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
www.lds.org
..

On Sep 26, 9:00*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
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
*www.lds.org
.


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.

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.

If you don't like this plan. what exactly is your proposal? Do
nothing and risk a depression?

Stormin Mormon wrote:
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.

It's more like a loan, although not exactly that either. Remember, the
government made a profit on the Mexico, Chrysler, and New York City
bailouts. By most accounting standards, the government made a profit on the
S&L rescue, too.

The government will buy troubled mortgages at a significantly reduced
value - some say as low as 10% of the face value. The feds then own the
mortgage or, in the event of default, the property itself.

The people who are for sure getting screwed are the investors in Freddie Mae
and Freddie Mac. Probably also getting screwed are the illegal aliens who
work in the building trades. There are ample foreclosed houses to handle the
housing market for quite some time, so new construction will fall fall way
off.

Reconditioning of these foreclosed homes will boom, so there will be an
increased need for skilled tradesmen...

From Woot.com today

Good day American taxpayer, complments of the season to YOu. Please allow me to
introduce myself I am Mr. Henry PAULSON very high official of United States
Treasury of United States, Washington, USA. I please to be writing you this day
because someone of our mutual acquaintance Mr. BERNANKE vouch for you as
trustworthy and gullible individual of high moral standards.

Through no fault of my own I am come to hard straits and although I am a proud
man and father, I must beseech your partnership in resolution, an urgent and
vexing matter. Through malfeasance and rascality, certain individuals of my
close acquaintance have sabotage national banking system, hence an imminent
disaster will befall if I am unable to secure the amount of $700,000,000,000
DOLLARS U.S with all utmost haste. This amount is currently being held by
millions of fellow Americans but thus far these scoundrels refuse to release the
money to me on grounds of that it is not mine infact.

Therefore I must, find a partner who can assist in the collection of this funds
with, advance fee of $179.99 DOLLARS U.S a nominal amount I am sure you will
agree. In return for you cooperation I am authorized to release as a token of my
good faith to you one iRobot Scooba Floor Washing Robot, can thoroughly clean a
floor with FOUR (4) cleaning stages, prep,wash,scrub,dry, and include one bottle
of 8 OZ. (8 ounce) Scooba Juice cleaning fluid. This robots can follow walls and
crisscroos rooms without need of human agency. Not to be use on carpet,
laminate, stone of course I am sure you understand. for such price you would not
expect to buy such Scooba but I, can assure you.

After funds of $700,000,000,000 DOLLARS U.S I will forward informations
regarding fully protection of all funds, liabilities, equities and other such
financial aspects. For now I must ask you to simply place your trust in me as
you would a brother, for, are we, all not brothers?

I pray, that this message find it in your heart, to enter in partnership with me
in interest of forestalling disastrous circumstance. Should you prefer not to
assist me, with funds, I shall direct my I.R.S agents to procure the funds
anyway from you, this voluntarily way is more amenable and you will atleast get
a SCOOBA mop robot out of the deal, as fate wills it.

Your friend everlasting,

Mr. Herny PAULSON
United STATES Treasure

Warranty: 1 Year iRobot

On Sep 26, 10:48*am, "Bob F" wrote:
From Woot.com today

Good day American taxpayer, complments of the season to YOu. Please allow me to
introduce myself I am Mr. Henry PAULSON very high official of United States
Treasury of United States, Washington, USA. I please to be writing you this day
because someone of our mutual acquaintance Mr. BERNANKE vouch for you as
trustworthy and gullible individual of high moral standards.

snip


LMAO! Shades of 419!

Joe

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:48:47 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sep 26, 9:00*am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
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
*www.lds.org
.


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
stuff.

I've not even heard the likes of Bush, etc mention "depression": not certain
why you would. Or why you'd think it would be avoidable. Recessions are
part of the normal and expected business cycle.

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.

Puddin'

"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.

wrote:
On Sep 26, 9:00 am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
A guy walks into a party, and asks a woman "Would you have sex with me for a
million dollars?"snip
.



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.

True, but buying those loans at a time when the actual value of those
assets cannot be easily determined seems like throwing money away, and
without solving the problem, to me. Then consider that wolf Paulson
would be guarding the chicken coop...

Would you buy one of those loans with your own money? For how much?

Chris wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 26, 9:00 am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
A guy walks into a party, and asks a woman "Would you have sex with
me for a
million dollars?"snip
.



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.

True, but buying those loans at a time when the actual value of those
assets cannot be easily determined seems like throwing money away, and
without solving the problem, to me. Then consider that wolf Paulson
would be guarding the chicken coop...

Would you buy one of those loans with your own money? For how much?

Sure. Maybe $10-15. Better return than a lottery ticket.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in
:

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.


Hmmm, I heard it different. Something like:

A guy walks into a party, and asks a woman "Would you have sex with me
for a million dollars?" She says sure. Guy says "Gimme 50 bucks worth."

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"
wrote:
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
*www.lds.org
.

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
stuff.

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.





Puddin'

"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 -

On Sep 26, 6:56*pm, Chris wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 26, 9:00 am, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
A guy walks into a party, and asks a woman "Would you have sex with me for a
million dollars?"snip
.

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. *

True, but buying those loans at a time *when the actual value of those
assets cannot be *easily determined seems like throwing money away, *and
without solving the problem, to me. Then consider that *wolf Paulson
would be guarding the chicken coop...

Would you buy one of those loans with your own money? For how much?


Yes I would. How much I would pay obviously depends on the details
of the actual loan.

On Sep 27, 8:20�am, wrote:
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"
wrote:
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
�www.lds.org
.

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
stuff.

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.





Puddin'

"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 -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well a few not nice thoughts

Our government is like a family living on credit cards, maxing them
out, and desperate to get more to fix things.........

till they cant get any more and bankruptcy is all thats left.

congress and president have wasted our money in so many ways

this bailout will decrease the value of money, gasoline and everything
else will skyrocket in a inflationary spiral just as memorable as this
econoomic dump.

plus the rush to fix it is bad, rarely is a panic fix a good one.

another possiblity is raise FDIC insurance retroactively to a couple
million per person, and let things sort themselves out.

with each bailout were told things will be fine, but so far all the
bail outs havent helped.

YES!!!!! Less regulation, and more freedom. Do nothing and risk depression
sounds better than federal control.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...

If you don't like this plan. what exactly is your proposal? Do
nothing and risk a depression?

Exactly! Let the market adjust itself. But in the meantime, quit passing
legislation that coerces banks to write loans to unreliable people.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...
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.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Exactly! Let the market adjust itself. But in the meantime, quit passing
legislation that coerces banks to write loans to unreliable people.


yes that is one point that I see people glossing over. they blame
Republicans for allowing deregulation (which is fair) but they also need
to blame to some extent those on both sides of the aisle those who
supported legislation that encouraged "increased homeownership" among
those who wouldn't have been qualified under the "old rules" - when the
"old rules" were what kept the housing market stable. So of course the
financial institutions were playing hot potato with those loans, they
knew that they sucked and so should we have.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Sep 27, 10:11*am, Nate Nagel wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Exactly! Let the market adjust itself. But in the meantime, quit passing
legislation that coerces banks to write loans to unreliable people.

yes that is one point that I see people glossing over. *they blame
Republicans for allowing deregulation (which is fair) but they also need
to blame to some extent those on both sides of the aisle those who
supported legislation that encouraged "increased homeownership" among
those who wouldn't have been qualified under the "old rules" - when the
"old rules" were what kept the housing market stable. *So of course the
financial institutions were playing hot potato with those loans, they
knew that they sucked and so should we have.

nate


If everyone at these institutions knew so much, why did they get stuck
holding the sub-prime loans. For example, if they knew the loans
were going to go into default, Lehman Bros and Bear Stearns could have
sold them all off to less sophisticated buyers.

wrote:
On Sep 27, 10:11 am, Nate Nagel wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Exactly! Let the market adjust itself. But in the meantime, quit passing
legislation that coerces banks to write loans to unreliable people.
yes that is one point that I see people glossing over. they blame
Republicans for allowing deregulation (which is fair) but they also need
to blame to some extent those on both sides of the aisle those who
supported legislation that encouraged "increased homeownership" among
those who wouldn't have been qualified under the "old rules" - when the
"old rules" were what kept the housing market stable. So of course the
financial institutions were playing hot potato with those loans, they
knew that they sucked and so should we have.

nate


If everyone at these institutions knew so much, why did they get stuck
holding the sub-prime loans. For example, if they knew the loans
were going to go into default, Lehman Bros and Bear Stearns could have
sold them all off to less sophisticated buyers.

I doubt that Lehman and BS were the originators of these loans. They
likely ended up holding the bag after they'd been repackaged 3 or 4
times into "AAA" securities and nobody dug too deep (or else they knew
what they were getting into, figured on getting out before it hit the
fan, and misjudged.)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:20:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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?

If he and his spin-docs thought it'd serve their purpose, yes.
Whether true or not.

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.

It has already spun out of control.

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.

I don't even think that is the central issue.

The US now produces near nothing save WMD's and services. Wall Street
used to have numerous trusted financial institutions. NYC was the
"Money Center" of the world. As production in countries like China
and India has ramped up, foreign investment has become an increasingly
important component of the US economy.

Wall Street, as the foreign investors knew it, is gone. Never to
return. They have acted so irresponsibly that full trust will never
be restored, regardless of what the gov't does/doesn't-do.

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.

1.) We don't even have definitive evidence of recession (yet), let alone
depression.

2.) Comparisons to the Great Depression are not the least bit
appropriate. Economic conditions then and now are very, -very-
drastically different.


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.

So do they. But only when it is convenient and profitable for them.

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.

You assume a.) doomsday and b.) gov't spending, essentially the
nationalization of the investment banks mutant loan bundles,
will save us. It's just not rational.

You believe precisely what they want you to believe.

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.

Very close to the mark, that last.

If practical, I'd support unbundling the loans, separating speculative
loans from those on primary residences. Let the former default, provide
some re-financing for foreclosures on the latter. And that's all. Maybe
$50B.

I think that what most people don't understand is that the US gov't
has become quintessentially hostile to all US citizens save the
"financial elite". The (gummint) gloves are off ... and the brass knuckles
are on.

Puddin'

"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.

On Sep 27, 11:48*am, Puddin' Man wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:20:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
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? *

If he and his spin-docs thought it'd serve their purpose, yes.
Whether true or not.

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.

It has already spun out of control.


No, it hasn't. So far, everything is under control. Out of control
would be runs on banks both sound and unsound, dumping of US
securities by foreign investors, credit becoming unavailable to any
borrowers whether credit worthy or not, the Dow going down a few
thousand points in short order, etc. The problem would then extend
to the economy at large, with a resulting drop in GDP, unemployment
going higher to 10%, people taking big hits on their 401Ks, more
layoffs resulting in more foreclosures, etc. So far, this problem
has been largely confined to certain financial institutions and some
of the home building industry.



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.

I don't even think that is the central issue.

Of course it is one of the central issues which could occur if nothing
is done.



The US now produces near nothing save WMD's and services.

Complete nonsense. Boeing, Intel, Microsoft and a whole list of
other great world leading companies make that such a silly statement
that it's laughable. But when you drag WMD nonsense into a financial
discussion, it does show where you're coming from.



Wall Street
used to have numerous trusted financial institutions. NYC was the
"Money Center" of the world.

And NYC still is the money center of the world.


As production in countries like China
and India has ramped up, foreign investment has become an increasingly
important component of the US economy.

Wall Street, as the foreign investors knew it, is gone. Never to
return. They have acted so irresponsibly that full trust will never
be restored, regardless of what the gov't does/doesn't-do.

There is zero evidence that foreigners have the jaundiced view that
you do of the USA. They haven't left and they still own huge amounts
of US securities and assets. And that's because they know the US
economy and assets are basicly sound and good investments. If Wall
Street is finished, why do you think Warren Buffet, who is known the
world over as the greatest investor of our time, just put $5Bil into
Goldman Sachs? Maybe he knows a little more than you.




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.

1.) We don't even have definitive evidence of recession (yet), let alone
* * depression.

Recessions are declared by a non-partisan board that reviews data
months after the data is first released, revised, etc. In other
words, they are looking in the rear view mirror and don't declare a
recession until it's been under way for 6 months to a year. If we
wait for that to happen, it will very likely be too late and/or even
more of a bailout will be necessary.



2.) Comparisons to the Great Depression are not the least bit
* * appropriate. Economic conditions then and now are very, -very-
* * drastically different.

Really, pray tell those very very drastic differences? The problems
then were caused by far too much leaveraging of assets and greed
turning into fear. Very similar to what is occuring today. Who do
you think knows more about the risks to the banking system and
economy? You or Bernanke?







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. *

So do they. But only when it is convenient and profitable for them.


These institutions that are going to be assisted, have already taken
huge hits. It hasn't been profitable to them, nor will it make it
profitable. Bear Stearns is wiped out, the investors lost
everything. Same thing at Lehman. Both of those companies are gone
and tens of thousands of employees have lost their jobs. Under the
current plan, the govt is going to be buying these sub-prime loans
deeply discounted. The institutions are NOT being made whole.

But you would rather have the economy go down on principle. I notice
none of the liberal Dems in Washington, who are always anti-business,
are claiming the risk to the economy isn't real. Obama agrees in
principle with the bailout too.





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.

You assume a.) doomsday and b.) gov't spending, essentially the
nationalization of the investment banks mutant loan bundles,
will save us. It's just not rational.

Only not rational to you. As to whether it's a potential doomsday,
I'm not willing to take that gamble.



You believe precisely what they want you to believe.

My, I wish I could be enlightened like you, so I could go around
claiming the US economy is based on producting WMDs.




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.

Very close to the mark, that last.

If practical, I'd support unbundling the loans, separating speculative
loans from those on primary residences.

If you pay attention, most of these problem loans ARE on primary
residences.




Let the former default, provide
some re-financing for foreclosures on the latter. And that's all. Maybe
$50B.

Refinancing for foreclosures? That's totally stupid. By
refinancing, the govt would be paying off the existing mortgage in
full, letting the current lender completely off the hook. The
lending insitution would be made whole. Under the proposed plan, the
lender takes a big hit, the govt buys the mortgage from them deeply
discounted, perhaps for 30 cents on the dollar.



I think that what most people don't understand is that the US gov't
has become quintessentially hostile to all US citizens save the
"financial elite". The (gummint) gloves are off ... and the brass knuckles
are on.

Puddin'

Spoken like a true crackpot. How is it that people can come here
from all over the world with nothing, become citizens, buy homes, send
their kids to college, prosper and live the American dream, while guys
like you just bitch and have nothing positive to say about the
country?

wrote:



If everyone at these institutions knew so much, why did they get stuck
holding the sub-prime loans. For example, if they knew the loans
were going to go into default, Lehman Bros and Bear Stearns could have
sold them all off to less sophisticated buyers.

They relied on hope. While any sane person knows that "hope" is not a
strategy, sometimes it's all that's available.

Actually, they had no choice: either make the sub-prime, no money down,
don't look at income, employment history, or credit rating or be sanctioned
or closed by federal regulators.

Puddin' Man wrote:

The US now produces near nothing save WMD's and services. Wall Street
used to have numerous trusted financial institutions. NYC was the
"Money Center" of the world. As production in countries like China
and India has ramped up, foreign investment has become an increasingly
important component of the US economy.

Countries should do what they do best. Producing "things" is not necessarily
the best use of resources (although the U.S. still produces more "things"
than anyone else). For example, medical care produces nothing - except good
health. Insurance produces nothing - except the ability to continue after
adversity. Education doesn't produce a "thing" except a mind capable of
greater endeavors.

Would anyone say a Nike factory in Bangladesh is more worthwhile than the
Harvard Medical School?


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.

So do they. But only when it is convenient and profitable for them.

There is little difference between the government bailing out the financial
industry and FEMA dispensing MREs and bottled water. The government is the
insurer of last resort.

Nate Nagel wrote:
wrote:
On Sep 27, 10:11 am, Nate Nagel wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Exactly! Let the market adjust itself. But in the meantime, quit
passing
legislation that coerces banks to write loans to unreliable people.
yes that is one point that I see people glossing over. they blame
Republicans for allowing deregulation (which is fair) but they also need
to blame to some extent those on both sides of the aisle those who
supported legislation that encouraged "increased homeownership" among
those who wouldn't have been qualified under the "old rules" - when the
"old rules" were what kept the housing market stable. So of course the
financial institutions were playing hot potato with those loans, they
knew that they sucked and so should we have.

nate


If everyone at these institutions knew so much, why did they get stuck
holding the sub-prime loans. For example, if they knew the loans
were going to go into default, Lehman Bros and Bear Stearns could have
sold them all off to less sophisticated buyers.

I doubt that Lehman and BS were the originators of these loans. They
likely ended up holding the bag after they'd been repackaged 3 or 4
times into "AAA" securities and nobody dug too deep (or else they knew
what they were getting into, figured on getting out before it hit the
fan, and misjudged.)

nate


Forgot to mention, in the interest of full disclosure - I did buy a
house with only 10% down, which isn't the "traditional" way to do it.
Why? Because I live just outside of DC, so a 20% down wasn't happening
- it could take decades to save up that much cash while still paying
rent. So there are cases where "nontraditional" loans do help out
responsible people. I did, however, insist on a 30 year fixed and am
paying off my HELOC ahead of schedule before it blows up in my face.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article , (Chris) writes:
| wrote:

| 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.
|
| True, but buying those loans at a time when the actual value of those
| assets cannot be easily determined seems like throwing money away, and
| without solving the problem, to me. Then consider that wolf Paulson
| would be guarding the chicken coop...
|
| Would you buy one of those loans with your own money? For how much?

If it were the loan on my own house and I could sell (or possibly
refinance) the house for less than what I would have to pay for the
loan I might. In order for the bail out to actually help the banks
is the price going to have to be higher than that? I find it a
little confusing because people talk about "pennies on the dollar"
but it isn't clear that I can buy real estate for pennies on the
dollar compared to a year or so ago (unless we are talking about
maybe fifty pennies). Or is the problem that real estate isn't
moving at all because the prices haven't come down?

Dan Lanciani
[email protected].*com

Puddin' Man wrote:


I think that what most people don't understand is that the US gov't
has become quintessentially hostile to all US citizens save the
"financial elite". The (gummint) gloves are off ... and the brass knuckles
are on.


Very well said!

In article , [email protected].*com (Dan Lanciani) writes:
| In article , (Chris) writes:
| | wrote:
|
| | 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.
| |
| | True, but buying those loans at a time when the actual value of those
| | assets cannot be easily determined seems like throwing money away, and
| | without solving the problem, to me. Then consider that wolf Paulson
| | would be guarding the chicken coop...
| |
| | Would you buy one of those loans with your own money? For how much?
|
| If it were the loan on my own house and I could sell (or possibly
| refinance) the house for less than what I would have to pay for the

Oops, make that "more than what I would have to pay..."

Dan Lanciani
[email protected].*com

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:46:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sep 27, 11:48*am, Puddin' Man wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:20:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
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? *

If he and his spin-docs thought it'd serve their purpose, yes.
Whether true or not.

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.

It has already spun out of control.


No, it hasn't. So far, everything is under control. Out of control
would be runs on banks both sound and unsound, dumping of US
securities by foreign investors, credit becoming unavailable to any
borrowers whether credit worthy or not, the Dow going down a few
thousand points in short order, etc. The problem would then extend
to the economy at large, with a resulting drop in GDP, unemployment
going higher to 10%, people taking big hits on their 401Ks, more
layoffs resulting in more foreclosures, etc. So far, this problem
has been largely confined to certain financial institutions and some
of the home building industry.

The investment banks are very much out-of-control. Were they not, they
wouldn't have their hands out for $770B.


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.

I don't even think that is the central issue.

Of course it is one of the central issues which could occur if nothing
is done.

So sayeth the experienced and fully-trained banker. :-)

The US now produces near nothing save WMD's and services.

Complete nonsense. Boeing, Intel, Microsoft and a whole list of
other great world leading companies make that such a silly statement
that it's laughable. But when you drag WMD nonsense into a financial
discussion, it does show where you're coming from.

Walk thru any US store and see how long it takes to find any US-made
goods. Estimate the % of US-made inventory.

Wall Street
used to have numerous trusted financial institutions. NYC was the
"Money Center" of the world.

And NYC still is the money center of the world.


As production in countries like China
and India has ramped up, foreign investment has become an increasingly
important component of the US economy.

Wall Street, as the foreign investors knew it, is gone. Never to
return. They have acted so irresponsibly that full trust will never
be restored, regardless of what the gov't does/doesn't-do.

There is zero evidence that foreigners have the jaundiced view that
you do of the USA.

That's why they've been exploring alternative markets for years, now.

They haven't left and they still own huge amounts
of US securities and assets. And that's because they know the US
economy and assets are basicly sound and good investments.

They look less so most every day, now.

If Wall
Street is finished, why do you think Warren Buffet, who is known the
world over as the greatest investor of our time, just put $5Bil into
Goldman Sachs? Maybe he knows a little more than you.

I didn't say WS is finished. I said it will never again be trusted
as in years past.

It's still possible to hustle a $ on WS. Buffett got a sweet deal
and maybe sees value in the publicity.

The "Great Investment Banks" of WS are gone, whether you believe
it or not.


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.

1.) We don't even have definitive evidence of recession (yet), let alone
* * depression.

Recessions are declared by a non-partisan board

That you don't even bother to name?

that reviews data
months after the data is first released, revised, etc. In other
words, they are looking in the rear view mirror and don't declare a
recession until it's been under way for 6 months to a year. If we
wait for that to happen, it will very likely be too late and/or even
more of a bailout will be necessary.

So says the doomsday enthusiast.


2.) Comparisons to the Great Depression are not the least bit
* * appropriate. Economic conditions then and now are very, -very-
* * drastically different.

Really, pray tell those very very drastic differences?

If you don't want to hear, I or anyone else can hardly tell you.

The markets, the players, the gov't. Everything is different.

The problems
then were caused by far too much leaveraging of assets and greed
turning into fear. Very similar to what is occuring today. Who do
you think knows more about the risks to the banking system and
economy? You or Bernanke?

Bernanke and Paulson are investment bankers that have proven
themselves to be irresponsible. Bernanke's responsibility is to
Bernanke and his ilk, not to you or I.


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. *

So do they. But only when it is convenient and profitable for them.


These institutions that are going to be assisted, have already taken
huge hits. It hasn't been profitable to them, nor will it make it
profitable. Bear Stearns is wiped out, the investors lost
everything. Same thing at Lehman. Both of those companies are gone
and tens of thousands of employees have lost their jobs. Under the
current plan, the govt is going to be buying these sub-prime loans
deeply discounted. The institutions are NOT being made whole.

You choose not to see.

The irresponsible "executives" of the investment banks put Jesse James
and Cole Younger to shame. They walk away with millions. 'Tis they
that will be "bailed out".

But you would rather have the economy go down on principle. I notice
none of the liberal Dems in Washington, who are always anti-business,
are claiming the risk to the economy isn't real. Obama agrees in
principle with the bailout too.

They all get contributions from those that will benefit. They are
(directly or indirectly) bought and paid for.

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.

You assume a.) doomsday and b.) gov't spending, essentially the
nationalization of the investment banks mutant loan bundles,
will save us. It's just not rational.

Only not rational to you.

And, currently, most of the Republican House of Reps.

As to whether it's a potential doomsday,
I'm not willing to take that gamble.

You believe precisely what they want you to believe.

My, I wish I could be enlightened like you, so I could go around
claiming the US economy is based on producting WMDs.

The US economy is largely based on (often hostile) militarism.
This reality is commonly denied by the propagandists.

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.

Very close to the mark, that last.

If practical, I'd support unbundling the loans, separating speculative
loans from those on primary residences.

If you pay attention, most of these problem loans ARE on primary
residences.

That's like saying there was no real estate speculation whilst values
were climbing and climbing, and loans looked virtually cost-free.
After the crash in housing values, all they had to do was walk away.
Lost only a payment or 2.

Let the former default, provide
some re-financing for foreclosures on the latter. And that's all. Maybe
$50B.

Refinancing for foreclosures? That's totally stupid. By
refinancing, the govt would be paying off the existing mortgage in
full, letting the current lender completely off the hook.

Now we get to the basis of your arguments. You don't know what
refinancing is. 'Tis simply re-writing a mortgage contract,
possibly with differing terms. Nobody gets "off the hook".
Instead of being obligated to the investment bank, the borrower
would be obligated to the gov't. Might keep some honest folk from
losing the roof over their heads.

The
lending insitution would be made whole. Under the proposed plan, the
lender takes a big hit, the govt buys the mortgage from them deeply
discounted, perhaps for 30 cents on the dollar.

Neither you nor I know what they'll pay. The gov't isn't equipped to
manage millions of real estate parcels. The less they have to take on,
the better for taxpayers.

I think that what most people don't understand is that the US gov't
has become quintessentially hostile to all US citizens save the
"financial elite". The (gummint) gloves are off ... and the brass knuckles
are on.

Puddin'

Spoken like a true crackpot.

Yes, such name-calling is, indeed, a definitive identifying characteristic
of a troll.

How is it that people can come here
from all over the world with nothing, become citizens, buy homes, send
their kids to college, prosper and live the American dream, while guys
like you just bitch and have nothing positive to say about the
country?

Oh, I can and have said some positive things about the US. But not
as regards the nasty financial mess that you support, and not about
the hostile militarism.

Now. Lets recap briefly.

You favor gov't expense of about $770B to "bailout" grossly
irresponsible investment bankers via purchase of largely undefined
financial derivative packages based to a material degree on ill-
advised sub-prime loans.

And I don't.

This part of the thread now belongs to you. I take no interest in
a ****ing-contest, and have nothing more to say to you.

P

"I Ain't Blind, I Just Don't Wanna See"
- the title of a tune by Little Joe Blue, maybe 1966

I don't get it. If I won a lottery ticket for $7 million, I would take
about a month to get a CFP to advise me on the money. These guys find out
about this on a Thursday and need to get it solved by Monday?

Oh, sure, I know they want it done before opening markets Monday, but if
they screwed up so bad on managing $700 billion previously, what makes them
think I want to fork over another $$$ so quickly?

Unbelievable.

Steve

From what I'm hearing, Congress mandated they take a bunch of bad loans. And
some public action groups were protesting and making their lives miserable.
It's not a pretty picture.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


wrote in message
...

If everyone at these institutions knew so much, why did they get stuck
holding the sub-prime loans. For example, if they knew the loans
were going to go into default, Lehman Bros and Bear Stearns could have
sold them all off to less sophisticated buyers.

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

From what I'm hearing, Congress mandated they take a bunch of bad loans. And
some public action groups were protesting and making their lives miserable.
It's not a pretty picture.

Some of that, but a large part was just the rocket scientists
coming up with all these new products few (if any) understood but most
used. I have always thought that our financial system would benefit from
making two rules absolutely iron-clad. You couldn't sell a new
"derivative" or other financial instrument unless it could be explained
to, and understood by, a 10-year old in under 5 minutes and (2) anytime
someone touting a new instrument says it is so brilliant that it doesn't
follow the old rules, then the sale of that instrument should be
immediately banned.

"FlavorFlav" wrote in message
...
The damned republicans are playing games.
McCain had to rush back to DC and it did nothing, except to block the
progress.
He's making calls to House memebers and they don't listen to him.
Looks like he's ineffective.
Meanwhile, the public is getting screwed - - same old thing.

Yeah, he should have signed the bill that would have given millions to ACORN
and other Democratic political agencies. That would have showed them.

Steve

This is alt.home.repair. NOT alt.politics.repair
If I want to read about politics, I'll go to a newsgroup with the word
POLITICS in the group name. Although we have an election coming soon,
and serious problems in the country, why does EVERY newsgroup have to
have posts about politics? Newsgroups were given a name for a reason.
Stop abusing alt.home.repair, and learn how to behave properly on
usenet. A google search for the word "netiquette" will help.

Buy a vowel.
Get a clue.
Get a life.

Learn how to use your computer or take it back to the store. There are all
sorts of arrows and functions that let you go around this stuff.

If you don't, it's the intellectual equivalent of coming up on a pile of dog
**** on the sidewalk, getting down on your knees, smelling it, and tasting
it with your index finger.

You see the subject. You see the usual suspect in the From column. And
then you open it and bitch.

If you don't have the common sense to go around it, you probably eat a lot
of dog **** in the real world, too.

HTH, but I doubt it.

Steve

On Sep 30, 2:12*am, "SteveB" [email protected] wrote:
"FlavorFlav" wrote in message

...

The damned republicans are playing games.
McCain had to rush back to DC and it did nothing, except to block the
progress.
He's making calls to House memebers and they don't listen to him.
Looks like he's ineffective.
Meanwhile, the public is getting screwed - - same old thing.

Yeah, he should have signed the bill that would have given millions to ACORN
and other Democratic political agencies. *That would have showed them.

Steve


Let's see, McCain came back to Washington and so did Obama. Seems
being Senators and their parties candidates for President, that is
exactly where they should be when this important debate was going
on. Harry Reid even held a press conference last week and demanded
that McCain go on record stating his position on the bailout, because
without him, the Democrats would not act.

So, he goes to Washington, and now, according to the Dems, it's
supposed to be a bad thing. Had he not returned to Washington,
they'd be saying he doesn't get it and doesn't give a damn.

BTW, for a look at a real class act, take a look at the speach Speaker
Pelosi gave in the House yesterday just before the vote on the
bailout. After everyone from both parties tried to put together a
plan that could get passed and thought they just barely had the votes,
Pelosi gave a vitriolic paritsan speach on the floor of the House,
blaiming the whole sub-prime situation on Bush and the Repulicans.
This from the woman who proclaimed a new era of bi-partisanship when
she became Speaker. Clearly she figured she would play politics and
if the whole thing went down the drain and took the economy with it,
she'd just blame that on the Republicans too.

If you want to see what she actually said, here it is. Ask yourself
if this is the speach of a patriotic American leader in a time of
crisis or a rabble rousing partisan bitch:

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html

On Sep 27, 6:13*pm, Puddin' Man wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 09:46:08 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 27, 11:48*am, Puddin' Man wrote:
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:20:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
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? *

If he and his spin-docs thought it'd serve their purpose, yes.
Whether true or not.

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.

It has already spun out of control.

No, it hasn't. * So far, everything is under control. * Out of control
would be runs on banks both sound and unsound, dumping of US
securities by foreign investors, credit becoming unavailable to any
borrowers whether credit worthy or not, the Dow going down a few
thousand points in short order, etc. * The problem would then extend
to the economy at large, with a resulting drop in GDP, unemployment
going higher to 10%, people taking big hits on their 401Ks, more
layoffs resulting in more foreclosures, etc. * So far, this problem
has been largely confined to certain financial institutions and some
of the home building industry.

The investment banks are very much out-of-control. Were they not, they
wouldn't have their hands out for $770B.



The reference to "spinning out of control" was to the broad credit
markets and economy, not investment banks.






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.

I don't even think that is the central issue.

Of course it is one of the central issues which could occur if nothing
is done.

So sayeth the experienced and fully-trained banker. :-)

The US now produces near nothing save WMD's and services.

Complete nonsense. * Boeing, Intel, Microsoft and a whole list of
other great world leading companies make that such a silly statement
that it's laughable. *But when you drag WMD nonsense into a financial
discussion, it does show where you're coming from.

Walk thru any US store and see how long it takes to find any US-made
goods. Estimate the % of US-made inventory.



That observation doesn't translate into the US economy being based on
WMD's, which is nonsense. Guys like you also like to conveniently
overlook the other side of the coin, which is that those low cost
imports provide huge benefits to consumers, by giving them more goods
for less money. In other words, they don't have to work as much to
buy the same goods. Which would you rather have here, companies
like Intel, Microsoft and Boeing or a Nike factory with minimum wage
jobs?








Wall Street
used to have numerous trusted financial institutions. NYC was the
"Money Center" of the world.

And NYC still is the money center of the world.

As production in countries like China
and India has ramped up, foreign investment has become an increasingly
important component of the US economy.

Wall Street, as the foreign investors knew it, is gone. Never to
return. They have acted so irresponsibly that full trust will never
be restored, regardless of what the gov't does/doesn't-do.

There is zero evidence that foreigners have the jaundiced view that
you do of the USA. *

That's why they've been exploring alternative markets for years, now.



They haven't left and they still own huge amounts
of US securities and assets. *And that's because they know the US
economy and assets are basicly sound and good investments. *

They look less so most every day, now.

Yawn. The world has always presented a wide variety of investment
opportunities. And foreigners continue to find America a great
investment opportunity.





If Wall
Street is finished, why do you think Warren Buffet, who is known the
world over as the greatest investor of our time, just put $5Bil into
Goldman Sachs? *Maybe he knows a little more than you.

I didn't say WS is finished. I said it will never again be trusted
as in years past.

Let's see, WS survived 1929, the crash of 87, the debacle of 2001, but
now it's all over just because you say so?





It's still possible to hustle a $ on WS. Buffett got a sweet deal
and maybe sees value in the publicity.

You obviously don't know anything about Warren Buffet either. He has
never sought publicity and has actually kept a low profile. He still
lives in the modest home he bought in the 1950's.





The "Great Investment Banks" of WS are gone, whether you believe
it or not.



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.

1.) We don't even have definitive evidence of recession (yet), let alone
* * depression.

Recessions are declared by a non-partisan board

That you don't even bother to name?

I deliberately didn't use the name just to see if you know anything
about what you pontificate about. It's the National Bureau of
Economic Research. Anything else I can help educate you with?




that reviews data
months after the data is first released, revised, etc. * In other
words, they are looking in the rear view mirror and don't declare a
recession until it's been under way for 6 months to a year. * If we
wait for that to happen, it will very likely be too late and/or even
more of a bailout will be necessary.

So says the doomsday enthusiast.



2.) Comparisons to the Great Depression are not the least bit
* * appropriate. Economic conditions then and now are very, -very-
* * drastically different.

Really, pray tell those very very drastic differences? * *

If you don't want to hear, I or anyone else can hardly tell you.



The markets, the players, the gov't. Everything is different.

Thanks for that verbose explanation.





The problems
then were caused by far too much leaveraging of assets and greed
turning into fear. * Very similar to what is occuring today. * Who do
you think knows more about the risks to the banking system and
economy? * *You or Bernanke?

Bernanke and Paulson are investment bankers that have proven
themselves to be irresponsible. Bernanke's responsibility is to
Bernanke and his ilk, not to you or I.

Wrong and misinformed again. Bernanke spent most of his career in
academia. He taught at Stanford, NYU, Princeton, etc. Only a few
years ago he was appointed to the FED.








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. *

So do they. But only when it is convenient and profitable for them.

These institutions that are going to be assisted, have already taken
huge hits. * It hasn't been profitable to them, nor will it make it
profitable. * Bear Stearns is wiped out, the investors lost
everything. * Same thing at Lehman. * Both of those companies are gone
and tens of thousands of employees have lost their jobs. *Under the
current plan, the govt is going to be buying these sub-prime loans
deeply discounted. * The institutions are NOT being made whole.

You choose not to see.

The irresponsible "executives" of the investment banks put Jesse James
and Cole Younger to shame. They walk away with millions. 'Tis they
that will be "bailed out".

But you would rather have the economy go down on principle. * I notice
none of the liberal Dems in Washington, who are always anti-business,
are claiming the risk to the economy isn't real. *Obama agrees in
principle with the bailout too.

They all get contributions from those that will benefit. They are
(directly or indirectly) bought and paid for.



I and 300 mil Americans will also benefit by not having the economy
plummet. Is that so bad?








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.

You assume a.) doomsday and b.) gov't spending, essentially the
nationalization of the investment banks mutant loan bundles,
will save us. It's just not rational.

Only not rational to you. *

And, currently, most of the Republican House of Reps.

As to whether it's a potential doomsday,
I'm not willing to take that gamble.

You believe precisely what they want you to believe.

My, I wish I could be enlightened like you, so I could go around
claiming the US economy is based on producting WMDs.

The US economy is largely based on (often hostile) militarism.
This reality is commonly denied by the propagandists.

Spoken like a true kook.





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.

Very close to the mark, that last.

If practical, I'd support unbundling the loans, separating speculative
loans from those on primary residences.

If you pay attention, most of these problem loans ARE on primary
residences.

That's like saying there was no real estate speculation whilst values
were climbing and climbing, and loans looked virtually cost-free.
After the crash in housing values, all they had to do was walk away.
Lost only a payment or 2.


What does that have to do with the fact that most of these sub-primes
loans are on primary residences? Meaning your attempt to draw some
distintion matters not.




Let the former default, provide
some re-financing for foreclosures on the latter. And that's all. Maybe
$50B.

Refinancing for foreclosures? * That's totally stupid. * By
refinancing, the govt would be paying off the existing mortgage in
full, letting the current lender completely off the hook. *

Now we get to the basis of your arguments. You don't know what
refinancing is. 'Tis simply re-writing a mortgage contract,
possibly with differing terms. Nobody gets "off the hook".
Instead of being obligated to the investment bank, the borrower
would be obligated to the gov't. Might keep some honest folk from
losing the roof over their heads.



I'll let others decide who doesn't know what they are talking
about. A refinance generally means that the original mortgage is
paid off by the new lender, who then holds the new mortgage. In this
case, your proposal for the govt to refinance them, means the govt
would pay off the loan and become the new mortgage holder. Paying
off the original lender most certainly lets them off the hook.

clipped


BTW, for a look at a real class act, take a look at the speach Speaker
Pelosi gave in the House yesterday just before the vote on the
bailout. After everyone from both parties tried to put together a
plan that could get passed and thought they just barely had the votes,
Pelosi gave a vitriolic paritsan speach on the floor of the House,
blaiming the whole sub-prime situation on Bush and the Repulicans.
This from the woman who proclaimed a new era of bi-partisanship when
she became Speaker. Clearly she figured she would play politics and
if the whole thing went down the drain and took the economy with it,
she'd just blame that on the Republicans too.

If you want to see what she actually said, here it is. Ask yourself
if this is the speach of a patriotic American leader in a time of
crisis or a rabble rousing partisan bitch:

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html


Blaming Pelosi is idiotic ... neither party wants "blame" for voting
either way (shades of WMD)
There probably aren't three people in Congress who really understand the
ramifications of
what they are to vote on, but the overnight markets are making it pretty
clear. The idiots
who spent ten years sniffing out semen stains on blue dresses are the
ones who brought
this mess...........I don't want a moralistic moron in the White House.
Or the other house.

clipped






I'll let others decide who doesn't know what they are talking
about. A refinance generally means that the original mortgage is
paid off by the new lender, who then holds the new mortgage. In this
case, your proposal for the govt to refinance them, means the govt
would pay off the loan and become the new mortgage holder. Paying
off the original lender most certainly lets them off the hook.




In a normal refi, the first lender gets cash. In this deal, uncle has
none.......uncle is just another
investment bank. Money is leaving the stock markets. US money is going
to T securities.
During the depression, China was starving. They ain't no more. Be sure
and pick up some
nice, cheap rations made in China next time you shop at Walmart; gonna
need 'em.

On Sep 30, 8:10*am, Norminn wrote:
clipped







BTW, for a look at a real class act, take a look at the speach Speaker
Pelosi gave in the House yesterday just before the vote on the
bailout. * *After everyone from both parties tried to put together a
plan that could get passed and thought they just barely had the votes,
Pelosi gave a vitriolic paritsan speach on the floor of the House,
blaiming the whole sub-prime situation on Bush and the Repulicans.
This from the woman who proclaimed a new era of bi-partisanship when
she became Speaker. * *Clearly she figured she would play politics and
if the whole thing went down the drain and took the economy with it,
she'd just blame that on the Republicans too.

If you want to see what she actually said, here it is. *Ask yourself
if this is the speach of a patriotic American leader in a time of
crisis or a rabble rousing partisan bitch:

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/184803.html

Blaming Pelosi is idiotic ... neither party wants "blame" for voting
either way (shades of WMD)
There probably aren't three people in Congress who really understand the
ramifications of
what they are to vote on, but the overnight markets are making it pretty
clear. *The idiots
who spent ten years sniffing out semen stains on blue dresses are the
ones who brought
this mess...........I don't want a moralistic moron in the White House. *
Or the other house.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


So, do you think the speach Pelosi made is appropriate for a patriotic
American leader in a time of national crisis? yes or no?

On Sep 30, 8:20*am, Norminn wrote:
clipped



I'll let others decide who doesn't know what they are talking
about. * *A refinance generally means that the original mortgage is
paid off by the new lender, who then holds the new mortgage. *In this
case, your proposal for the govt to refinance them, means the govt
would pay off the loan and become the new mortgage holder. * Paying
off the original lender most certainly lets them off the hook.

In a normal refi, the first lender gets cash. *In this deal, uncle has
none.......uncle is just another
investment bank. *

Exactly which deal are you referring too? Under the propsed bailout,
the US govt would buy the sub-prime problem loans from insitutions at
a deep discount. Under Puddin's proposal, which is the discussion
above, he proposed that the govt refinance the mortgages. In either
case, clearly "uncle", ie the govt has money available.



Money is leaving the stock markets. *US money is going
to T securities.
During the depression, China was starving. *They ain't no more. *Be sure
and pick up some
nice, cheap rations made in China next time you shop at Walmart; gonna
need 'em.

If there is another depression, I assure you China will not escape, as
the effects will be worldwide. The US is their major export market
and with people unemployeed, spending down, etc, their economy will be
impacted.

In article ,
Norminn wrote:


Blaming Pelosi is idiotic ... neither party wants "blame" for voting
either way (shades of WMD)
She did not exactly cover herself in statesman-like glory. Most
people know that the time to excoriate and blame is AFTER the votes are
safely counted, not before. Doubt it really made any difference in the
vote itself, but it might cause hard feeling for round 2.
Interesting that almost the same %age of GOP-types voted FOR the
package as Dem types voting AGAINST it. Bipartisan outlook on both sides
of the question.


There probably aren't three people in Congress who really understand the
ramifications of
what they are to vote on, but the overnight markets are making it pretty
clear.

Yep. Trended down, got oversold in the new environment and then
started going back up. Futures in the US are looking up. Just like no
tree ever grows to the sky, no stock market falls to zero.

Kurt Ullman wrote:


Blaming Pelosi is idiotic ... neither party wants "blame" for voting
either way (shades of WMD)
She did not exactly cover herself in statesman-like glory. Most
people know that the time to excoriate and blame is AFTER the votes
are safely counted, not before. Doubt it really made any difference
in the vote itself, but it might cause hard feeling for round 2.

Right. The rule is "Don't gloat before the vote."

And her speech probably made a difference.

I suspect the back-channel conversations went thusly:

1. Many congress-critters had constituent action running 400-1 against the
bail-out. In order to vote FOR the proposal, they had to have political
cover.
2. Some Republicans, seeking this cover, go to their leader and say: "I'll
vote "AYE" if I can be assured the vote won't be used against me by my
Democratic opponent."
3. Bonier (the GOP leader) goes to Pelosi and says: "I can give you an
additional 12-20 votes if I have your word you'll tamp down any criticism of
the vote by your Democratic candidates." Pelosi probably agrees. Bonier goes
back to the members and says "I have the word of the Speaker."
4. Then the speech. The speech leads several GOP members to significantly
distrust the "word" of the Speaker not to politicize the vote and decide to
vote they way their constituents want.

It's time for the panic-monger chicken littles of the world to
apologize