Math on the bailout doesn't add up...
Jitney
estimate. There are about 100 million households in the USA, assuming
10% are in default or foreclosure, which I think is a high estimate,
subtracting rentals from the 100 million (if you can refute me from a
credible authority, I would love to be corrected). Ten million divided
into 700 billion works out to $700,000 per distressed property, which
should on the average buy out each property twice. What is happening
to the rest? I think this is a massive raid on the US treasury, with a
threat of a Great Depression if we don't pay up, and that isn't even
counting AIG, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns.
Wall Street is stealing more than the Huns that raided the Roman
Empire, with similar results. And this is not the end. Congress forked
over 25 Billion to the automakers, the airlines are next, and who
then? Ben and Jerries? We are looking at a new Dark Ages.
Al Bundy
Nope, your math is indeed faulty. $700B/10M is $70,000.
If you have 10 million properties in default, it doesn't matter
whether they are rentals or not. Somebody owns them and may have a
mortgage.
Also, how about commercial properties that can be valued in the
millions?
I think this is way beyond your comprehension. Just bend over and
enjoy.
Dave
"Jitney" <jtno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1e130727-4846-4f76...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> It is hard to find statistics on the mortgage crisis, so I'm making an
> estimate. There are about 100 million households in the USA, assuming
> 10% are in default or foreclosure, which I think is a high estimate,
> subtracting rentals from the 100 million (if you can refute me from a
> credible authority, I would love to be corrected). Ten million divided
> into 700 billion works out to $700,000 per distressed property, which
> should on the average buy out each property twice. What is happening
> to the rest?
OK, what you are missing is this... banks don't just make money by
underwriting mortgages. Some bad mortgages were made, but some bad
INVESTMENTS were made, also. The distressed banks are in trouble due to
mis-management of corporate funds. PART of that mis-management (5%?,
maybe?) was in the form of certain mortgages that never should have been
under-written. This isn't a mortgage crisis, that is just one symptom. It
is a corporate crisis, where certain banks are in trouble, and some of them
happen to hold mortgage notes which may or may not ever get paid off.
> I think this is a massive raid on the US treasury, with a
> threat of a Great Depression if we don't pay up,
The Great Depression will look like a cakewalk compared to the impending
financial collapse of the U.S.
> and that isn't even
> counting AIG, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns.
> Wall Street is stealing more than the Huns that raided the Roman
> Empire, with similar results. And this is not the end. Congress forked
> over 25 Billion to the automakers, the airlines are next, and who
> then? Ben and Jerries? We are looking at a new Dark Ages.
Nawwwww... we'll just get sold to Iran for about $25,000. -Dave
nada
They didn't have the money. They didn't even have a fraction to back
the loans. The share holders should sue the stocking off them except
they knew the game and thought they could make money where there was none.
They are going to print or at least put some decimal points on the
computers suggesting money. The value of everything we own will take a
dump along with the dollar. A ten dollar hamburger will be a bargain.
The people that made all this happen skate while we try to pay of a
10,000,000,000,000.00+ debt.
This is government of by and for unregulated global business. Aren't
they terrific economists? Are they this stupid? Is globalism not just
about raiding our wealth?
Is anyone building a new rope factory?
Curly Surmudgeon
Dunno, I much prefer Madame Guillotine:
http://www.stewwebb.com/guillotine_symbol_of_tyranny.htm
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't Be Frightened, Bush Lied
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Curly Surmudgeon
7.0^11 / 1.0^8 == 7.0^3 or $7,000.00 not $700,000.00. Still, a lot of
money (and a crime to steal from the middle class) but not as large as you
may have thought.
Curly Surmudgeon
Your figure is wrong too.
Why mischaracterize his opinion, it does your argument no benefit...
nospam
for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a direct result of their
relentless pursuit of deregulation.
These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
Gunner Asch
Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the
regulations both in 2003 and in 2005
In both cases the Democrats blocked them totally.
Seems the monsters in the DNC want a welfare state where everyone is
under the control of the government
"Obama, raises taxes and kills babies. Sarah Palin - raises babies
and kills taxes." Pyotr Flipivich
Jim
>
> Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration, apologizing
> for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a direct result of their
> relentless pursuit of deregulation.
so then, you'd hope for how the most evil thing on
earth would protect you from the other evils of this earth.
>
> These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
evil works with evil to bring about more evil. the destruction
is the result of how evil can for the short term be made to appear
appealing, desirable and good to behold.
hey, you want a bite of this fruit, it will give you knowledge. <g>
Jim
> nospam wrote:
>
> >Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration, apologizing
> >for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a direct result of their
> >relentless pursuit of deregulation.
> >
> >These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
> >
>
> Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the
> regulations both in 2003 and in 2005
>
> In both cases the Democrats blocked them totally.
>
> Seems the monsters in the DNC want a welfare state where everyone is
> under the control of the government
exactly how does that make them different from other governments of men?
Ann
> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:29:32 -0700, "nospam" <a@b.c> wrote:
>
>>Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration, apologizing
>>for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a direct result of
>>their relentless pursuit of deregulation.
>>
>>These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
>>
>>
> Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the regulations
> both in 2003 and in 2005
The records show that the Republicans had control of both the Senate and
House through the end of 2004. Bush made the request that Congress give
Treasury oversight in 2003.
Elmo
You're focusing too narrowly. The problem isn't the mortgages alone,
it's all of the "derivatives" which have been used to "create value"
and "manage risk". Over half of the GDP of the USA comes from counting
each link in the chain as Tom sells something to Dick who turns around
and sells it to Harry who breaks it into pieces and sells shares of it
to Louise and Louise buys a credit default swap from Thelma. It's a
lot like the Dutch tulip mania except that there is precious little
of actual, material value underneath it. And of course almost all of
it has been done with borrowed money -- sometimes as little as 1% of the
"value" being provided in the form of recognizable assets.
Even those assets are suspect since so much of the concept of "value"
for equity shares has come to be estimated based on declared earnings
which are all too easy to manipulate as the current quarter comes to
a close and the bonus calculations and stock options start to come
out.
--
More fundamentally, however, policymakers must acknowledge
and begin to address the fact that the federal budget is
itself suffering from the same over-reliance on debt and
lack of transparency that doomed the institutions they are
now rushing to rescue. If they fail to do so, the eventual
and inevitable consequences for the economy are no less stark.
Jim
well put Elmo. sadly though most if not the vast majority
have 0% understanding for what you just explained.
the real and tangible GDP relates to manufacturing. the country
with the in country manufacturing has the wealth. the government
of a country with manufacturing has a real and taxable infrastructure
allowing that government of said country to collect real and usable
revenues.
if the workers had simply learned their place in the overall scheme
of things and not attempted to exploit those with investment capital
then america just might still be the number one country with the most
jobs in manufacturing of real and durable goods.
but some worker bees got together and attempted to reverse the roles
of who exploits who. funny how those with investment capital smiled
and waved bye, then simply moved on to a new location were hungry
people [worker bees] were eager to be employed / [exploited].
Elmo
Their _place_? Y'all need to study the history of anthracite mining
in Pennsylvania. That song "16 Tons" wasn't made up because the workers
were getting fair treatment by the mine owners.
> but some worker bees got together and attempted to reverse the roles
> of who exploits who. funny how those with investment capital smiled
> and waved bye, then simply moved on to a new location were hungry
> people [worker bees] were eager to be employed / [exploited].
The corporations who did that would have had a much harder time if they
hadn't bought laws that gave them ridiculous tax breaks for doing so.
--
No patriarchal institution has acquired greater legal
entitlement than has the giant corporation. When We
the People try to eliminate the corporation's power
over us, we are told we're taking away their "rights."
And indeed, legislative and judicial establishments
have given corporations a legal claim to such authority.
Rod Speed
Oh bullshit. You cant ignore the massive building boom.
> And of course almost all of it has been done with borrowed money
Thats been true of almost all building for the best part of a century now.
That didnt produce the sub prime fiasco up till now.
> -- sometimes as little as 1% of the "value" being provided in the form of recognizable assets.
That is a bare faced pig ignorant lie with the building boom.
> Even those assets are suspect since so much of the concept of "value"
> for equity shares has come to be estimated based on declared earnings
> which are all too easy to manipulate as the current quarter comes to
> a close and the bonus calculations and stock options start to come out.
Pity about the building boom that happened after the .com fiasco.
Gil Faver
> Pity about the building boom that happened after the .com fiasco.
Question: will the next two fiascos be credit card debt and alternative
energy or alternative energy and credit card debt (i.e. which will implode
first)?
Rod Speed
Wrong with any modern first and second world economy.
They have always been about a hell of a lot more than JUST manufacturing.
> the country with the in country manufacturing has the wealth.
We have gone a LONG way past that for a hell of a long time now.
> the government of a country with manufacturing has a real and taxable infrastructure
> allowing that government of said country to collect real and usable revenues.
And that in spades.
> if the workers had simply learned their place in the overall scheme
> of things and not attempted to exploit those with investment capital
> then america just might still be the number one country with the
> most jobs in manufacturing of real and durable goods.
That was never going to be possible once living standards
in the US had greatly exceeded those in places like China.
The only thing that stopped low end manufacture moving to China
much earlier was their stupid experiment with communism.
> but some worker bees got together and attempted to reverse the roles
> of who exploits who. funny how those with investment capital smiled
> and waved bye, then simply moved on to a new location were hungry
> people [worker bees] were eager to be employed / [exploited].
And that was absolutely inevitable once the living standards
of 'workers' in the US had improved so dramatically.
Rod Speed
More bullshit. They had nothing to do with what happened, and the proof
of that is that every other modern first and second world country that didnt
have those tax breaks also saw their manufacturing exported to China.
rlbell...@gmail.com
No. Sadly, real and tangible wealth does not exist. Manufacturing
constitutes real and tangible wealth only when there are markets for
those manufactured goods. Even gold does not constitute real and
tangible wealth, in the absence of a minimally functional economy.
Cattle do represent tangible wealth (everybody has to eat), but we
have progressed beyond merely being eaters.
Wealth provides three things Power, Security, Comfort. The US has an
excess of power, a sufficiency security, and easily achievable
comfort. Americans have not been satisfied with mere comfort and
graduated to excessive, conspicuous consumption, even to the point of
living well beyond their means.
A real problem is that as long as easy credit is the rule, a truly
wealthy country is indistinguishable from a heavily indebted country,
as the best indicator of how wealthy a country is is how much money is
flowing. The more money that circulates, or the faster that money
circulates, the wealthier a nation is.
>
> if the workers had simply learned their place in the overall scheme
> of things and not attempted to exploit those with investment capital
> then america just might still be the number one country with the most
> jobs in manufacturing of real and durable goods.
Wrong. America's wealth correlates with what Henry Ford was forced to
do to keep skilled and trained machinists working on his assembly
line-- pay his workers enough money to buy his cars, which they did.
By selling hundreds, instead of tens, he was able to capitalise on
economies of scale and make cars inexpensive enough for everyone to
buy his cars, so he could sell them by the tens of thousands.
The proper place of a worker in a wealthy country is as a consumer. A
worker without enough money to consume more than food is wasted
potential wealth of the nation. The overreaching of the unions that
you seem to be railing against is not that the workers do not know
their place, but that the workers need a healthy, competitive
employer, before they can demand improved wages, but many unions
demanded continually improving benefits
>
> but some worker bees got together and attempted to reverse the roles
> of who exploits who. funny how those with investment capital smiled
> and waved bye, then simply moved on to a new location were hungry
> people [worker bees] were eager to be employed / [exploited].
It would have happened, anyways. The cost of living in those
countries was lower than in the US, so a worker needed less money to
be just as happy as an american. Call center people were never
unionised, but their jobs flew away to India as soon as telephone
costs tipped the balance.
Rod Speed
Neither, essentially because neither are setup so that a fiasco is possible.
Gil Faver
"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6kcd24F...@mid.individual.net...
Well, the dot com boom went bust, and so will the alternative energy boom.
there will be a lot of money thrown at weaker and weaker companies and
concepts.
Credit Card debt is through the roof.
William Souden
rates do not affect a leech like you.
>
Rod Speed
>> Gil Faver <rowdy'sb...@xxyz.com> wrote
>>>> Pity about the building boom that happened after the .com fiasco.
>>> Question: will the next two fiascos be credit card debt and alternative energy or alternative energy and credit card
>>> debt (i.e. which will implode first)?
>> Neither, essentially because neither are setup so that a fiasco is possible.
> Well, the dot com boom went bust,
Yep, but no one is actually stupid enough to believe that either
alternative energy or credit cards will ever be anything like that.
> and so will the alternative energy boom.
There is a hell of a lot more to a fiasco than just that.
> there will be a lot of money thrown at weaker and weaker companies and concepts.
Nope, not now that there is fuck all money floating around.
Even you should have noticed that operations like Lehmans that once
had a hell of a lot of money has lost the vast bulk of it just lately.
> Credit Card debt is through the roof.
Sure, but that cant produce a fiasco like the .com fiasco or the
sub prime fiasco because it cant be leveraged like they were.
You cant even do derivatives on credit card debt.
Gunner Asch
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:35:32 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:29:32 -0700, "nospam" <a@b.c> wrote:
>>
>>>Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration, apologizing
>>>for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a direct result of
>>>their relentless pursuit of deregulation.
>>>
>>>These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
>>>
>>>
>> Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the regulations
>> both in 2003 and in 2005
>
>The records show that the Republicans had control of both the Senate and
>House through the end of 2004. Bush made the request that Congress give
>Treasury oversight in 2003.
>
Odd..the Democrats control both the House and Senate since 2006. Yet
they did nothing. So are they to blame?
"Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, Worldcom and other early
2000's scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton
era, the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.
Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to F&F. Dems
opposed them especially Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who now run
Congress' key banking panels. History is utterly clear about this.
After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 of
the "systemic risk" posed by F&F, Congress held hearings the next
year. But nothing was done. Why? F&F had donated millions to key
congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would
take place.
"We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage
our credit and interest risks" Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former
Clinton official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to
investors in 1999.
In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide
$2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million
families." It made F&F take part in the biggest federal expansion of
housing aid EVER.
Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton
recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposd what the New York Times
called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing
finance industry since the S&L crisis a decade ago."
The plan included a new regulator for F&F, one that could boost
capital mandates and look at how they managed risk. Even after
regulators in 2003 uncovered a scheme by F&F executives to overstate
earnings by $10.6 billion to boost bonuses, Dems killed reform.
"F&F are not facing any kind of financial crisis" said Barney Frank,
then-ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. North
carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of "weakening
the bargain power of poorer families and their ability to get
affordable housing."
In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: "We are
placing the total financial system of the future at substanial risk."
That year, Sen. John McCain, one of the three sponsors of a F&F reform
bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will
continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that F&F pose to the
housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a
whole."
Sen. Harry Reid--now Majority Leader--accused the GOP of trying to
"cripple the ability of F&F to carry out their mission of expanding
home ownership."
THE BILL WENT NOWHERE!!
This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about
this being a "Republican" disaster. McCain has repeatedly called for
reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned
Congress. Some GOP members are complicit but F&F were created by Dems,
regulated by Dems, largely run by Dems and protected by Dems.
That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion." Terry
Jones
Michael Coburn
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is the typical horseshit of "trickle down" rich bitch thievery to
which the Republicans have _ALWAYS_ subscribed. The lie is that the rich
people are necessary to a functioning economy in that they provide the
"capital" (a total distortion of the word) that allows businesses to be
built and that these businesses (all of which are very large) "create
jobs". The reality is that work needs to be done regardless of whether
there is a some rich bitch or not.
But the "financial industry" is a fine example of a lot of "jobs" that
_ARE_ created by the idle rich and a fine example of work that doesn't
need doing and which would not need doing if the rich were not constantly
blowing speculative bubbles to further enrich themselves.
The total collapse of all the derivatives will hurt only those who were a
part of the big casino in the sky. And the sooner that house of betting
slips implodes, the sooner a REAL financial sector can take over and the
sooner REAL investments can take place.
As posited by the "Elmo" the government can do what Roosevelt did and
simply refinance the current mortgages that are in default (at the
current value of the houses) on a 50 year mortgage for a fraction of what
is currently being GIVEN to the Wall Street weasels and the tax paying
public will not lose much at all (if anything). The Financial Sector
will take a HUGE hit as it should and most of the Financial sector will
be history (as it should be). People who have all (or even most) of
their retirement/pension funds invested in Financials will be harmed, but
their other investments should perform much better without the current
bloodsuckers.
We do not need to increase the interest rates paid on loans to _REAL_
commercial enterprises or the interest paid on the CURRENT value of
homes. What we need is the destruction of the current fake "Financial
Sector" so that a real "Financial Sector" can be reborn.
Michael Coburn
Why would you as a virus a question?
And the "alternative energy" sector of the economy is not going to do
anything but grow. Much more inflation is on the way and the price of
foreign oil as measured in dollars is going up and up. Offshore drilling
is a distraction and a means by which the Republicans can get campaign
funds by _GIVING_OUR_ oil to the multinational oil companies.
The Credit card debt is going to be a huge problem and should be a huge
problem. Now that people can no longer use the House as a meas to pay
off the credit cards then they are in deep trouble.
Gil Faver
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:gbrcf...@news6.newsguy.com...
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:35:50 +0000, Gil Faver wrote:
>
>>> Pity about the building boom that happened after the .com fiasco.
>>
>> Question: will the next two fiascos be credit card debt and alternative
>> energy or alternative energy and credit card debt (i.e. which will
>> implode first)?
>
> Why would you as a virus a question?
>
> And the "alternative energy" sector of the economy is not going to do
> anything but grow.
until it implodes. It is the next "bucket of money" opportunity. There
will be excess money thrown at the sector, and dubious companies and
alternatives will come crashing down. The truly worthy companies and
alternatives will come through and prosper (eventually), but there will be
vast excesses. Watch for it.
Ann
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:34:40 -0400, Ann <nntp...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:35:32 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:29:32 -0700, "nospam" <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration,
>>>>apologizing for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a
>>>>direct result of their relentless pursuit of deregulation.
>>>>
>>>>These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the
>>> regulations both in 2003 and in 2005
>>
>>The records show that the Republicans had control of both the Senate and
>>House through the end of 2004. Bush made the request that Congress give
>>Treasury oversight in 2003.
>>
> Odd..the Democrats control both the House and Senate since 2006. Yet they
> did nothing. So are they to blame?
Nothing odd about it. Yes, the Democrats are partly at fault. Although,
realistically, a bill passed in 2007 (assuming Bush had signed it) would
have been unlikely to prevent the melt-down. The horse was not only out
of the barn; it was miles away.
<...>
DB
...
First:
Now, there is a term call 'performing debt'. It is debt that 'can' be
paid off because of the value of underlying assets that are worth
maintaining. Much of the debt you see above is non performing,
especially so going into the future. I don't have the total debt to GDP
for 1929, but as I recall it was somewhere around 270%.
Now, total debt, less entitlements, (there is a biggy), for the U.S. is
pushing $60 trillion. Easily $20-$30 trillion more than a healthy system
can maintain. The big danger is that as bad debt gets written down
monetary deflation ensues. Deflation is what choked the economy of the
30s. Now, here is the plan:
<http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021121/default.htm>
It is exactly what this is all about. They will pass this bill. But the
underlying problem gets fixed through hyperinflation.
Game over......
Michael Coburn
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:34:40 -0400, Ann <nntp...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:35:32 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:29:32 -0700, "nospam" <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration,
>>>>apologizing for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a
>>>>direct result of their relentless pursuit of deregulation.
>>>>
>>>>These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the
>>> regulations both in 2003 and in 2005
>>
>>The records show that the Republicans had control of both the Senate and
>>House through the end of 2004. Bush made the request that Congress give
>>Treasury oversight in 2003.
>>
>>
> Odd..the Democrats control both the House and Senate since 2006. Yet
> they did nothing. So are they to blame?
>
>
> "Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, Worldcom and other early
> 2000's scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton era,
> the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.
The Republicans were indeed responsible for the Tech Stock bubble and the
Housing bubble.
The Bubbles:
IN 1997 the Gingrich Congress passed the "Taxpayer Relief Act" as a
totally veto proof bill. Clinton could no more veto this Republican tax
cut than he could have turned back the tide. The vote in the House was
3xx to < 50 and in the Senate it was 90 to 8 (or close to it). No veto
of that bill was possible. It was a Republican bill all the way. That
tax code adjustment allowed people to cash out of their homes (a
retirement vehicle for most Americans) and to use the TAX FREE capital
gains for speculative purposes in the highly touted tech stocks and, at
the sam3e time to use a new home as a speculative vehicle.. And the
gains from such gambling ("investment") would be taxed at a mere 15%.
Prior to this speculation enabling bill homeowners could move from one
home to another with no tax penalty and could then take a one time
exemption at retirement (empty nest). But the new rules allowed the
American to use the money from the house to gamble in both real estate
and in the stock market.
Prior to this Republican tax cut, Clinton in 1995 attempted to veto a
bill passed by the Republicans that prevented small stockholders from
suing the management of tech companies for lying about "forward looking"
estimates of profits. That Republican bill was heavily lobbied by the
tech sector.
http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/News/clinton.htm ----------------------
On December 20, 1995, President Clinton vetoed the Public Securities
Litigation Reform Act, which would have restricted lawsuits against
corporation accused of securities fraud. In his veto message, Clinton
presciently noted that while he supported the notion of reducing
frivolous lawsuits: "I am not, however, willing to sign legislation that
will have the effect of closing the courthouse door on investors who have
legitimate claims. Those who are the victims of fraud should have
recourse in our courts. Our markets are as strong and effective as they
are because they operate -- and are seen to operate -- with integrity. I
believe that this bill, as modified in conference, could erode this
crucial basis of our markets' strength." The GOP Congress overrode
Clinton's veto.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
> Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to F&F. Dems opposed
> them especially Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who now run Congress' key
> banking panels. History is utterly clear about this.
>
> After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 of the
> "systemic risk" posed by F&F, Congress held hearings the next year. But
> nothing was done. Why? F&F had donated millions to key congressmen and
> radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.
John the Con, McCain who presented a bill for altering the oversight of
Fannie Mae had simply seen an opportunity in the Firing of then CEO
Raines (A Clinton administration person) to move Fannie Mae much more
into the private sector and away from oversight by the OFHEO which had
cited accounting discrepancies at Fannie that resulted in the firing.
A classic case of ab-using a scandal to move the oversight to Republican
control.
> "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our
> credit and interest risks" Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton
> official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to investors in 1999.
Raines is __NOT__ an adviser to Obama, never was, and has told the Faux
News liars so in no uncertain terms. Yet the Lying Pigs will not leave
it alone. Obama's campaign people did contact Raines to ask about what
happened in 2004 when Raines was ousted as CEO of Fannie Mae.
> In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4
> trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families."
> It made F&F take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid
> EVER.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/
AR2008060902626_2.html ---------------------------------
In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing
market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more
popular. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers
with low "teaser" interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications.
HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for
loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted
without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie
adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.
That year, Freddie bought $18.6 billion in subprime loans; Fannie did not
disclose its number.
In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime
loans.
"Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and
African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and
resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern,"
an agency report said.
ad_icon
But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's
purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure
rates also were rising.
That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing
goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C.
Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged
behind even the private market and "must do more."
For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by
subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still,
their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.
"That was a huge, huge mistake," said Patricia McCoy, who teaches
securities law at the University of Connecticut. "That just pumped more
capital into a very unregulated market that has turned out to be a
disaster."
In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they
purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought
$169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20
percent. Generally, Freddie purchased more than Fannie and relied more
heavily on the securities to meet goals.
"The market knew we needed those loans," said Sharon McHale, a
spokeswoman for Freddie Mac. The higher goals "forced us to go into that
market to serve the targeted populations that HUD wanted us to serve,"
she said.
The US government could buy out every loan in the minority neighborhoods
for approximately $200B and the taxpayers wouldn't lose a dime. The
Republicans are making a mountain out of a molehill because they have
nothing else. The Republicans have been in control of the Congress since
1995 and as George Bush took the Oval office in 2001 they have been in
control of the entire government since 2000 and they have done nothing
blown bubbles:
To insinuate that this rat turd is the cause of the current financial
meltdown is quite typical of the Republicans. This is a "nit" in the
current meltdown, but what else do the deregulating moronic Republicans
have? This is it, and they must dress it up and put as much lipstick on
it as possible. Most certainly the nonsense surrounding the "Community
Reinvestment Act" is an absurdity when we actually look at the minuscule
number of failed mortgages that were inside the boundaries where this act
was of any import. The US government could BUY OUT every one of these for
a pittance.
The attempt to alter the oversight of Fannie Mae in 2005 passed the House
in a vote of 39x to 2x and then was hijacked by the Republican Senate with
its own version. The Republican Senate attempted to weaken government
oversight by placing Fannie and Freddie further into the private sector
having it looked after in the same way as Federal Reserve that has failed
miserably since the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 has "looked after"
the banking sector in general. Those who wish to read the actual bill
that was sponsored in the Senate by John the Con, McCain will see that it
attempted to move Fannie and Freddie out from under the eye of the Office
of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) or to rename OFHEO. This
was the same OFHEO that had found "accounting discrepancies" at Fannie Mae
and replaced Franklin Raines (CEO and X Clinton man) with an individual
more acceptable to the deregulating Republicans. The reality was that the
Republicans thought they had found an opportunity to promote more
Republican control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Reality versus Republican pig manure:
The reality is that Frennie Mae's acceptance of less than stellar
mortgages was an attempt to support George Bush's version of a Lyndon
Johnson "Great Society" referred to as "The Ownership Society". The Bush
initiative for home ownership was the kingpin of the Republican fake
economy built on government debt and propped up by even more private
sector debt. Whereas government debt is actually fiat money (a fact)
then, to the moron Republicans and their pet neoclassical moronic
economists, private sector debt must also be good. Surely you understand
that "deficits don't matter". And while the complicit actions of the Fed
in lax oversight of the banks was seminal to the overall bubble blowing
fake economy, the centerpiece that allowed tax cuts for the rich and
concurrent imperialism the "American Dream Downpayment Act".
Lets take a look at who was running this ship since 2000:
http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20020618_housinginitiative.htm ----
Published: June 18, 2002
NAR, NAHB Endorse White House, HUD Minority Housing Initiative by Realty
Times Staff
The National Association of Realtors praised President George W. Bush and
Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez for their commitment
to increasing minority homeownership opportunities and pledged its full
support for the White House minority homeownership initiative announced
yesterday. Regional Vice President Bob McMillan of Decatur, Ala.,
represented NAR -- one of about a dozen partners in this public-private
initiative -- at this morning's announcement ceremony at St. Paul AME
Church in Atlanta.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_92843512 -----
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 15, 2002
The National Association of Realtors(R) announced today that it has made a
pledge to the White House to help meet the President's challenge to
increase the number of minority homeowners in America by 5.5 million
before the end of the decade.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031015-10.html For
Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
October 15, 2003
President Calls on Senate to Pass American Dream Downpayment Act Remarks
by the President on Housing and the Economy
----------------------------------------------------------
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
December 16, 2003
President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 Remarks by the
President at Signing of the American Dream Downpayment Act Department of
Housing and Urban Development Washington, D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5246/is_200403/ai_n19793121 --
Mortgage Banking, March, 2004 :
FANNIE MAE HAS ANNOUNCED A PLEDGE to help 6 million families--including
1.8 million minority families--become first-time homeowners over the next
decade. The pledge boosts the company's commitment to President Bush's
Minority Homeownership Initiative and will help raise the minority
homeownership rate from 50.6 percent currently to 55 percent, with the
ultimate goal of closing the gap between minority homeownership rates and
nonminority homeownership rates.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
But the reason you don't see garbage about the role played by Fannie Mae
anywhere but on Faux News is that it just isn't newsworthy. It is
because it is right wing crap that is almost irrelevant.
Yup. Raines is currently a supposed crook that mis-stated the financial
position of Fannie so as to gain a windfall from bonuses. But that has
little or nothing to do with any of the _*current*_ problems in the
economy or even with the current problems at Fannie. The problems at
Fannie that stem from the "Community Reinvestment act" pale in
significance to the problems resulting from the "Bush Home Ownership
Initiative" and the "American Dream Downpayment Act". And those problems
in turn are minuscule compared to the bubble created by normal middle
class people attempting to create capital gains by speculating in the
price of homes. These Republicans have had total control of HUD since
January of 2001. Bill Clinton is history and if the economy was in
jeopardy due to a Clinton failure in 1999 or a Carter failure of 1977 they
had the power and the time to get it fixed. But they didn't get anything
fixed and instead fanned the flames of speculation. And the Bush home
ownership initiatives were simply a part of the lying fascist pig
Republican war party economics of debt.
Rod Speed
>> Gil Faver wrote
>>>> Pity about the building boom that happened after the .com fiasco.
>>> Question: will the next two fiascos be credit card debt and
>>> alternative energy or alternative energy and credit card debt (i.e.
>>> which will implode first)?
>> And the "alternative energy" sector of the economy is not going to do anything but grow.
We'll see...
Taint gunna grow if we end up with another great depression or worse.
> until it implodes. It is the next "bucket of money" opportunity.
Not if we end up with another great depression or worse.
> There will be excess money thrown at the sector,
There wont be any excess money to throw. Havent you noticed the massive
cost of the bailout of Fanny, Freddy, AIG even without the $700B bailout ?
> and dubious companies and alternatives will come crashing down.
That will happen regardless if we end up with another great depression or worse.
> The truly worthy companies and alternatives will come through and prosper (eventually), but there will be vast
> excesses. Watch for it.
Bet there wont. In spades if we end up with another great depression or worse.
The .com and sub prime fiascos were partly the result of lots of money with nowhere to go,
particularly after the .com fiasco turned so many off the stockmarket and into the housing market.
They wont have the surplus cash this time with nowhere to put it.
In spades if we end up with another great depression or worse.
They will mostly put that into stuff like gold instead if we end up with another great depression or worse.
Gunner Asch
You seem to have missed the references to the bills in 2003 and 2005,
both blocked by the Demonrats.
Interesting you failed to address those. Ill bet you had a reason
however, no?
And snipping the entirety of the rebuttal to the Leftists claim its
Bush's and the Republicans fault...really is indicative.
Gunner
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:28:37 -0400, Ann <nntp...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:22:16 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:34:40 -0400, Ann <nntp...@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:35:32 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:29:32 -0700, "nospam" <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration,
>>>>>>apologizing for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a
>>>>>>direct result of their relentless pursuit of deregulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the
>>>>> regulations both in 2003 and in 2005
>>>>
>>>>The records show that the Republicans had control of both the Senate
>>>>and House through the end of 2004. Bush made the request that Congress
>>>>give Treasury oversight in 2003.
>>>>
>>> Odd..the Democrats control both the House and Senate since 2006. Yet
>>> they did nothing. So are they to blame?
>>
>>Nothing odd about it. Yes, the Democrats are partly at fault. Although,
>>realistically, a bill passed in 2007 (assuming Bush had signed it) would
>>have been unlikely to prevent the melt-down. The horse was not only out
>>of the barn; it was miles away.
>>
>><...>
> You seem to have missed the references to the bills in 2003 and 2005, both
> blocked by the Demonrats.
And you seem to have missed, ignored, this response upstream:
Subject: Re: Math on the bailout doesn't add up...
From: Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net>
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.rural,misc.consumers.frugal-living,sci.energy,misc.survivalism
Date: 29 Sep 2008 20:59:12 GMT
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:22:16 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:34:40 -0400, Ann <nntp...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:35:32 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:29:32 -0700, "nospam" <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration,
>>>>apologizing for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a
>>>>direct result of their relentless pursuit of deregulation.
>>>>
>>>>These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the
>>> regulations both in 2003 and in 2005
>>
>>The records show that the Republicans had control of both the Senate and
>>House through the end of 2004. Bush made the request that Congress give
>>Treasury oversight in 2003.
>>
>>
> Odd..the Democrats control both the House and Senate since 2006. Yet
> they did nothing. So are they to blame?
>
>
> "Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, Worldcom and other early
> 2000's scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton era,
> the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.
The Republicans were indeed responsible for the Tech Stock bubble and the
Housing bubble.
The Bubbles:
> Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to F&F. Dems opposed
> them especially Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who now run Congress' key
> banking panels. History is utterly clear about this.
>
> After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 of the
> "systemic risk" posed by F&F, Congress held hearings the next year. But
> nothing was done. Why? F&F had donated millions to key congressmen and
> radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.
John the Con, McCain who presented a bill for altering the oversight of
Fannie Mae had simply seen an opportunity in the Firing of then CEO Raines
(A Clinton administration person) to move Fannie Mae much more into the
private sector and away from oversight by the OFHEO which had cited
accounting discrepancies at Fannie that resulted in the firing. A classic
case of ab-using a scandal to move the oversight to Republican control.
> "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our
> credit and interest risks" Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton
> official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to investors in 1999.
Raines is __NOT__ an adviser to Obama, never was, and has told the Faux
News liars so in no uncertain terms. Yet the Lying Pigs will not leave it
alone. Obama's campaign people did contact Raines to ask about what
happened in 2004 when Raines was ousted as CEO of Fannie Mae.
> In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4
> trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families."
> It made F&F take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid
> EVER.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/
> Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton
The US government could buy out every loan in the minority neighborhoods
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_92843512 -----
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 15, 2002
> Interesting you failed to address those. Ill bet you had a reason
> however, no?
Interesting that you ignored Michael Coburn's patient rebuttal to your
evasions and lies by misdirection.
> And snipping the entirety of the rebuttal to the Leftists claim its
> Bush's and the Republicans fault...really is indicative.
Which you do regularly when the facts do not fit your reality bubble.
> Gunner
Dumber than his cannon.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't Be Frightened, Bush Lied
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
Ann
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:28:37 -0400, Ann <nntp...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:22:16 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:34:40 -0400, Ann <nntp...@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:35:32 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:29:32 -0700, "nospam" <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration,
>>>>>>apologizing for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a
>>>>>>direct result of their relentless pursuit of deregulation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the
>>>>> regulations both in 2003 and in 2005
>>>>
>>>>The records show that the Republicans had control of both the Senate
>>>>and House through the end of 2004. Bush made the request that Congress
>>>>give Treasury oversight in 2003.
>>>>
>>> Odd..the Democrats control both the House and Senate since 2006. Yet
>>> they did nothing. So are they to blame?
>>
>>Nothing odd about it. Yes, the Democrats are partly at fault. Although,
>>realistically, a bill passed in 2007 (assuming Bush had signed it) would
>>have been unlikely to prevent the melt-down. The horse was not only out
>>of the barn; it was miles away.
>>
>><...>
> You seem to have missed the references to the bills in 2003 and 2005, both
> blocked by the Demonrats.
Already covered (scroll up).
> Interesting you failed to address those. Ill bet you had a reason
> however, no?
Already covered (scroll up).
> And snipping the entirety of the rebuttal to the Leftists claim its Bush's
> and the Republicans fault...really is indicative.
Indicative of its irrelevance. I never made the claim that it was
entirely "Bush's and the Republicans fault" so there was nothing to rebut.
Jim
"Michael Coburn" <mik...@verizon.net> wrote
> The Republicans were indeed responsible for the Tech Stock bubble and the
Just because they made it =possible= for people to be fools and act on their
stupid ideas, doesn't make it their fault...
Curly Surmudgeon
Now, just watch the Bushbots yell, "It's Clinton's Fault!"
Nor is it just Bush and his administration but every Republican and
Democrat who voted for his programs.
Gunner Asch
say..Congress has been controlled by Democrats for nearly 2 yrs. So
why havnt they dont anything?
I see Pelosi shit herself just before the big vote today...with her
foot stamping partisan attack speech.
Got exactly what she didnt want, and did deserve, a vote against the
bailout.
Sucks to be her eh?
Jim
in the real world the worker gets the crumbs from the day old crackers
left open on the table over night. as long as it remains that way
management is all happy with their position in the overall scheme of
things.
but if the worker bitches and attempts to gain access to a whole
fresh cracker then management reacts with say, something like NAFT...
>
> > but some worker bees got together and attempted to reverse the roles
> > of who exploits who. funny how those with investment capital smiled
> > and waved bye, then simply moved on to a new location were hungry
> > people [worker bees] were eager to be employed / [exploited].
>
> The corporations who did that would have had a much harder time if they
> hadn't bought laws that gave them ridiculous tax breaks for doing so.
to me your choice of the word "bought" reveals you are one with your
eyes wide open and one who understands what they see. when you have
a government of men/flesh/greed then "bought" is exactly how it functions..
best 2U Elmo,
Jim :)
Jim
> Rod Speed wrote:
> > Elmo wrote:
> >> Jim wrote:
> >>> Elmo wrote:
> >>>> Jitney wrote:
[....]
> >
> > More bullshit. They had nothing to do with what happened, and the proof
> > of that is that every other modern first and second world country that didnt
> > have those tax breaks also saw their manufacturing exported to China.
> >
>
> Why would you care? Welfare recipient can not be outsourced and tax
> rates do not affect a leech like you.
"Welfare recipient can not be outsourced"
LMAO - while cleaning coffee from my keyboard.
from a memory of long ago. a co-worker once told the
boss, "you can't fire me, slaves have to be sold."
<g>
Jim
> Jim wrote:
> > Elmo wrote:
> >> Jitney wrote:
> >> > It is hard to find statistics on the mortgage crisis, so I'm making
> >> > an estimate. There are about 100 million households in the USA,
> >> > assuming 10% are in default or foreclosure, which I think is a high
> >> > estimate, subtracting rentals from the 100 million (if you can refute
> >> > me from a credible authority, I would love to be corrected). Ten
> >> > million divided into 700 billion works out to $700,000 per distressed
> >> > property, which should on the average buy out each property twice.
> >> > What is happening to the rest? I think this is a massive raid on the
> >> > US treasury, with a threat of a Great Depression if we don't pay up,
> >> > and that isn't even counting AIG, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Freddie
> >> > Mac, and Bear Stearns. Wall Street is stealing more than the Huns
> >> > that raided the Roman Empire, with similar results. And this is not
> >> > the end. Congress forked over 25 Billion to the automakers, the
> >> > airlines are next, and who then? Ben and Jerries? We are looking at a
> >> > new Dark Ages.
> >>
> >> You're focusing too narrowly. The problem isn't the mortgages alone,
> >> it's all of the "derivatives" which have been used to "create value"
> >> and "manage risk". Over half of the GDP of the USA comes from counting
> >> each link in the chain as Tom sells something to Dick who turns around
> >> and sells it to Harry who breaks it into pieces and sells shares of it
> >> to Louise and Louise buys a credit default swap from Thelma. It's a
> >> lot like the Dutch tulip mania except that there is precious little of
> >> actual, material value underneath it. And of course almost all of it
> >> has been done with borrowed money -- sometimes as little as 1% of the
> >> "value" being provided in the form of recognizable assets.
> >>
> >> Even those assets are suspect since so much of the concept of "value"
> >> for equity shares has come to be estimated based on declared earnings
> >> which are all too easy to manipulate as the current quarter comes to a
> >> close and the bonus calculations and stock options start to come out.
> >
> > well put Elmo. sadly though most if not the vast majority have 0%
> > understanding for what you just explained.
> >
> > the real and tangible GDP relates to manufacturing. the country with
> > the in country manufacturing has the wealth. the government of a
> > country with manufacturing has a real and taxable infrastructure
> > allowing that government of said country to collect real and usable
> > revenues.
> >
> > if the workers had simply learned their place in the overall scheme of
> > things and not attempted to exploit those with investment capital then
> > america just might still be the number one country with the most jobs in
> > manufacturing of real and durable goods.
> >
> > but some worker bees got together and attempted to reverse the roles of
> > who exploits who. funny how those with investment capital smiled and
> > waved bye, then simply moved on to a new location were hungry people
> > [worker bees] were eager to be employed / [exploited].
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
from your posting header
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
do you really pay $19.95 to gain access to usenet?
>
> This is the typical horseshit of "trickle down" rich bitch thievery to
> which the Republicans have _ALWAYS_ subscribed. The lie is that the rich
> people are necessary to a functioning economy in that they provide the
> "capital" (a total distortion of the word) that allows businesses to be
> built and that these businesses (all of which are very large) "create
> jobs". The reality is that work needs to be done regardless of whether
> there is a some rich bitch or not.
>
> But the "financial industry" is a fine example of a lot of "jobs" that
> _ARE_ created by the idle rich and a fine example of work that doesn't
> need doing and which would not need doing if the rich were not constantly
> blowing speculative bubbles to further enrich themselves.
the two above paragraphs you wrote pretty much demonstrate how you
do not truly understand where [real and tangible] investment capital
reside.
>
> The total collapse of all the derivatives will hurt only those who were a
> part of the big casino in the sky. And the sooner that house of betting
> slips implodes, the sooner a REAL financial sector can take over and the
> sooner REAL investments can take place.
without real and tangible investment capital then all there is
left is a "casino in the sky". and now it's time for that imaginary
"casino in the sky" to crash. a return to the sound business practices
of you can buy today what you can pay for today would do wonders as a
cure all for the concept of got to have it now and maybe it'll get paid
for tomorrow way of life americans are addicted to.
>
[....]
Truly Stunned
Yes, it does. It is called "Giving them license".
Jitney
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:22:16 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:35:32 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
Thanks for all the replies, I've learned a lot from both sides. I'm
suggesting my right wing friends vote for Bob Barr, Libertarian, the
best choice after Ron Paul. To my leftist friends, I recommend Ralph
Nader. Watching the debate, I was less impressed by the differences
than by the similarities between the repiblicrats and demipubs..
ObamaCain is not the answer, it is the same $hit sandwich we've gotten
from both sides for years.-Jitney
Ann
Already covered (scroll up).
>
> I see Pelosi shit herself just before the big vote today...with her foot
> stamping partisan attack speech.
>
> Got exactly what she didnt want, and did deserve, a vote against the
> bailout.
>
> Sucks to be her eh?
Why? She delivered the number of Democratic "yea" votes she committed to;
it was the House Republicans who broke ranks and whose "yea" votes fell
short.
The way controversial votes in an election year usually go is that
the most vulnerable members of a party get a "bye" if their votes aren't
needed to pass/reject a bill. That is, they get to vote in the way that
gives them the best chance at reelection. So, who it really sucks to be is
Roy Blunt and John Buchner. Ten Republicans they expected to vote for
the bill voted against it instead.
Jitney
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:14:54 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:11:18 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>
> >>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:22:16 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>
> >>>>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:35:32 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dave
>
> from your posting header
> Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
>
> do you really pay $19.95 to gain access to usenet?
>
Pretty soon we all will, or we won't have usenet.
I was a newsguy customer a long time ago. From memory, they had two
plans....one was text only, and extremely cheap. The other was binaries
also, and was about 20 per month. -Dave
Ann
Altopia.com is still in business and still has a $6/mo account.
Jim
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > from your posting header
> > Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
> >
> > do you really pay $19.95 to gain access to usenet?
> >
>
> Pretty soon we all will, or we won't have usenet.
no, usenet is a subset of the internet. after accessing the
internet you can noodle around a bit and then access usenet.
>
> I was a newsguy customer a long time ago. From memory, they had two
> plans....one was text only, and extremely cheap. The other was binaries
> also, and was about 20 per month. -Dave
if his header had stated unlimited internet, I'd not have questioned it.
Michael Coburn
Nope.
>
>> This is the typical horseshit of "trickle down" rich bitch thievery to
>> which the Republicans have _ALWAYS_ subscribed. The lie is that the
>> rich people are necessary to a functioning economy in that they provide
>> the "capital" (a total distortion of the word) that allows businesses
>> to be built and that these businesses (all of which are very large)
>> "create jobs". The reality is that work needs to be done regardless of
>> whether there is a some rich bitch or not.
>>
>> But the "financial industry" is a fine example of a lot of "jobs" that
>> _ARE_ created by the idle rich and a fine example of work that doesn't
>> need doing and which would not need doing if the rich were not
>> constantly blowing speculative bubbles to further enrich themselves.
>
> the two above paragraphs you wrote pretty much demonstrate how you do
> not truly understand where [real and tangible] investment capital
> reside.
And you are now demonstrating that you are clueless. Maybe we could
start your education by you telling the rest of us what you think
"investment capital" might be.
>> The total collapse of all the derivatives will hurt only those who were
>> a part of the big casino in the sky. And the sooner that house of
>> betting slips implodes, the sooner a REAL financial sector can take
>> over and the sooner REAL investments can take place.
>
> without real and tangible investment capital then all there is left is a
> "casino in the sky". and now it's time for that imaginary "casino in
> the sky" to crash. a return to the sound business practices of you can
> buy today what you can pay for today would do wonders as a cure all for
> the concept of got to have it now and maybe it'll get paid for tomorrow
> way of life americans are addicted to.
There is a very real need for credit in a properly functioning economy.
But in most cases it has next to nothing to do with saved up money or
clearing balances or big piles of gold. The concept of a "down payment"
is of much benefit. But even that can be too restrictive. Proper
regulation is a trade for better liquidity.
Michael Coburn
> Dave wrote:
>>
>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> >
>> > from your posting header
>> > Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
>> >
>> > do you really pay $19.95 to gain access to usenet?
>> >
>> >
>> Pretty soon we all will, or we won't have usenet.
>
> no, usenet is a subset of the internet. after accessing the internet
> you can noodle around a bit and then access usenet.
Some of us have little time for noodling.
Gunner Asch
>>
>> Got exactly what she didnt want, and did deserve, a vote against the
>> bailout.
>>
>> Sucks to be her eh?
>
>Why? She delivered the number of Democratic "yea" votes she committed to;
>it was the House Republicans who broke ranks and whose "yea" votes fell
>short.
Oddly enough...60% of the Democrats voted against it
Seems that both sides had people who voted their consience against hte
bail out, which is frankly surprising for democrats
Bob Brock
<gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:22:23 -0400, Ann <nntp...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Got exactly what she didnt want, and did deserve, a vote against the
>>> bailout.
>>>
>>> Sucks to be her eh?
>>
>>Why? She delivered the number of Democratic "yea" votes she committed to;
>>it was the House Republicans who broke ranks and whose "yea" votes fell
>>short.
>
>
>Oddly enough...60% of the Democrats voted against it
>
>Seems that both sides had people who voted their consience against hte
>bail out, which is frankly surprising for democrats
Well, it was a fix proposed by the Republicans after all. Why would
it suprise you that a majority of the Democrats didn't support it?
Curly Surmudgeon
Been with you to this point but here we differ. Strongly. "a properly
functioning market" is so abstract to make it meaningless. Some people
believe that no markets functions "properly" on credit.
> But in most cases it has next to nothing to do with saved up money or
> clearing balances or big piles of gold. The concept of a "down payment"
> is of much benefit. But even that can be too restrictive. Proper
> regulation is a trade for better liquidity.
And cash on the barrel head is even better.
I do not see a failure of credit markets as a bad thing. More like a
reality check with a 2x4. If you cannot finance your business out of
pocket or growth then you've leveraged your affairs for profit at the risk
of foreclosure.
This is what the Wall Street Tycoons did, they leveraged their companies
based upon falsely valued, repackaged, loan agreements. When the loans
went belly-up Wall Street was too exposed, or too leveraged, to fund their
gambles.
In the real world that's called "tough shit, sherlock." Banks, S&L's,
Mortgage houses alike gambled then took borrowers equity and homes when
they couldn't pay. I feel absolutely no pity for the loan sharks that now
have their own tit in a wringer.
In fact I think it's Karma.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now Playing!!! Pirates of the Economy
with GW Bush, John McCain and Barak Obama
Curly Surmudgeon
You noodle??? What's the biggest catfish you've grabbed? That is one
insane sport that I refused to try after watching. In-law of a buddy
grabbed a 60 lb catfish that took him to the bottom for way too long.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:22:23 -0400, Ann <nntp...@epix.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Got exactly what she didnt want, and did deserve, a vote against the
>>> bailout.
>>>
>>> Sucks to be her eh?
>>
>>Why? She delivered the number of Democratic "yea" votes she committed
>>to; it was the House Republicans who broke ranks and whose "yea" votes
>>fell short.
>
>
> Oddly enough...60% of the Democrats voted against it
>
> Seems that both sides had people who voted their consience against hte
> bail out, which is frankly surprising for democrats
>
> Gunner
Are you finally admitting that your sneering comments, in various forms,
about the economy being just peachy were horribly wrong?
robert bowman
> The way controversial votes in an election year usually go is that
> the most vulnerable members of a party get a "bye" if their votes aren't
> needed to pass/reject a bill. That is, they get to vote in the way that
> gives them the best chance at reelection.
In other words, they gull their constituents by voting in a way consistent
with their constituents wishes, and after being elected can go back to
voting the party line?
Rob Dekker
"Jitney" <jtno...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1e130727-4846-4f76...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> It is hard to find statistics on the mortgage crisis, so I'm making an
> estimate. There are about 100 million households in the USA, assuming
> 10% are in default or foreclosure, which I think is a high estimate,
> subtracting rentals from the 100 million (if you can refute me from a
> credible authority, I would love to be corrected). Ten million divided
> into 700 billion works out to $700,000 per distressed property, which
> should on the average buy out each property twice. What is happening
> to the rest? I think this is a massive raid on the US treasury, with a
> threat of a Great Depression if we don't pay up, and that isn't even
> counting AIG, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns.
> Wall Street is stealing more than the Huns that raided the Roman
> Empire, with similar results. And this is not the end. Congress forked
> over 25 Billion to the automakers, the airlines are next, and who
> then? Ben and Jerries? We are looking at a new Dark Ages.
$700 billion / 10 million = $70,000.
But it seems that there IS something fishy going on.
First of all, housing prices are now back to where they were 3 years ago, so only sub-prime mortgages closed in the last 3 years
would be in 'debt' at this point.
The peak of home prices was some 20% higher then where they are now, and average US home was around $300,000 at the peak (if I
recall correctly), so we talking about maximum debt of about 20%of $300,000 is $60,000. This number is definitely on the high side,
since it assumes that everyone bought at the peak of the housing prices (in 2006). The actual average debt will thus be lower than
that, probably around $30,000.
Second, does anyone know how many of these sub-prime mortgages was issued ? And what was the total dollar amount ?
In 2007, 'only' 1.7 million homes were up for forclosure.
In 2006, is was in the range of 400,000.
So we are talking about (so far) at most about 2 million properties.
So it seems that 'so far', there cannot be much more than about $60 billion in debts.
It seems to me that even from that amount, many people will not want to go to bankruptcy, and will find ways to actuall pay off at
least a part of this debt.
So the 'bad debt' must be even lower...
So what is going on with this $800 billion ?
I'm confused.
Rob
strabo
You mean after the original mortgage contracts - which as you suggest
can be paid off for less then $100B?
It falls in the category of bribery, payoffs and theft. Congress and
top flight financial mismanagement does not come cheap.
But $750B is just a down payment. The sum of the various forms of
derivatives being charged to Americans range between 5 and 80 trillion
dollars!
> Rob
>
>
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Rob Dekker
"strabo" <str...@flashlight.net> wrote in message news:1222823347_3197@isp.n...
I agree. The $60 billion in real debt is actual money lost (by the financial institutions).
Since they operate in a $12 trillion dollar mortgage market, I'd say let them carry that burden.
If they can't even manage a $60 billion real debt on a $12 trillion portfolio, and their fellow financial institutions do not want
to bail them out, then let them default, and hang their managers and money makers by their balls, sue them in court, take their
personal assets and throw them in jail for the rest of their life. The real-estate that they got back goes back to the government.
No bail out for these guys.
> But $750B is just a down payment. The sum of the various forms of
> derivatives being charged to Americans range between 5 and 80 trillion
> dollars!
>
Sure, but we don't need to fix all investments !
Most of the economic livelihood of capitalism is the free flow of money through investments.
That means people that borrow money pay interest and people that lend money receive it.
When you invest (for example when you write someone a mortgage) then you ballance the risk against the return.
The sub-prime mortgage was a very stupid investment, since they went out for 1% or so.
There are not that many investments that are THAT stupid.
Besides that, if a financial institution does an investment with someone's money but the risk of that investment is inappropriate
for the investor's risk appetite, the this is actually a crime. So I think that sub-prime mortgage writing is actually a crime under
current law.
We have not seen the last of this...
Michael Coburn
And some people believe leeches to be beneficial to healing.
>> But in most cases it has next to nothing to do with saved up money or
>> clearing balances or big piles of gold. The concept of a "down
>> payment" is of much benefit. But even that can be too restrictive.
>> Proper regulation is a trade for better liquidity.
>
> And cash on the barrel head is even better.
>
> I do not see a failure of credit markets as a bad thing. More like a
> reality check with a 2x4. If you cannot finance your business out of
> pocket or growth then you've leveraged your affairs for profit at the
> risk of foreclosure.
>
> This is what the Wall Street Tycoons did, they leveraged their companies
> based upon falsely valued, repackaged, loan agreements. When the loans
> went belly-up Wall Street was too exposed, or too leveraged, to fund
> their gambles.
>
> In the real world that's called "tough shit, sherlock." Banks, S&L's,
> Mortgage houses alike gambled then took borrowers equity and homes when
> they couldn't pay. I feel absolutely no pity for the loan sharks that
> now have their own tit in a wringer.
>
> In fact I think it's Karma.
http://GreaterVoice.org/Credit.php
Why do you think I disagree with this tirade against leverage and
derivatives? I don't disagree at all. The prices of homes could not be
supported on the actual money in the economy. The prices were fictitious
and based on money that did not exist and at present wages (velocity of
money) can not exist. The Financial Weenies were playing with "Monopoly
Money" or the sort of fake poker chips that you use in a tournament. Now
they want the American people to cash them out of their closed door poker
tournament with REAL money. All of the bad loans can be made good by
letting the Financial weenies settle their tournament among themselves.
And don't be fooled: This has nothing to do with most commercial banks
and deposit institutions and to whatever extent it does then the
REPUBLICAN repeal of Glass-Steagall is to blame for the most of this. The
Gramm-Leach_Bliley act was not an act that could have been vetoed by
Clinton. It passed the House 362 to 57 and the Senate 90 to 8. Clinton
could no more have vetoed the repeal of Glass-Steagall than he could have
turned back the tides.
Curly Surmudgeon
I'm sorry if it came across that way. If you reread the posting you'll
notice that I didn't aim it at you but as a general rant. I'm getting
pretty sick of the Bush Terror campaign trying to scare people shitless so
they'll submit to his alternative.
> I don't disagree at all. The prices of homes could not be
> supported on the actual money in the economy. The prices were
> fictitious and based on money that did not exist and at present wages
> (velocity of money) can not exist. The Financial Weenies were playing
> with "Monopoly Money" or the sort of fake poker chips that you use in a
> tournament. Now they want the American people to cash them out of their
> closed door poker tournament with REAL money. All of the bad loans can
> be made good by letting the Financial weenies settle their tournament
> among themselves. And don't be fooled: This has nothing to do with most
> commercial banks and deposit institutions and to whatever extent it does
> then the REPUBLICAN repeal of Glass-Steagall is to blame for the most of
> this. The Gramm-Leach_Bliley act was not an act that could have been
> vetoed by Clinton. It passed the House 362 to 57 and the Senate 90 to
> 8. Clinton could no more have vetoed the repeal of Glass-Steagall than
> he could have turned back the tides.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
No argument.
Don't be scared, Bush lied. The sky will not fall if we refuse to give
$700,000,000,000.00 to Wall Street and Banks. Let the gamblers face the
consequences of their risks. Sure, the economy will oscillate for a while
but will acquire stability faster than throwing tax dollars at the tycoons
and thereby proping up artificially inflated values.
Again, I'm not accusing you of anything.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$700,000,000,000.00 Not no but "HELL NO!"
Curly Surmudgeon
From: Curly Surmudgeon <curlysu...@live.com>
Newsgroups: misc.consumers,misc.rural,misc.consumers.frugal-living,sci.energy,misc.survivalism
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 22:07:44 -0700
I'm sorry if it came across that way. If you reread the posting you'll
notice that I didn't aim it at you but as a general rant. I'm getting
pretty sick of the Bush Terror campaign trying to scare people shitless so
they'll submit to his alternative.
> I don't disagree at all. The prices of homes could not be
> supported on the actual money in the economy. The prices were
> fictitious and based on money that did not exist and at present wages
> (velocity of money) can not exist. The Financial Weenies were playing
> with "Monopoly Money" or the sort of fake poker chips that you use in a
> tournament. Now they want the American people to cash them out of their
> closed door poker tournament with REAL money. All of the bad loans can
> be made good by letting the Financial weenies settle their tournament
> among themselves. And don't be fooled: This has nothing to do with most
> commercial banks and deposit institutions and to whatever extent it does
> then the REPUBLICAN repeal of Glass-Steagall is to blame for the most of
> this. The Gramm-Leach_Bliley act was not an act that could have been
> vetoed by Clinton. It passed the House 362 to 57 and the Senate 90 to
> 8. Clinton could no more have vetoed the repeal of Glass-Steagall than
> he could have turned back the tides.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
No argument.
Don't be scared, Bush lied. The sky will not fall if we refuse to give
$700,000,000,000.00 to Wall Street and Banks. Let the gamblers face the
consequences of their risks. Sure, the economy will oscillate for a while
but will acquire stability faster than throwing tax dollars at the tycoons
and thereby proping up artificially inflated values.
Again, I'm not accusing you of anything.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$700,000,000,000.00 Not no but "HELL NO!"
clams_casino
>
>Don't be scared, Bush lied. The sky will not fall if we refuse to give
>$700,000,000,000.00 to Wall Street and Banks. Let the gamblers face the
>consequences of their risks. Sure, the economy will oscillate for a while
>
>
just another 5 - 10 years - no big deal
AL
> Don't be scared, Bush lied. The sky will not fall if we refuse to give
> $700,000,000,000.00 to Wall Street and Banks. Let the gamblers face the
> consequences of their risks. Sure, the economy will oscillate for a while
> but will acquire stability faster than throwing tax dollars at the tycoons
> and thereby proping up artificially inflated values.
Funny how all the indignant liberals went on a tirade about how Bush
lied about Iraq and how much money is being wasted there, but now that
they have the chance to pile their wish lists ($600B+) on top of yet
another ($700B) lie, they're voting in favor... Ain't politics great?
I'm definitely feeling the effects of the market right now but I'm
willing to tough out djia of 9000 to see the rot purged from the system
and hopefully find solid footing again in a few years.
AL
Michael Coburn
This Republican ploy is going to work well. Many, so call, Democrats
posing as "representatives" in the House are going to find themselves in
the streets and out of office over this. That _IS_ the play, and it
seems to be working.
AL
> AL wrote:
>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
A political party clever enough to Pied Piper all those democrats over
the cliff is definitely a force to be reckon with! And all those
liberals called Bush stupid...
I'm betting you're up on all the current conspiracy theories aren't you?
AL
Curly Surmudgeon
> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>
>> Don't be scared, Bush lied. The sky will not fall if we refuse to give
>> $700,000,000,000.00 to Wall Street and Banks. Let the gamblers face the
>> consequences of their risks. Sure, the economy will oscillate for a
>> while but will acquire stability faster than throwing tax dollars at the
>> tycoons and thereby proping up artificially inflated values.
>
>
> Funny how all the indignant liberals went on a tirade about how Bush lied
> about Iraq and how much money is being wasted there, but now that they
> have the chance to pile their wish lists ($600B+) on top of yet another
> ($700B) lie, they're voting in favor... Ain't politics great?
I agree with the content but be careful bandying about "liberal". This
disaster has been caused by neocon liberals, socially conservative and
economically liberal. The street definition is socially liberal and
economically liberal which is not the major factor in this disaster.
Two other variations exist, economically conservative / socially liberal
which incompasses most of us. Finally economically conservative /
social conservative which is often the religious wackos who were deluded
into supporting the neocon social conservativism but turned a blind eye to
the downside, economically liberal half.
> I'm definitely feeling the effects of the market right now but I'm
> willing to tough out djia of 9000 to see the rot purged from the system
> and hopefully find solid footing again in a few years.
>
>
> AL
That's the wise course of action. There is no guarantee that throwing all
this money at the current problem will stop a djia decline. In my opinion
bailing out Wall Street Tycoons and New York Banks will only encourage
them to take more risky actions requiring a further bail out. In for a
penny, in for a dime. Once bailed out politicians won't be able to say no
a second time as too much was invested. And the culprits face no
consequences for their gambling.
Curly Surmudgeon
If revolutionists don't hunt them out, sure. But if this boondoggle fails
I'm afraid that societal disintegration may result with a lot of pissed
off survivalists going big game hunting.
clams_casino
>
>
> Funny how all the indignant liberals went on a tirade about how Bush
> lied about Iraq and how much money is being wasted there, but now that
> they have the chance to pile their wish lists ($600B+) on top of yet
> another ($700B) lie, they're voting in favor... Ain't politics great?
Actually, it's the GW right wing supporters that have turned against
him. Ain't politics great?
Hmm - $1T into a war with no benefits - cheered by the right. 4000+
American lives lost, a stronger Iran, more worldwide terrorist cells
and the 9/11 terrorists still run free.
$1T lost in the stock market with no benefits. Nothing to show for it.
27% of the US still have a favorable opinion about GW's leadership.
$700M proposal to buy up loans to stabilize a rapidly deteriorating
economy, offset by assets that have a potential to offset the loans -
The far right and far left wings join forces to bring on Hooverville.
Ain't politics great.
Curly Surmudgeon
Sarcasm aside, it could easily be 5 years to stabilize if we resolve the
problem now by allowing the New York Bankers and Wall Street to suffer the
consequences of their gambling. Or it could be decades, like the Great
Depression, if we subsidize their past gambling debts.
John R. Carroll
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:31:51 -0400, clams_casino wrote:
>
>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Don't be scared, Bush lied. The sky will not fall if we refuse to
>>> give $700,000,000,000.00 to Wall Street and Banks. Let the
>>> gamblers face the consequences of their risks. Sure, the economy
>>> will oscillate for a while
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> just another 5 - 10 years - no big deal
>
> Sarcasm aside, it could easily be 5 years to stabilize if we resolve
> the problem now by allowing the New York Bankers and Wall Street to
> suffer the consequences of their gambling. Or it could be decades,
> like the Great Depression, if we subsidize their past gambling debts.
Not really, but it could be a lot like Japan if we don't.
--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
clams_casino
>On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:31:51 -0400, clams_casino wrote:
>
>
>
>>Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Don't be scared, Bush lied. The sky will not fall if we refuse to give
>>>$700,000,000,000.00 to Wall Street and Banks. Let the gamblers face the
>>>consequences of their risks. Sure, the economy will oscillate for a
>>>while
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>just another 5 - 10 years - no big deal
>>
>>
>
>Sarcasm aside, it could easily be 5 years to stabilize if we resolve the
>problem now by allowing the New York Bankers and Wall Street to suffer the
>consequences of their gambling.
>
Firstly, there are no more investment banks.
Secondly, the rescue is an attempt to help business - especially small
businesses - to stay afloat, making payroll and holding inventory.
SoCalMike
> "Obama, raises taxes and kills babies. Sarah Palin - raises
her daughters
babies
> and kills taxes." Pyotr Flipivich
while preaching abstinence
AL
Agreed. I will be watching closely for a nice bump in the market, up to
hopefully a nice gain for my investments, then I just might pull the
plug and sit out the rest of the game. I almost did that back when the
djia was 15k - kicked myself a thousand times since for listening to my
investment "advisor".
AL
Curly Surmudgeon
I consider that a rosy scenario and believe it will be much worse if the
$700,000,000,000.00 is dedicated and proves insufficient to do the job.
At that point the both remaining options are even worse.
Japan has been suffering for what, 15 years trying to cope with bank debt?
I don't consider that a good alternative either, pretending that it
doesn't exist.
Curly Surmudgeon
> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:31:51 -0400, clams_casino wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Don't be scared, Bush lied. The sky will not fall if we refuse to give
>>>>$700,000,000,000.00 to Wall Street and Banks. Let the gamblers face
>>>>the consequences of their risks. Sure, the economy will oscillate for
>>>>a while
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>just another 5 - 10 years - no big deal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Sarcasm aside, it could easily be 5 years to stabilize if we resolve the
>>problem now by allowing the New York Bankers and Wall Street to suffer
>>the consequences of their gambling.
>>
>>
> Firstly, there are no more investment banks.
Irrelevant, the money is still going to New York Banks and Wall Street
Tycoons. Besides, a rose by any other name is still a rose.
> Secondly, the rescue is an attempt to help business - especially small
> businesses - to stay afloat, making payroll and holding inventory.
Then it fails the smell test already. The money isn't going to small
businesses but to big banks.
clams_casino
>
>
>Then it fails the smell test already. The money isn't going to small
>businesses but to big banks.
>
>
>
Banks don't need money - businesses need money.
Curly Surmudgeon
Then oppose the bailout, for it gives nothing to small businesses.
Gunner
Yes and?
Better to raise a child than murder it, right?
AL
> SoCalMike <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>> "Obama, raises taxes and kills babies. Sarah Palin - raises
>> her daughters
>> babies
>>> and kills taxes." Pyotr Flipivich
>> while preaching abstinence
> Yes and?
> Better to raise a child than murder it, right?
Maybe SoCalMike's mother would disagree...
Dean Hoffman
>
> The Republicans were indeed responsible for the Tech Stock bubble and the
> Housing bubble.
>
> The Bubbles:
>
> IN 1997 the Gingrich Congress passed the "Taxpayer Relief Act" as a
> totally veto proof bill. Clinton could no more veto this Republican tax
> cut than he could have turned back the tide. The vote in the House was
> 3xx to < 50 and in the Senate it was 90 to 8 (or close to it). No veto
> of that bill was possible. It was a Republican bill all the way. That
> tax code adjustment allowed people to cash out of their homes (a
> retirement vehicle for most Americans) and to use the TAX FREE capital
> gains for speculative purposes in the highly touted tech stocks and, at
> the sam3e time to use a new home as a speculative vehicle.. And the
> gains from such gambling ("investment") would be taxed at a mere 15%.
> Prior to this speculation enabling bill homeowners could move from one
> home to another with no tax penalty and could then take a one time
> exemption at retirement (empty nest). But the new rules allowed the
> American to use the money from the house to gamble in both real estate
> and in the stock market.
The Act was veto proof because a lot of Senate Democrats voted for
it. The election in 1996 ended with the Reps having a 55-45 edge over
the Dems. http://tinyurl.com/4jaoyv
The Republican edge in the House was 228 to 206. There were not
enough Republicans to override a Presidential veto there either.
For the non Americans a veto override requires a 2/3 majority in
both the House and the Senate. Article 1, Section 7.
http://tinyurl.com/nzrc The Senate has 100 members, the House 435.
Dean
Bob Brock
There was no need to worry about overriding a Presidential veto when
the Republicans controlled Congress and Bush was President. Bush got
everything that he wanted and vetoed nothing.
Gunner Asch
Indeed
"Obama, raises taxes and kills babies. Sarah Palin - raises babies
Curly Surmudgeon
I seem to remember a report that said htat Bush has _never_ vetoed a
single bill sent to him. None. Not a one.
krw
curlysu...@live.com says...
I guess got his Social Security reforms through, eh?
> I seem to remember a report that said htat Bush has _never_ vetoed a
> single bill sent to him. None. Not a one.
Such stupid statements are too easy to check before making.
--
Keith
Dean Hoffman
> single bill sent to him. None. Not a one.
>
He didn't veto any until a couple years ago if this is right:
http://tinyurl.com/qffoj
He would've gone about a full term and a half without finding the
veto pen. I bet it was under the sofa cushions.
Our lying weasels didn't learn the lesson. They imposed
requirements on the lending institutions that partially lead to their
collapse. Now they have added requirements on the insurance industry.
http://tinyurl.com/5ysju6
Jim
>
[....]
> Our lying weasels didn't learn the lesson. They imposed
> requirements on the lending institutions that partially lead to their
> collapse. Now they have added requirements on the insurance industry.
> http://tinyurl.com/5ysju6
>
in a nation where God is the last place the vast majority
are going to take their problems then there is a great need
for feel good talk talk therapy.
Dean, by bringing this article to our attention were you making
fun of our yankee government or just some of their decisions?
Curly Surmudgeon
According to that link Bush did veto 12 times in 7.7 years. He also has
the highest rate of being overridden.
> Our lying weasels didn't learn the lesson. They imposed
> requirements on the lending institutions that partially lead to their
> collapse. Now they have added requirements on the insurance industry.
> http://tinyurl.com/5ysju6
> .
> Dean
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>>100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jail to the Chief
Dean Hoffman
I bet a fair amount of the lying weasels from south of the
Mason-Dixon Line voted for this. They also probably had a hand in
creating the conditions that lead to the sub prime mortgage flop and the
resulting problems we're having now.
My spell checker doesn't like the spelling of yankee. It's OK with
Yankee though. Did you hear the news? General Lee surrendered at
Appomattox.
I usually vote Libertarian if I have a chance.
Jim
> Jim wrote:
> > Dean Hoffman wrote:
> > [....]
> >> Our lying weasels didn't learn the lesson. They imposed
> >> requirements on the lending institutions that partially lead to their
> >> collapse. Now they have added requirements on the insurance industry.
> >> http://tinyurl.com/5ysju6
> >>
> >
> > in a nation where God is the last place the vast majority
> > are going to take their problems then there is a great need
> > for feel good talk talk therapy.
> >
> > Dean, by bringing this article to our attention were you making
> > fun of our yankee government or just some of their decisions?
>
> I bet a fair amount of the lying weasels from south of the
> Mason-Dixon Line voted for this. They also probably had a hand in
> creating the conditions that lead to the sub prime mortgage flop and the
> resulting problems we're having now.
> My spell checker doesn't like the spelling of yankee. It's OK with
> Yankee though.
yes, proper nouns should begin with the capitalization of
their first letter. proper nouns, that is.
> Did you hear the news? General Lee surrendered at
> Appomattox.
yep and with his surrender the occupied South was Reconstructed
back in and under the control of the yankee government. now when
representatives from the South go to washington they too become
members of the yankee government and therefore are subject to
the same terms of endearment.
you'd be correct in knowing how a good number of these Southern
scalawags were influential with their contributions towards the
enrichment of themselves at the expensive of the tax paying module.
greed of the flesh knows not regional boundaries nor ethnic
differences.
so then what was it from you Dean, making fun of [our] yankee
Michael Coburn
The bill could not be vetoed. That is a fact. That the Democrats
supported the bill and would not have supported a Clinton veto is not any
real news. The American public was hot for this tax adjustment and that
is the way of it. No competent politician is going to jump out in front
of a freight train. The bill was produced by the Gingrich Republicans
and it could _NOT_ be stopped by the Democrats. Those are the facts.
The Democrats did not create this bill and once created it was not
stoppable.
The same was the case in 1999 when the Republicans did Gramm-Leech-
Bliley. Had the Democrats been in control of the Congress this bill that
repealed Glass-Steagall would never had existed. And again, the bill was
veto proof.
SoCalMike
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:12:05 -0500, AL <lit...@hamiltoncom.net> wrote:
>
>> Gunner wrote:
>>
>>> SoCalMike <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>> "Obama, raises taxes and kills babies. Sarah Palin - raises
>>>> her daughters
>>>> babies
>>>>> and kills taxes." Pyotr Flipivich
>>
>>
>>>> while preaching abstinence
>>
>>
>>> Yes and?
>>> Better to raise a child than murder it, right?
>>
>>
>>
>> Maybe SoCalMike's mother would disagree...
>
>
> Indeed
where IS corky's birth cert, anyway? hm?
Dean Hoffman
Doesn't one lead to the other?
I'm sure glad we're helping out the poor execs of AIG:
http://tinyurl.com/3hk4fa
That site has mug shots of some of the rich and famous. It also has
some mug shots under the caption Civil Rights Heroes.
Jim
outstanding and brilliant summation.
> I'm sure glad we're helping out the poor execs of AIG:
> http://tinyurl.com/3hk4fa
well, yea. that was their plan. don't you know if rich people
lose all their money they'll jump out of a window and then could
possibly land on an innocent unsuspecting person walking below
on the 'wall' street. <g>
see, their money is all they've got and without it they are
reduced to nothing. no money, no sense of well being, no peacefulness.
rich people own the yankee government and therefore are always going
to use the yankee government to their advantage and or for their own
advancement.
Neil Jones
> It is hard to find statistics on the mortgage crisis, so I'm making an
> estimate. There are about 100 million households in the USA, assuming
> 10% are in default or foreclosure, which I think is a high estimate,
> subtracting rentals from the 100 million (if you can refute me from a
> credible authority, I would love to be corrected). Ten million divided
> into 700 billion works out to $700,000 per distressed property, which
> should on the average buy out each property twice. What is happening
> to the rest? I think this is a massive raid on the US treasury, with a
> threat of a Great Depression if we don't pay up, and that isn't even
> counting AIG, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns.
> Wall Street is stealing more than the Huns that raided the Roman
> Empire, with similar results. And this is not the end. Congress forked
> over 25 Billion to the automakers, the airlines are next, and who
> then? Ben and Jerries? We are looking at a new Dark Ages.
McCain's plan to buy back bad mortgages from owners is rewarding bad
behavior of people who could not afford those houses. If I had known
this, I would have bought a huge home and waited for McCain to come and
rescue me. Darn it.
According this McCain's plan, all normal people living within their
means are stupid and greedy behavior should be rewarded. Isn't McCain
supporting one of the christian principles in "The 7 deadly sins" which
is GREED? (I am not a christian but I like somethings in Christianity).
habshi
should be forced to give 100% of it back to the banks. The risk is now
over $53 trillion ! - guardian.co.uk- enough to bankrupt us all.
Rod Speed
> Those who sold the property to poor people at inflated prices
> should be forced to give 100% of it back to the banks.
How are you going to define 'poor people' ?
> The risk is now over $53 trillion ! - guardian.co.uk-
They never ever said that thats what only got sold to 'poor people'
> enough to bankrupt us all.
Nope, because the vast bulk of those are nothing like 'poor people'
Michael Coburn
It is a case by case basis that should recognize that there was a bubble
caused by the Wall Street Weasels and encouraged by the "We don't want no
stinkin' regulation" Republican government.
However:
You will not convince me that a person that put no money down on a
subprime loan is supposed to be "saved" by a bailout. The person will be
"inconvenienced" if forced to move to other accommodations. But the
person has been minimally harmed financially. This assumes a rewrite of
the bankruptcy code and the tax code to prevent enslavement of the home
buyers who in most cases were acting in goof faith.
Michael Coburn
That was to have been "good faith" as opposed to "goof faith".
clams_casino
> Those who sold the property to poor people at inflated prices
>should be forced to give 100% of it back to the banks.
>
>
Does that include Walmart, Coca Cola and GM?