Problem partially solved,,The fed reserve bank which is not tied to the government has lear jets, big buildings lots of expensive art, tons of money ,the management people are wealthy and get big salarys should be seized by the feds and the assets sold as well as the bank acounts of the management since they are partially the cause of the problem as well as the Clinton people wanting to increase home ownership for the people who can't afford the houses in the first place. Just like the IRS seizss the belongings of the little people who work to serve the government
It was the market that cause the failures
- Thread starter Gary Allan
- Start date
- Status
A root cause was asked for earlier.
Root cause: In 1999, credit was relaxed to help get people into homes that normally could not get in. Help people get the American drean, you know. Compaaaassionate Socialism.
Then after 9/11, interest rates were brought down, waaaay downnnnn. Cheap money, easier rules, exotic financing.
The rest snowballed.
Good luck my friends...
Root cause: In 1999, credit was relaxed to help get people into homes that normally could not get in. Help people get the American drean, you know. Compaaaassionate Socialism.
Then after 9/11, interest rates were brought down, waaaay downnnnn. Cheap money, easier rules, exotic financing.
The rest snowballed.
Good luck my friends...
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The only bailout that should occur is protection of personal mortgages performed by people who are willing to WORK for their handout... nobody wants anyone to loose their house if they are willing to WORK for it.
That sounds nice but its impractical. These people can't afford their mortgage bc of various reasons. That's tough, but life sucks.
I don't care if they are working or not. Its not up to the government (me) to pay a mortgage that they can't afford.
So you and the government would adjust their mortgage based on what they are earning?? I'm retired and my expenses are too high..what can (and should) the government do for me? Maybe it can lower my light bill or send me an extra check every month so I can have some extra Wine with my cheese. Maybe get me a cheap loan so I can replace my 8 year old car.
Al,
couldnt agree with you more. Per my post in the other thread, I would be fine seeing them kicked out, still owe money (direct garnishment) and starving in the streets. I see no excuse for bad choices.
That said, there should always be a redeeming chance, if possible. Let those who cannot afford their mortgages work 96 hour weeks. I don't see that unreasonable - their full job and then an entire additional 8hr/day job... in return for a subsidy on interest or a revaluation of the mortgage, etc. Howevr it should cost them dearly, and severely screw up their idea of what they "deserved".
JMH
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
The only bailout that should occur is protection of personal mortgages performed by people who are willing to WORK for their handout... nobody wants anyone to loose their house if they are willing to WORK for it.
That sounds nice but its impractical. These people can't afford their mortgage bc of various reasons. That's tough, but life sucks.
I don't care if they are working or not. Its not up to the government (me) to pay a mortgage that they can't afford.
So you and the government would adjust their mortgage based on what they are earning?? I'm retired and my expenses are too high..what can (and should) the government do for me? Maybe it can lower my light bill or send me an extra check every month so I can have some extra Wine with my cheese. Maybe get me a cheap loan so I can replace my 8 year old car.
Al,
couldnt agree with you more. Per my post in the other thread, I would be fine seeing them kicked out, still owe money (direct garnishment) and starving in the streets. I see no excuse for bad choices.
That said, there should always be a redeeming chance, if possible. Let those who cannot afford their mortgages work 96 hour weeks. I don't see that unreasonable - their full job and then an entire additional 8hr/day job... in return for a subsidy on interest or a revaluation of the mortgage, etc. Howevr it should cost them dearly, and severely screw up their idea of what they "deserved".
JMH
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Win
The bailout could be done so as to make money for the taxpayers. Wall Street is broke and has no bargaining power. The screws should be put to them, and put to them hard. They understand that - they do it to each other and everybody else as often and as hard as possible. That's capitalism.
It won't happen that way, unfortunately.
The rush to get the bailout done means business as usual. The assets sold to the Feds will be overvalued to minimize further credit defaults at the selling institutions. The Fed will not have the political guts to kick the people in the assets that won't pay to the gutter. A whole new expensive problem will be created bailing out the people that the Community Reinvestment Act put in property, that shouldn't have been. The Fed can't manage this stuff. They will either have to create a new bureacracy to do it or hire (who else?) the buffoons that
created the mess to manage and sell the assets, for a fee, of course. The Fed's demand for absolute discretion in implementing all of this probably means no meaningful criminal prosecutions will ever occur.
The more I ponder this, the more I would rather take the hit now, and be done with it. Letting the people that caused it go out of business WILL fix the problem. A bailout will probably just postpone the final day of reckoning.
Bankruptcy court is the best place to resolve this. Fed to Wall Street: FO. Reinstate short selling immediately. Wall Street's innate greed and death binge of profit taking will drive the weaklings into bankruptcy within days, if not hours. Their assets can be liquidated and sold at auction. Bankruptcy courts do this all the time, they're pretty good at it. The stock market will take a hit, it won't go to zero. Money markets will take a hit, they won't go to zero. Real Estate prices will take a hit for a while. A lot of new property will be available for cheap, a good opportunity for investment.
The world won't collapse, it will just go on. People will have to save more and use credit less, banks will pay decent interest to get deposits to loan back out. Life will return to mostly normal.
Excellent post. The last sentence is absolutely true so long as people have some life-blood left; and the world will go on.
JMH
The bailout could be done so as to make money for the taxpayers. Wall Street is broke and has no bargaining power. The screws should be put to them, and put to them hard. They understand that - they do it to each other and everybody else as often and as hard as possible. That's capitalism.
It won't happen that way, unfortunately.
The rush to get the bailout done means business as usual. The assets sold to the Feds will be overvalued to minimize further credit defaults at the selling institutions. The Fed will not have the political guts to kick the people in the assets that won't pay to the gutter. A whole new expensive problem will be created bailing out the people that the Community Reinvestment Act put in property, that shouldn't have been. The Fed can't manage this stuff. They will either have to create a new bureacracy to do it or hire (who else?) the buffoons that
created the mess to manage and sell the assets, for a fee, of course. The Fed's demand for absolute discretion in implementing all of this probably means no meaningful criminal prosecutions will ever occur.
The more I ponder this, the more I would rather take the hit now, and be done with it. Letting the people that caused it go out of business WILL fix the problem. A bailout will probably just postpone the final day of reckoning.
Bankruptcy court is the best place to resolve this. Fed to Wall Street: FO. Reinstate short selling immediately. Wall Street's innate greed and death binge of profit taking will drive the weaklings into bankruptcy within days, if not hours. Their assets can be liquidated and sold at auction. Bankruptcy courts do this all the time, they're pretty good at it. The stock market will take a hit, it won't go to zero. Money markets will take a hit, they won't go to zero. Real Estate prices will take a hit for a while. A lot of new property will be available for cheap, a good opportunity for investment.
The world won't collapse, it will just go on. People will have to save more and use credit less, banks will pay decent interest to get deposits to loan back out. Life will return to mostly normal.
Excellent post. The last sentence is absolutely true so long as people have some life-blood left; and the world will go on.
JMH
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
I heard the tape of the Prez threatening the nation with doom if you don't fork over 3/4 trillion dollars last night. Sickening.
A good leader does NOT threaten doom and gloom to an entire nation if they do not pay up.
I suppose you would rather he lie?
I heard the tape of the Prez threatening the nation with doom if you don't fork over 3/4 trillion dollars last night. Sickening.
A good leader does NOT threaten doom and gloom to an entire nation if they do not pay up.
I suppose you would rather he lie?
Everyone......
Here you go, link to the September 30, 1999 NY Times article.
Read it and weep.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...n=&pagewanted=1
SNIP:
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
Here you go, link to the September 30, 1999 NY Times article.
Read it and weep.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...n=&pagewanted=1
SNIP:
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Quote:
I suppose you would rather he lie?
Yeah..really ..you wouldn't want him to misrepresent the reality of the situation, would you?? Overstate the benefits ..understate the liabilities? My gosh, what kind of leader do you think he is??
..that $10T sure would come in handy now.....
I suppose you would rather he lie?
Yeah..really ..you wouldn't want him to misrepresent the reality of the situation, would you?? Overstate the benefits ..understate the liabilities? My gosh, what kind of leader do you think he is??
..that $10T sure would come in handy now.....
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
I heard the tape of the Prez threatening the nation with doom if you don't fork over 3/4 trillion dollars last night. Sickening.
A good leader does NOT threaten doom and gloom to an entire nation if they do not pay up.
I suppose you would rather he lie?
He lied. There wouldn't be doom and gloom to an entire nation, or if it would either bail out or not it would happened.
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
I heard the tape of the Prez threatening the nation with doom if you don't fork over 3/4 trillion dollars last night. Sickening.
A good leader does NOT threaten doom and gloom to an entire nation if they do not pay up.
I suppose you would rather he lie?
He lied. There wouldn't be doom and gloom to an entire nation, or if it would either bail out or not it would happened.
If the bailout is blocked by the congress, there will be quick punishment by sudden changes in monetary policy.
Originally Posted By: tpitcher
Here you go, link to the September 30, 1999 NY Times article.
Read it and weep.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...n=&pagewanted=1
I'm surprised the NY Times didn't get rid of this article.
"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the ***** Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."
Here you go, link to the September 30, 1999 NY Times article.
Read it and weep.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.ht...n=&pagewanted=1
I'm surprised the NY Times didn't get rid of this article.
"Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the ***** Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I don't know this, but I speculate that most of the bad paper was on new construction that was higher priced, not lower dwellers buying existing homes.
And you would be wrong. Lots of people bought those $300-400K+ places....
Dig around. OVER 50% (in dollars) went to "folks" as opposed to the non-human scum who achieved monetarily.
I don't know this, but I speculate that most of the bad paper was on new construction that was higher priced, not lower dwellers buying existing homes.
And you would be wrong. Lots of people bought those $300-400K+ places....
Dig around. OVER 50% (in dollars) went to "folks" as opposed to the non-human scum who achieved monetarily.
Hmmmm, if the government wants to do something and make money by doing it, that will benefit all...Simple...short the oil market. Then again it makes too much sense, and the oil companies are too deep in politicians pockets, so what do we have? Nothing! So kiss the $700 billion dollars away that is going to be passed. White collar crime in its finest hour. Might as well take the $700 billion and throw it in the wind.
We all wonder why we are in this mess. Because basically this nation has become a bunch of worthless, lazy, hypocrites. Nobody wants to take the time to do anything. Then when something happens negative they point the finger in the opposite direction of themselves. It is easy to blame others for your stupid mistakes. It is easy to ignore the problem and hope it goes away. It is easy to sit on the coach, grab the remote, and change the channel. No longer is it necessary to stand up, walk over, and change the channel. You don't like it, push a button and it goes away.
So ask yourself what are you doing today to try to make a difference for tomorrow? If you do not know, you are part of the problem. What are you doing to try to help those make the proper decisions? If you do not know, you are part of the problem.
Our government appears to look like a drug addict looking for its next piece of crack. It is doing whatever it can to get its next fix. Unfortunately, these fixes don't last long, and more is necessary. If the fix doesn't come, the addict starts to get delusional. So fixing the addiction by feeding the addiction only delays the inevitable, the need to remove the addictive substance. So how do you remove the addictive substance? Immediately, stop! Take the pain. The pain is short lived, and the rewards lasting.
So what will happen? A continuation of the wrong, of course. Why? Because our nation does not seem to understand the need to get involved. When will it change? When more feel pain so much they can not ignore it anymore. Are we close to the pain yet? Not even remotely touching the pain threshold yet.
Think of the game Tetris. All you need to do is figure out what part of the game we are at.
We all wonder why we are in this mess. Because basically this nation has become a bunch of worthless, lazy, hypocrites. Nobody wants to take the time to do anything. Then when something happens negative they point the finger in the opposite direction of themselves. It is easy to blame others for your stupid mistakes. It is easy to ignore the problem and hope it goes away. It is easy to sit on the coach, grab the remote, and change the channel. No longer is it necessary to stand up, walk over, and change the channel. You don't like it, push a button and it goes away.
So ask yourself what are you doing today to try to make a difference for tomorrow? If you do not know, you are part of the problem. What are you doing to try to help those make the proper decisions? If you do not know, you are part of the problem.
Our government appears to look like a drug addict looking for its next piece of crack. It is doing whatever it can to get its next fix. Unfortunately, these fixes don't last long, and more is necessary. If the fix doesn't come, the addict starts to get delusional. So fixing the addiction by feeding the addiction only delays the inevitable, the need to remove the addictive substance. So how do you remove the addictive substance? Immediately, stop! Take the pain. The pain is short lived, and the rewards lasting.
So what will happen? A continuation of the wrong, of course. Why? Because our nation does not seem to understand the need to get involved. When will it change? When more feel pain so much they can not ignore it anymore. Are we close to the pain yet? Not even remotely touching the pain threshold yet.
Think of the game Tetris. All you need to do is figure out what part of the game we are at.
The voting options always exclude the one that makes sense.
"None of the Above"?
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Messages
- 39,798
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I don't know this, but I speculate that most of the bad paper was on new construction that was higher priced, not lower dwellers buying existing homes.
And you would be wrong. Lots of people bought those $300-400K+ places....
Vacated by those buying $500k-750k new construction, perhaps? Not integrated in the process at all??
Quote:
Dig around. OVER 50% (in dollars) went to "folks" as opposed to the non-human scum who achieved monetarily.
So, up to 49% of "true" upper tier earners ..moving more money in their upward mobility ..buying new construction ...provide over 50% of the vacancies for "folks"? Not at all integrated into the grand scheme.
It was doomed from the beginning. The economy was sustained on the illusion of the leading economic indicator. Eventually you run out of qualified buyers. If you want the watershed economy to keep dancing to the happy tune, you degrade your standards to qualify.
All they had to do is ration the money or raise the interest rate (same thing) and this would have been sustainable. But that wouldn't give you the economic byproducts in such abundance in such a compressed time frame.
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I don't know this, but I speculate that most of the bad paper was on new construction that was higher priced, not lower dwellers buying existing homes.
And you would be wrong. Lots of people bought those $300-400K+ places....
Vacated by those buying $500k-750k new construction, perhaps? Not integrated in the process at all??
Quote:
Dig around. OVER 50% (in dollars) went to "folks" as opposed to the non-human scum who achieved monetarily.
So, up to 49% of "true" upper tier earners ..moving more money in their upward mobility ..buying new construction ...provide over 50% of the vacancies for "folks"? Not at all integrated into the grand scheme.
It was doomed from the beginning. The economy was sustained on the illusion of the leading economic indicator. Eventually you run out of qualified buyers. If you want the watershed economy to keep dancing to the happy tune, you degrade your standards to qualify.
All they had to do is ration the money or raise the interest rate (same thing) and this would have been sustainable. But that wouldn't give you the economic byproducts in such abundance in such a compressed time frame.
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I don't know this, but I speculate that most of the bad paper was on new construction that was higher priced, not lower dwellers buying existing homes.
And you would be wrong. Lots of people bought those $300-400K+ places....
Dig around. OVER 50% (in dollars) went to "folks" as opposed to the non-human scum who achieved monetarily.
You just insinuated that people who don't "achieve monetarily" are scum. NICE.
Can't wait to see you unwind out of that one...
I agree that subprime loans and the reasons they came into existence are bee ess, but COME ON Pablo!!!
The monetarily underachieved should have got jobs brokering subprime loans. THEN they would have "achieved monetarily."
Or maybe they should have got jobs peddling the bad debt. THEN they would have "achieved monetarily"...
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I don't know this, but I speculate that most of the bad paper was on new construction that was higher priced, not lower dwellers buying existing homes.
And you would be wrong. Lots of people bought those $300-400K+ places....
Dig around. OVER 50% (in dollars) went to "folks" as opposed to the non-human scum who achieved monetarily.
You just insinuated that people who don't "achieve monetarily" are scum. NICE.
I agree that subprime loans and the reasons they came into existence are bee ess, but COME ON Pablo!!!
The monetarily underachieved should have got jobs brokering subprime loans. THEN they would have "achieved monetarily."
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I don't know this, but I speculate that most of the bad paper was on new construction that was higher priced, not lower dwellers buying existing homes.
And you would be wrong. Lots of people bought those $300-400K+ places....
Are the brokers who pushed the sub human monetarily under achieved scum into those homes and scaddadled with huge commissions NOT subhuman scum?
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
I don't know this, but I speculate that most of the bad paper was on new construction that was higher priced, not lower dwellers buying existing homes.
And you would be wrong. Lots of people bought those $300-400K+ places....
Are the brokers who pushed the sub human monetarily under achieved scum into those homes and scaddadled with huge commissions NOT subhuman scum?
Originally Posted By: Amkeer
Hmmmm, if the government wants to do something and make money by doing it, that will benefit all...Simple...short the oil market.
Not that simple if it were a guaranteed winner..you (and I) would do it.
Hmmmm, if the government wants to do something and make money by doing it, that will benefit all...Simple...short the oil market.
Not that simple if it were a guaranteed winner..you (and I) would do it.
No Drew I did not say that at ALL.
I said that SOME people hate the "rich". Think it through.
I said that SOME people hate the "rich". Think it through.
Pablo Pablo. You flat out said people who don't make a lot of money are subhuman scum.
"OVER 50% (in dollars) went to "folks" as opposed to the non-human scum who achieved monetarily." That is what you said. You didn't say "some people hate the rich" That is laughable!!!
There's no need to think it through some maze of whacked out analogy you try and put forth.
Saying some people hate the rich is like saying the sky is blue. It doesn't belittle the fact that you think ethnic poor people are sub human scum.
Amazing really.
"OVER 50% (in dollars) went to "folks" as opposed to the non-human scum who achieved monetarily." That is what you said. You didn't say "some people hate the rich" That is laughable!!!
There's no need to think it through some maze of whacked out analogy you try and put forth.
Saying some people hate the rich is like saying the sky is blue. It doesn't belittle the fact that you think ethnic poor people are sub human scum.
Amazing really.
- Status
