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?

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.

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 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.

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 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?

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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

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?

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

"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."

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