billvon 3,006
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Quote>This has to be the all-time greatest 'hustle' ever.
It gets better.
Apparently, some of the banks don't want to take the money in the bailout because they are doing OK, so legislators are trying to make it more attractive to the non-failing banks.
So we're not just bailing out failing banks - we're also giving money to banks that are doing OK.
From WaPo:
-------------
One critical issue is whether taxpayers will simply buy up bad debt or receive some tangible assurance that they will share in the profits if the bailout works and the firms return to profitability. Several lawmakers, including Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), an influential member of the Banking Committee, are pushing for a provision that would require participating firms to grant the government warrants to purchase stock.
Sources familiar with the Treasury's thinking said warrants would limit participation in the program. Only failing banks would be willing to give the government stock in exchange for buying up their bad assets, these sources said. But key Democrats said the point was critical.
---------
After reading that, blood is squirting from my eyes! Fixing banks that aren't broken? We really do, need to 'clean house' and get rid of these guys! If, my wife and I, ran our house the way the government runs this country... I'd either be in jail or living under an over-pass. Good Lord!
Chuck
QuoteQuote>This has to be the all-time greatest 'hustle' ever.
It gets better.
Apparently, some of the banks don't want to take the money in the bailout because they are doing OK, so legislators are trying to make it more attractive to the non-failing banks.
So we're not just bailing out failing banks - we're also giving money to banks that are doing OK.
From WaPo:
-------------
One critical issue is whether taxpayers will simply buy up bad debt or receive some tangible assurance that they will share in the profits if the bailout works and the firms return to profitability. Several lawmakers, including Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), an influential member of the Banking Committee, are pushing for a provision that would require participating firms to grant the government warrants to purchase stock.
Sources familiar with the Treasury's thinking said warrants would limit participation in the program. Only failing banks would be willing to give the government stock in exchange for buying up their bad assets, these sources said. But key Democrats said the point was critical.
---------
After reading that, blood is squirting from my eyes! Fixing banks that aren't broken? We really do, need to 'clean house' and get rid of these guys! If, my wife and I, ran our house the way the government runs this country... I'd either be in jail or living under an over-pass. Good Lord!
Chuck
to many degrees and no comon sense. i guess that all the education in the world can't fix a lack of common sense or poor morality. i guess you can be book smart and stupid at the same time. (both sides have fucked up and are in the process of making it bigger, i have faith in the abilities in washington.) haha
QuoteQuoteQuote>This has to be the all-time greatest 'hustle' ever.
It gets better.
Apparently, some of the banks don't want to take the money in the bailout because they are doing OK, so legislators are trying to make it more attractive to the non-failing banks.
So we're not just bailing out failing banks - we're also giving money to banks that are doing OK.
From WaPo:
-------------
One critical issue is whether taxpayers will simply buy up bad debt or receive some tangible assurance that they will share in the profits if the bailout works and the firms return to profitability. Several lawmakers, including Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), an influential member of the Banking Committee, are pushing for a provision that would require participating firms to grant the government warrants to purchase stock.
Sources familiar with the Treasury's thinking said warrants would limit participation in the program. Only failing banks would be willing to give the government stock in exchange for buying up their bad assets, these sources said. But key Democrats said the point was critical.
---------
After reading that, blood is squirting from my eyes! Fixing banks that aren't broken? We really do, need to 'clean house' and get rid of these guys! If, my wife and I, ran our house the way the government runs this country... I'd either be in jail or living under an over-pass. Good Lord!
Chuck
to many degrees and no comon sense. i guess that all the education in the world can't fix a lack of common sense or poor morality. i guess you can be book smart and stupid at the same time. (both sides have fucked up and are in the process of making it bigger, i have faith in the abilities in washington.) haha
Greed can really screw with the best of people. I've known quite a few people with all kinds of alphabet soup after their names and they couldn't pour piss outa their own boot with the directions on the heel!
All these greedy big businesses and politicians and something like this is bound to happen.
Chuck
Was the current financial crisis Created by the Republican or Democratic Parties, or did it gradually Evolve from simpler financial life-forms in the past?
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
billvon 3,006
>to many degrees and no comon sense. i guess that all the education
>in the world can't fix a lack of common sense or poor morality.
?? There are a lot of people who made a lot of money from things like credit default swaps, just as there are people who made a lot of money from the Internet bubble of 2000 and the housing bubble of 2005. How is that a "lack of common sense" or "poor morality?"
The problem here is that the people making money were doing it RIGHT. They were playing the market and making a lot of money. Those that got out at the right time are now sitting on millions.
In almost every case, what goes up will come down, and economies are no exception. Any time you see the value of ANYTHING rocketing upwards, it's going to come rocketing downwards sometime after that.
And now the people left holding the bag are about to get the US government to write them a check for $700 billion. Would you call someone who can pull that off smart, or stupid?
>in the world can't fix a lack of common sense or poor morality.
?? There are a lot of people who made a lot of money from things like credit default swaps, just as there are people who made a lot of money from the Internet bubble of 2000 and the housing bubble of 2005. How is that a "lack of common sense" or "poor morality?"
The problem here is that the people making money were doing it RIGHT. They were playing the market and making a lot of money. Those that got out at the right time are now sitting on millions.
In almost every case, what goes up will come down, and economies are no exception. Any time you see the value of ANYTHING rocketing upwards, it's going to come rocketing downwards sometime after that.
And now the people left holding the bag are about to get the US government to write them a check for $700 billion. Would you call someone who can pull that off smart, or stupid?
i say the people are stupid if they don't make the gov hold the ones resposible that caused the mess. the fat cats that walked away knowing what they had done should be partially responsible for the cleanup. Handing one person a $700 billion check book with no oversight is stupid also. this whole mess is getting more stinking as it grows. everyone in congress is screwing this one up.
billvon 3,006
> i say the people are stupid if they don't make the gov hold the ones
>resposible that caused the mess.
That's the problem. The people who caused the mess were doing their jobs and trying to make some money. They were the fund managers who were under pressure to make more money for their clients. They were the CEO's who were doing what the shareholders wanted. They were people like you and I who chose a high-return mutual fund over a lower return one.
>the fat cats that walked away knowing what they had done should be
>partially responsible for the cleanup.
Should you be?
>Handing one person a $700 billion check book with no oversight is stupid also.
Agreed there. I hope it doesn't happen, but if it does, it better come with a LOT of oversight, controls and transparency.
>resposible that caused the mess.
That's the problem. The people who caused the mess were doing their jobs and trying to make some money. They were the fund managers who were under pressure to make more money for their clients. They were the CEO's who were doing what the shareholders wanted. They were people like you and I who chose a high-return mutual fund over a lower return one.
>the fat cats that walked away knowing what they had done should be
>partially responsible for the cleanup.
Should you be?
>Handing one person a $700 billion check book with no oversight is stupid also.
Agreed there. I hope it doesn't happen, but if it does, it better come with a LOT of oversight, controls and transparency.
Quote> i say the people are stupid if they don't make the gov hold the ones
>resposible that caused the mess.
That's the problem. The people who caused the mess were doing their jobs and trying to make some money. They were the fund managers who were under pressure to make more money for their clients. They were the CEO's who were doing what the shareholders wanted. They were people like you and I who chose a high-return mutual fund over a lower return one.
>the fat cats that walked away knowing what they had done should be
>partially responsible for the cleanup.
Should you be?
>Handing one person a $700 billion check book with no oversight is stupid also.
Agreed there. I hope it doesn't happen, but if it does, it better come with a LOT of oversight, controls and transparency.
They suckered people into believing they could afford a $250,000.00 house on $65,000.00 a year. When that big balloon payment came, they couldn't make it.
I just can't understand why, we should have to pay for their greed. That's what this is all about... greed. Also, how can the government give them money they don't have? That's right! they just print some more... Duh, me! It's not worth the paper it's printed on. It doesn't make sense. Is our government just trying to keep China or some Arab country from bailing these bastards out?
Chuck
billvon 3,006
>They suckered people into believing they could afford a $250,000.00
>house on $65,000.00 a year. When that big balloon payment came, they
>couldn't make it. I just can't understand why, we should have to pay for
>their greed.
Whose greed? The people who got the mortgage they couldn't afford, or the people who offered that mortgage?
I think that you should be able to make mistakes as a homeowner. I think that it's OK to get a mortgage that you currently can't pay, but that you believe you will be able to after you get a promotion you're expecting. I think if you're a small business you should be able to risk it all and get a big chunk of venture capital even if you are not sure your product will make it.
On the flip side, I think you have the right to fail. I think that with the right to get that big loan comes the responsibility of paying it off, or owning up to the consequences if you don't. I don't see that as a problem.
The problem comes in when we think that it's unacceptable for those loans to fail. It's sad when people lose their homes, but it was their decision to make. It is not our place to bail them out, or their lenders, or the companies that bought and sold the debt instruments that covered those loans. Even if their bad decisions clobber the economy.
> Also, how can the government give them money they don't have?
>That's right! they just print some more... Duh, me! It's not worth the paper
>it's printed on. It doesn't make sense.
Well, it sure makes sense to the people who are getting it. I don't know of anyone who didn't cash their "government stimulus" check. When the government is handing out money, it makes sense (financially) to accept it - because you can bet your bottom dollar that if you don't, your competitors will.
That, unfortunately, is capitalism. It's not a very good economic system. About the best you can say about it is that it's better than most alternatives.
>house on $65,000.00 a year. When that big balloon payment came, they
>couldn't make it. I just can't understand why, we should have to pay for
>their greed.
Whose greed? The people who got the mortgage they couldn't afford, or the people who offered that mortgage?
I think that you should be able to make mistakes as a homeowner. I think that it's OK to get a mortgage that you currently can't pay, but that you believe you will be able to after you get a promotion you're expecting. I think if you're a small business you should be able to risk it all and get a big chunk of venture capital even if you are not sure your product will make it.
On the flip side, I think you have the right to fail. I think that with the right to get that big loan comes the responsibility of paying it off, or owning up to the consequences if you don't. I don't see that as a problem.
The problem comes in when we think that it's unacceptable for those loans to fail. It's sad when people lose their homes, but it was their decision to make. It is not our place to bail them out, or their lenders, or the companies that bought and sold the debt instruments that covered those loans. Even if their bad decisions clobber the economy.
> Also, how can the government give them money they don't have?
>That's right! they just print some more... Duh, me! It's not worth the paper
>it's printed on. It doesn't make sense.
Well, it sure makes sense to the people who are getting it. I don't know of anyone who didn't cash their "government stimulus" check. When the government is handing out money, it makes sense (financially) to accept it - because you can bet your bottom dollar that if you don't, your competitors will.
That, unfortunately, is capitalism. It's not a very good economic system. About the best you can say about it is that it's better than most alternatives.
Amazon 7
QuoteWhose greed? The people who got the mortgage they couldn't afford, or the people who offered that mortgage?
It would be interesting to know from the people who worked in the business, to give us a wee little peek into how much they made in commissions and fees on each one of those bogus loans.
rushmc 23
That, unfortunately, is capitalism. It's not a very good economic system. About the best you can say about it is that it's better than most alternatives.
Wow, this is quite a statment.
While I will agree that in a capitalistic system this may happen easier, (but is that bad given that socialism and comunism are the two main alternatives) I do not agree it IS capitalism.
Samantics? Please tell me
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,006
>While I will agree that in a capitalistic system this may happen easier,
>(but is that bad given that socialism and comunism are the two main
>alternatives) I do not agree it IS capitalism.
If you can buy a debt instrument, and (in all likelihood) make money from it, then a capitalist will tend to do it, by definition. Capitalists make money and keep it. That's what they do. Telling them to not make money off instrument X because it's really mean when you do that, and it's not good manners, is an attempt to make them into more of a socialist.
Let's take your case. Let's say you have a choice between three mutual funds in your 401k. Fund A historically returns 6% a year. Fund B does 6.8% and Fund C does 7.5%. Which one will you choose, knowing only those facts?
>(but is that bad given that socialism and comunism are the two main
>alternatives) I do not agree it IS capitalism.
If you can buy a debt instrument, and (in all likelihood) make money from it, then a capitalist will tend to do it, by definition. Capitalists make money and keep it. That's what they do. Telling them to not make money off instrument X because it's really mean when you do that, and it's not good manners, is an attempt to make them into more of a socialist.
Let's take your case. Let's say you have a choice between three mutual funds in your 401k. Fund A historically returns 6% a year. Fund B does 6.8% and Fund C does 7.5%. Which one will you choose, knowing only those facts?
jcd11235 0
Quotethey couldn't pour piss outa their own boot with the directions on the heel!
I'm not going to fault anyone for reading the manual, but I can't help but think that if the jackass the printed up those instructions had printed them right side up, all that piss wouldn't have pooled in the toe of the boot while they were being read, and would instead have poured right out.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
mnealtx 0
QuoteNice try. However, the 2005 bill stalled in the GOP controlled Senate, after failing to make it's way out of the GOP controlled Banking subcommittee, chaired by GOP Senator Sarbanes.Quote
In 1999 this disaster was predicted. The Bush Admin tried to change the rules starting in 2001. The Dems stopped and blocked all attempts at change. Why?Quote
LOOK WHO GOT THE MOST MONEY FROM FREDDIE AND FANNIE. DODD AND OBAMA ARE TWO OF THE TOP THREE.
?
Did you forget about McCain campaign chair Rick Davis, who got $360,000 a year for 5 years from Fannie and Freddie to lobby against more regulations?
And the excuse SINCE the Dems took over the committee AND Congress is.... ?
Let's not forget how Obama was considering Jim Johnson (former CEO of Fannie Mae) as his VP selection choice chief - seems he didn't have problems with Freddie/Fannie OR taking their money - approximately 123k since taking office.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
QuoteQuotethey couldn't pour piss outa their own boot with the directions on the heel!
I'm not going to fault anyone for reading the manual, but I can't help but think that if the jackass the printed up those instructions had printed them right side up, all that piss wouldn't have pooled in the toe of the boot while they were being read, and would instead have poured right out.
You're probably right. Good observation.
Chuck
Quote>They suckered people into believing they could afford a $250,000.00
>house on $65,000.00 a year. When that big balloon payment came, they
>couldn't make it. I just can't understand why, we should have to pay for
>their greed.
Whose greed? The people who got the mortgage they couldn't afford, or the people who offered that mortgage?
I think that you should be able to make mistakes as a homeowner. I think that it's OK to get a mortgage that you currently can't pay, but that you believe you will be able to after you get a promotion you're expecting. I think if you're a small business you should be able to risk it all and get a big chunk of venture capital even if you are not sure your product will make it.
On the flip side, I think you have the right to fail. I think that with the right to get that big loan comes the responsibility of paying it off, or owning up to the consequences if you don't. I don't see that as a problem.
The problem comes in when we think that it's unacceptable for those loans to fail. It's sad when people lose their homes, but it was their decision to make. It is not our place to bail them out, or their lenders, or the companies that bought and sold the debt instruments that covered those loans. Even if their bad decisions clobber the economy.
> Also, how can the government give them money they don't have?
>That's right! they just print some more... Duh, me! It's not worth the paper
>it's printed on. It doesn't make sense.
Well, it sure makes sense to the people who are getting it. I don't know of anyone who didn't cash their "government stimulus" check. When the government is handing out money, it makes sense (financially) to accept it - because you can bet your bottom dollar that if you don't, your competitors will.
That, unfortunately, is capitalism. It's not a very good economic system. About the best you can say about it is that it's better than most alternatives.
In a way, I agree, people should be allowed to fail and even have a right to fail. When a potential home buyer is convinced by a loan officer that they can in fact afford a home completely out of their reach, that's totally wrong. To me, that's about the same thing as a snake-oil salesman. Those loan officers were told to 'persuade' people into those loans. People fell for it and got caught-up in a real mess. Sure, the buyers should have been more aware but, the real culprit was the loan companies. Those loan companies knew they were going to come-out on top no matter what. They've still, come-out on top.
Chuck
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteNice try. However, the 2005 bill stalled in the GOP controlled Senate, after failing to make it's way out of the GOP controlled Banking subcommittee, chaired by GOP Senator Sarbanes.Quote
In 1999 this disaster was predicted. The Bush Admin tried to change the rules starting in 2001. The Dems stopped and blocked all attempts at change. Why?Quote
LOOK WHO GOT THE MOST MONEY FROM FREDDIE AND FANNIE. DODD AND OBAMA ARE TWO OF THE TOP THREE.
?
Did you forget about McCain campaign chair Rick Davis, who got $360,000 a year for 5 years from Fannie and Freddie to lobby against more regulations?
And the excuse SINCE the Dems took over the committee AND Congress is.... ?
Let's not forget how Obama was considering Jim Johnson (former CEO of Fannie Mae) as his VP selection choice chief - seems he didn't have problems with Freddie/Fannie OR taking their money - approximately 123k since taking office.
Apparently McCain's guy Davis has been taking money until very recently and he lied about it:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092303359.html
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
It gets better.
Apparently, some of the banks don't want to take the money in the bailout because they are doing OK, so legislators are trying to make it more attractive to the non-failing banks.
So we're not just bailing out failing banks - we're also giving money to banks that are doing OK.
From WaPo:
-------------
One critical issue is whether taxpayers will simply buy up bad debt or receive some tangible assurance that they will share in the profits if the bailout works and the firms return to profitability. Several lawmakers, including Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), an influential member of the Banking Committee, are pushing for a provision that would require participating firms to grant the government warrants to purchase stock.
Sources familiar with the Treasury's thinking said warrants would limit participation in the program. Only failing banks would be willing to give the government stock in exchange for buying up their bad assets, these sources said. But key Democrats said the point was critical.
---------
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites