR expense. Looks like the consequences are only to the middle class CITIZENS of the U.S. - no one else

[shortestfuse]

Republican hypocrisy - stay out of the free market government - let it correct itself. Yet when the big boys make some stupid investment decisions it''s a different story. Then it''s - Put up a TRILLION dollars of TAXPAYER money to help these guys so they don''t go bust. What about the rest of the country? What about the middle class? What about the fact that our grandchildren will be paying this debt off 50 years from now?

[bigermay]

THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT BAIL OUTS PROVIDE THE "PAUSE WHICH REFRESHES". IT MAY WELL KEEP YOUR MONEY SAFE BUT THAT WILL BE MONEY WHICH LOSES VALUE!

HERE IS WHY: THE US DOLLAR IS FALLING. THAT MEANS HIGHER INTEREST RATES AND/OR INFLATION. IT WILL EVENTALLY MEAN THE ABANDONMENT OF THE US DOLLAR AS THE WORLD''S RESEREVE CURRENCY. THAT IS, THE WORLD IS TURNING AWAY FROM THE USA AND THAT MEANS DECLINE ACROSS THE BOARD FOR AMERICA.

NOW IS THE TIME TO GET RE-EDUCATED. NEITHER THE POLITICAL PEOPLE NOR THE THE FINANCIAL PEOPLE HAVE ANSWERS. THERE IS ONE UNUSUAL PLACE TO GO FOR THE CORRECT PATH FORWARD AND PROSPER FROM THE NEXT CRISIS COMING AT US- THE HOT WAR ENVIRONMENT WITH IRAN AND THE LONG PREDICTED CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE.

GET THE BASICS NOW AND THEN THE FINANCIAL TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS. THE BOOK ON AMAZON.COM IS "OUR NATION IS GOD" BY MENDEL EDWARDSON. GET THROUGH THIS SPIRITUAL AND POLITICAL REVELATION. THEN, ACT; GET STARTED NOW AND ONE WILL BE READY BEFORE THE NEXT TRAUMA WHICH COULD BE ONLY MONTHS AWAY.

[cbsblogger]

35 years of incompetent government starting with Reagan and his trickle down theory, lower taxes and higher deficits. Combine that with policies that give corporations tax breaks to outsource, and no enforcement of our borders and a Trillion dollar 6 year war in Iraq for absolutely nothing.

What really pxsses me off is we pay these bxstards to run us into the ground and sell our country out.

Debt 2001= 6 Trillion;
Debt 2008= 12 Trillion

[occams_taser]

Don''t forget they hired these same experts to tell how expensive the Iraq war crime was going to be.

[strangeworld]

The wealthy no doubt think that the bailout is great - they can keep their money and continue to speculate in a stock market that''s been propped up with taxpayer money. Meanwhile the US workers/taxpayers who have to give for the bailout don''t have enough to keep playing this chumps market and fall farther behind. Republican greed is unbelievable.

[occams_taser]

Over the last almost FOUR DECADES productivity has grown and the wealthy have gotten spectacularly much more wealthy, and WAGES ARE COMPLETELY STAGNANT.

Conservatism and laissez faire SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF US.

There already IS a class war and most of us are LOSING. The two political parties don''t represent us, with the Democrats a tiny bit better every once in a while, but for the most part they both suck.

[occams_taser]

Over the last almost FOUR DECADES productivity has grown and the wealthy have gotten spectacularly much more wealthy, and WAGES ARE COMPLETELY STAGNANT.

Conservatism and laissez faire SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF US.

There already IS a class war and most of us are LOSING. The two political parties don''t represent us, with the Democrats a tiny bit better every once in a while, but for the most part they both suck.

[scallywag8]

I hope the day is coming that we stand up to these prixs and take OUR money back and throw them in the poor house. I think they should be exiled from this country. They are the real terrorists.

[ubrew12]

Some Economists Say Any Ill Effects Stemming From Massive Bailout Better Than The Alternative

For 30 years, economists and others have been claiming that growing the debt is not as horrible an economic alternative as not growing it. Just once, I''d like someone to try paying down the debt, even by just $1 trillion, and SEE if thats true. Debt just means you are deferring a problem to the future. Why don''t we act, just once, as though the future is now and see if paying down the debt is as simple a thing as those economists claim it is.

There is an air of ''inevitability'' about growing the debt that scares me. Especially at $10 trillion, this should not be an easy choice.

[scallywag8]

They just bend this country over and drive it as far as they can. Lets command our military to gather them up and feed them to lions.

[scallywag8]

China has one thing right. They execute these kind of people.

[txgrouch2006]

"To get the funds to buy up the bad mortgage loans that have threatened to bring the financial system to its knees, the government will have to borrow."

Hi. My name is Dubya. But my frends call me "Dub" for short.

I had 8 years to fix the mess that was left by the guy I replaced. But I spent the whole time playing with my tie and letting my friends shoot staples across the office until the carpet is full of staples.

Anyhoo, I needs to borry some money, cuz I messed up REEL BAD. I needs A LOT. I''m not sure how much, it could be up to $700 billion. But I''m hopin'' it''ll be less''n that.

So what do you say? I won''t be President much longer anyways, someone else will come after me and help clean things up.

[forever1973]

Whiny libs!

Bush has only doubled the national deficit. Well..triple at the most.

Have you forgotten that Clinton got a blowwjob?










--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by Stormy0ne at 11:38 PM : Sep 20, 2008

Funny!

[forever1973]

The Lesser of Two Evils???

Well, maybe the lesser EVIL would have been to manage the country properly in the first place, and avoid this situation.

[scallywag8]

Bush is probably out spitting on the White House Lawn again.

[ubrew12]

forever1973 said: "Well, maybe the lesser EVIL would have been to manage the country properly in the first place, and avoid this situation. "

Given the kinds of salaries people are paid to prevent this sort of thing, the kind of thing where you wake up one morning and an entire segment of the economy and the government are telling you, ''oops, looks like we made a little mistake, we''ll fix that right up and all it will cost is $1 trillion. Now just go back to your dead end job and pretend nothings happened'', from happening, we need an explanation of how it got to be this way and who didn''t do their job or which job should have been there to do that wasn''t there.

We should not sit docilely and act as though this kind of thing happens all the time. Cuz, in a coupla months, the auto companies and the airlines are going to be knocking on Congresses door, hat in hand, with a similar story, ''oops, gosh, you won''t believe what just happened.''...

[scallywag8]

I''ll bet Palin was McCains intern and she blackmailed him.

[kcblogger]

This is what you call redistribution of wealth


To the wealthy?

[forever1973]

I mean, seriously, how the h.ell did They allow the most massive terror attack on our own soil, start a pointless war, offend every ally we have, create the hugest deficit we ever had (even adjusted for dollars/time), engage in crappy-macho diplomatics with other sovergn nations, and on top of that, now this?

[forever1973]

in a coupla months, the auto companies and the airlines are going to be knocking on Congresses door, hat in hand, with a similar story, ''''oops, gosh, you won''''t believe what just happened.''''...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by ubrew12 at 12:19 AM : Sep 21, 2008


Goood point!!

[billpl-2009]

"This is what you call redistribution of wealth
To the wealthy?" Posted by kcblogger

nope....
the wealthy will ALWAYS find a way to make a buck.

how about?
next time don''t sell houses to the poor.
don''t give loans to people for more money than their homes are worth.

[forever1973]

I have a question.

What is "Predatory Lending"?

[FHMullane]

We have spent more than that in Iraq... what is the problem... why didn''t we scream then...

[ubrew12]

kcblogger said: "This is what you call redistribution of wealth. To the wealthy?"

It sure sounds like it. Those of us who smelled a housing rat in 2005 and delayed buying will now get to bail out those who did, and the banks that ''pyramid schemed'' those IOU''s into vaporware. As this plays out, its hard not to be bitter. When you are poor, you of course wonder if its your fault (not hard-working enough). But then you have to wonder how much of your taxes are now bailing out people who took irresponsible risks, but did it in such a grand fashion that they could hold the whole country hostage when it turned out they had lost your savings.

There''s a saying: if you''re going to fail, fail BIG. I guess this is what they meant. Some of us have an inner prudence that tugs us away from such risk-taking, and now feel like dupes.

Its bad enough that everyone who lives west of the mississippi river now pays taxes SOLELY to rich people and foreigners for loaning us $10 trillion. Now we are left with the sneaking suspicion that we''re paying for someones monster home.

[nobailout]

This is the most ridiculous proposal I have ever heard. Bush & Co. is going to charge $700 Billion to the U.S. taxpayers to buy property that''s not even fit for a dog to live in, and expect us to believe that we''re somehow going to get our money back?!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7070935.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/26/AR2008042601288.html

These houses could have been sold at deeply discounted prices but the banks CHOSE to sit on them & do nothing while more people became homeless. The banking CEOs and executives who created this mess should be the first in line to "contribute" to the $700 billion economic rescue by having their assets seized and relocating them to these foreclosed properties.

[summarex]

Beter than the alternative!
And what was the alternative?
Having to admit to the people that this country has fallen under the governance of criminals who should be sent the way of French nobility?

[closethippy1]

TITLE AND SUBTITLE OR ARTICLE ABOVE:
"Is Soaring Debt The Lesser Of Two Evils?
Some Economists Say Any Ill Effects Stemming From Massive Bailout Better Than The Alternative"

The time has come to quiet down the populace before it starts making too many demands of their political and financial masters.
Let some experts tell people how much better it is to have a knife wound than being shot.
That should help soothe the commoners'' fears.

[incog-nito]

Vote for McCain if you want more tax cuts for the multimillionaires whom the American taxpayers just spend $700 billion (or more) to bail out.

[gwjackie]

if we take the bad debt we need the good to. It would help.

[forever1973]

Does anyone remember when Bush (I think the elder)

said, "READ MY LIPS, NO NEW TAXES!"

When was that, exactly?

[incog-nito]

We have spent more than that in Iraq... what is the problem... why didn''''t we scream then...

Posted by fhmullane at 12:37 AM : Sep 21, 2008

People have been screaming for years about the cost of the Iraq war. Apparently the Bushies have selective hearing.

[nobailout]

"By establishing a price for assets no one currently wants to buy, it could allow a market to develop and allow financial firms to get on with the effort of taking their losses and getting the damaged assets off their books."

Obviously, the price for assets no one currently wants to buy is ZERO.

[gwjackie]

Tell congress no hell no not unless we get it all maby we can make money in the long run.lets put the American in the housing business let them vote on who they would like to run this set the pay and if they do not do the job we can kick there a$$ out.

[nearl4511]

There is no definite answer to this question.

It is certain that capital is needed to finance a great deal in this economy. Govt. money is also a major driver.

If the Govt. is the saving mothre for industry, why not for the people?

I know this. There is no excuse for mindless deregulation again. Insurance companies shouldn''t be involved in investment. Banks need to return to some basic principles. No more usury rates. Loan money on basis of ability to pay back. In fact, just cut thespeculation *** when giving loans. It''s a fixed rate at the time of contract and goes totheend. That''s IT!!

It''s pretty simple really.

[riellehunt]

HERE IS GOV SARAH PALIN''''S NEW EMAIL ADDRESS-
sarahpalinvp2008(at)yahoo(.)co
m
password= greenback

[riellehunt]

HERE IS GOV SARAH PALIN''''S NEW EMAIL ADDRESS-
sarahpalinvp2008(at)yahoo(.)co
m
password= greenback

[riellehunt]

HERE IS GOV SARAH PALIN''''S NEW EMAIL ADDRESS-
sarahpalinvp2008(at)yahoo(.)co
m
password= greenback

[riellehunt]

HERE IS GOV SARAH PALIN''''S NEW EMAIL ADDRESS-
sarahpalinvp2008(at)yahoo(.)co
m
password= greenback

[riellehunt]

HERE IS GOV SARAH PALIN''''S NEW EMAIL ADDRESS-
sarahpalinvp2008(at)yahoo(.)co
m
password= greenback

[riellehunt]

HERE IS GOV SARAH PALIN''''S NEW EMAIL ADDRESS-
sarahpalinvp2008(at)yahoo(.)co
m
password= greenback

[riellehunt]

HERE IS GOV SARAH PALIN''''S NEW EMAIL ADDRESS-
sarahpalinvp2008(at)yahoo(.)co
m
password= greenback

[hokuto1]

forever1973 asks, "I have a question. What is "Predatory Lending"?"

I''m no economist, so this is overly simplistic (we''ve all been given a quick education this past week!) but I think it means loan companies were preying on people by lending them money even though they knew (or had strong suspicion) to believe they wouldn''t be able to pay back the loan, thus effectively causing them to default. The mortgage companies were in many cases cold-calling people, offering them loans without asking for ANY credit history or evidence that the customer could repay (if they had a pulse they would get the loan). Normally this would be suicide on the part of the lender, since in a sane universe, they make money only when borrowers pay back their loans. But in this case, the lenders were reselling the loans to other brokers down the feeding chain, and the third- or fourth- level lenders had even less idea what risks were involved in indivdual mortgages. Call it the mortgage version of "musical chairs." Also, the terms of the loans often involved such byzantine intricacies that borrowers didn''t realize the floating rate of the loan could and would go up enormously after the first few months, creating an impossible payback situation and default. Conservatives want to blame the poor borrowers who shouldn''t have gotten the loans in the first place, but lenders were aggressively pushing these kinds of predatory loans as well. It was a house of cards.

[wildk55]

give you something to think about!
34 years of work and paying taxes
who was here to bail me out after I was injured on the job? who was there to secure my house from forecloser? who was there to supplement my lost income due to my injury? who replaced the 3 and a half months of no income? who was there to help take care of my kids after they removed us from our home? who was it, that stated I could not seek medical attention immediately after my injury, I had to wait for workers compensation evaluation first!( waited 5 weeks to see a doctor, hospitals would not treat due to work related) I now have permanet nerve damage!

ANSWER: none, 0 , nobody
the same people that are running this country today!

no body helped me or my family, so why should we bail them out!!! would they bail out the small business owner, (the backbone of this country) when they are in trouble? hell no!

hey bush did you forget where your meals come from?

[wildk55]

give you something to think about!
34 years of work and paying taxes
who was here to bail me out after I was injured on the job? who was there to secure my house from forecloser? who was there to supplement my lost income due to my injury? who replaced the 3 and a half months of no income? who was there to help take care of my kids after they removed us from our home? who was it, that stated I could not seek medical attention immediately after my injury, I had to wait for workers compensation evaluation first!( waited 5 weeks to see a doctor, hospitals would not treat due to work related) I now have permanet nerve damage!

ANSWER: none, 0 , nobody
the same people that are running this country today!

no body helped me or my family, so why should we bail them out!!! would they bail out the small business owner, (the backbone of this country) when they are in trouble? hell no!

hey bush did you forget where your meals come from?