On Sep 26, 6:29*pm, Puddin' Man wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:48:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 26, 9:00*am, "Stormin Mormon"
A guy walks into a party, and asks a woman "Would you have sex with me for a
million dollars?" She says sure. And of course he doesn't have a million
dollars. But the decision is made, they are going to get it on. Now, it's
just about deciding how much is the price.
I have that sense with the bailout for Freddy and Fannie. My sense is the
bailout is a done deal. The question is only the details. What's the end
result? The Fed, with all the power of the government, will take large
ammounts of my money, and give it to someone else. It's not roads, bridges,
or even pork barrel construction projects. Just a big transfer of money.
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
It's not exactly giving the money away, which unfortunately is the
impression most people have because the media has not done anything to
explain it. *Even Bush didn't do a good job of explaining it. * * What
they are going to do is conduct a reverse auction for loans that are
delinquent, but have not defaulted on. * That means the govt will put
up say $50 bil, and have insitutions make bids of how many of these
loans they are willing to turn over for that amount.
It has to do with banking and bankers.
There are rules and standards that have long existed for the banking
industry. You can read about them, or go to college/univ., where they
still teach them.
The famed investment bankers of wall st. broke virtually all the rules.
Now, two of them, Paulsen and Bernanke, want the fedral gummint to
purchase their bundles of broken rules and mutant loan paper.
The fedral gummint will likely do so. 'Tis an invitation for them
to continue mutant practices in investment banking. And rob the public.
It's like hiring The Devil, at a ridiculously exorbitant salary,
to extinguish The Devil's own fire, assuming he will never again
ignite. But, of course, his very nature ...
Ultimately, the govt winds up owning the mortgages and will likely be
able to restructure and eventually make good on a good portion of
them. * Exactly how much they will recover remains to be seen if the
plan is put into effect.
They packaged the derivatives, etc in such a mutant manner, noone
really knows what they might be worth.
If you don't like this plan. what exactly is your proposal? * *Do
nothing and risk a depression?
Traditionally, these ("free") markets have their own ways of dealing with
those that act irresponsibly. The only difference between the traditional
solution and the proposed insanity is influence peddling and buddy-buddy
I've not even heard the likes of Bush, etc mention "depression": not certain
why you would.
Do you really expect the president to use word "depression" to make
things worse and start a panic? I used the word because this clearly
is the worst financial mess that we've had since the Great Depression
and the possibility for this to spin out of control is very real.
Washington Mutual experienced a net withdrawal of $16Bil in deposit
from panicked customers with money in their bank in the last 2
weeks. It's not too far fetched to imagine that spreading. With
credit drying up, banks failing, it's not too far fetched to imagine a
potential scenario where worldwide investors start to panic, pull all
money out of US institutions, start a panic in govt bonds, etc.
Or why you'd think it would be avoidable.
Recessions are part of the normal and expected business cycle.
It's widely recognized that the Great Depression was so severe and
lasted so long because both the FED and the govt refused to take the
steps as it was beginning that would have mitigated it. In fact, they
what little they did was the wrong thing. Just about everyone
agrees that this is no ordinary recession.
The "bailout" violates the very free-market principles that these folks
purportedly worship. If that doesn't tell you something, you sho'ly,
sho'ly aren't listening.
I agree it's not desirable for the govt to do this. I believe in free
markets to the fullest extent possible. But when the choices are
either doing something that could prevent a severe recession or
worldwide depression, or just standing by and letting this spiral, I'm
not going to let the country go down in flames because of
principle. It's not the first time this has been done. And in
the major prior cases that I can think of, ie Chrysler, Mexico, the
govt wound up getting all it's money back or actually turned a
profit. Also, consider that even if this just turns into a severe
recession that lasts several years, the resulting loss of tax revenue
to the govt could easily approach the $700Bil.
We've spent $1 trill on the war in Iraq. It seems to me, coming up
with $700Bil for this, with a good chance that much of the money will
be recovered, isn't unreasonable. If you're against this plan, as I
asked before, what is your plan? From the above, it sounds like it's
do nothing and let the chips fall where they may.
"Take Yo' Hand Out My Pocket (I Ain't Got Nothing What Belongs To You)!"
* *- Rice Miller, who probably never even _heard_ of GW Bush, John McCain.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -