Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
![]() |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 .. |
#2
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#3
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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... |
#4
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#8
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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." |
#10
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 - |
#11
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#12
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#13
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#14
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#15
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#16
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#17
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#18
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#19
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#21
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#22
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#23
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 ddl@danlan.*com |
#24
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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! |
#25
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article , ddl@danlan.*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 ddl@danlan.*com |
#26
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
#27
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#28
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#29
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#30
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#31
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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 |
#32
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 30, 2:12*am, "SteveB" toquerville@zionvistas 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 |
#33
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#34
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#35
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#36
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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? |
#37
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#38
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#39
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#40
![]()
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It's time for the panic-monger chicken littles of the world to
apologize |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bailout (politics) | Woodworking | |||
OT-US Gold reserve to back wallstreet bailout | Metalworking | |||
OT---mortgage bailout | Metalworking | |||
OT - Politics | Woodworking | |||
Some politics | UK diy |