POLL Bailout or Not

[Green Tide]

Bc of the reason rob used as an example. The current home owners that are defaulting should be OUT. Then let the mortgage holders sell to investors or anyone else that will probably negotiate a better price and terms. When banks get loans back it looks bad on them and this is their motivation to sell even at a loss. Like bush said the bank has mortgage insurance. and anyone with less than 20 % equity in their home pays it for situations like this.
That is the market working on its own. If you let people stay in their homes you encourage this to repeat.

[fishnfool73]

Here's an idea
To my fellow Americans......
>
> I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.
>
> Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in
> a We Deserve It Dividend.
>
> To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000
> bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.
>
> Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman
> and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..
>
> So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.
>
> My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a
> We Deserve It Dividend.
>
> Of course, it would NOT be tax free.
> So let's assume a tax rate of 30%.
>
> Every individ ual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.
> That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.
>
> But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.
> A husband and wife has $595,000.00.
>
> What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
> Pay off your mortgage, housing crisis solved.
> Repay college loans what a great boost to new grads
> Put away money for college, it'll be there
> Save in a bank, create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
> Buy a new car create jobs
> Invest in the market capital drives growth
> Pay for your parent's medical insurance health care improves
> Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean or else
>
> Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks
> who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company
> that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed
> Forces.
>
> If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of
> trickling out
> a puny $1000.00 ( 'vote buy' ) economic incentive that is being proposed
> by one of our candidates for President.
>
> If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U
> S Citizen 18+!
>
> As for AIG, liquidate it.
> Sell off its parts.
> Let American General go back to being American General.
> Sell off the real estate.
> Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.
>
> Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.
>
> Sure it's a crazy idea that can 'never work.'
>
> But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!
>
> How do you spell Economic Boom?
>
> I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion
> We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington
> DC.
>
> And remember, this plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5
> Billion is returned
> instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

[Green Tide]

I'll take 595K for me and my wife please.

[james380]

Great idea. Solves the problem for sure. Funny how congress can't come up with that.

[bolo]

Bail out bill fails. Keep an eye out on your bank. I know the accounts are FDIC protected but if a lot of banks start to fall the FDIC will run low on funds and will take time to pay you back.

http://www.cnn.com/

[james380]

Dow down 778 points.

The end is near. Kiss your arses good bye biatches.

[fishnfool73]

Great idea my defered comp. just dropped $2000..... people will go bankrupt by sunset Tuesday at this rate. Great job by our politicans. Well all of you that were anti bail out will get what you want, hopefully this doesn't cost someone you know their jobs or life savings. I went to a business today that closed its doors due to the Lehman closure 50 people showed up to work to find themselves out of work. Going to be a tough time to be employed in the private sector glad my job is secure.

[james380]

Times like this are what makes this country stronger in the long run. We need to fall on our asses every 70 years or so to wake us the fahq up. Government doesn't pay attention until they face their political downfall.

My buddy wrote a letter to Dubya yesterday.

President Bush,

I am a registered Republican who voted for you and am appalled by your support of a taxpayer funded bailout plan. If you continue to support this, I am changing my allegiance to Libertarian, voting for Barr and advising everyone I know to do the same. I am not leaving the Republican Party, it is leaving me. Since when is it a conservative ideal to socialize the market? How dare you and others supporting this bill call yourselves Republicans? I am ashamed of my party for what you all have done while in power. I have written my Senators, Congressman (who voted against the bill) and McCain with the same message.

I know you are not up for re-election, but how can you watch the country go into another great depression on your watch? Fix it!

[bolo]

The president will never see that letter and if he does he will wipe his butt with it. He dont give a crap unless it effect his money. He is almost out of office so he is coasting it.

[james380]

Oh I know that and my buddy knows that too. Just getting a little bit off his chest I guess. He used to be a hardcore Republican, but this administration has pushed him towards Ron Paul and now Bob Barr.

[Big Daddy]

They are trying to come up with a plan to give you the taxpayer shares of the company... as the company rebounds with the economy the shares would increase in value... as this happens money comes back at you...

...you wish. Those dollars should be used to pay down the debt. But NOOO they will be used to INCREASE government programs-watch-it only depends on who is in power as to which programs will grow.

By the way, once the biggest mortgage holder in the US is the Government(a violation of the constitutional role of the Treasury), we will have effectively nationalized mortgage banking, and Government will NEVER give up that power.

James, I'm with your buddy. These folks in Washington are not Republicans they are RINO's (Republican in name only).

Conservatives in Washington are pushing selling Insurance to the Corporations rather than a cash 'buyout'. It includes removing taxes on capital gains and providing incentives to business growth in the US. It won't happen. Too many people with fingers in the pot (of maintaining the status quo).

R. Paul and Bob Barr both embrace CONSERVATIVE fiscal policy in keeping with GOP traditions. Unfortunately they go off the reservation with some of their social stances.

I also agree with Cookin-if the 'bailout' doesn't happen, and market consequences are allowed, NOBODY's JOB will be secure. It will be a deep recession worldwide, and could be a depression depending on how long it takes the markets to recover.

Finally-the buyout does NOTHING to change the conditions that caused the problem:
Government regulations that FORCED banks to lend to high risk borrowers; and then made it incredibly profitable to lenders via Fannia Mae and Freddie Mac.

The very people at the heart of this problem are the ones we are depending on to fix it. (check out the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi ... re=related)

The biggest losers in all of this are the folks who played by the rules. They lived within their means; they saved; they invested for retirement; and they will pay for the greed of Wallstreet AND MAINSTREET, with they're 401k's and retirement accounts, and increased taxes.

This is the result of changing the rules "to help the poor"- and the poor got raped by their own saviors.

[Cookinman]

Amazing how things come full circle.

One of the biggest finacial mistakes we have made in a long time was allowing Ron Reagan to "Privatize" much of what was once Govt Regulated...

Folks tend to forget the stock market crash under his watch as well....I seem to see a strong pattern of financial crisis under the Republican watch

That seems to have worked well ( IF you owned a business in the financial sector) ...

[Big Daddy]

One of the biggest finacial mistakes we have made in a long time was allowing Ron Reagan to "Privatize" much of what was once Govt Regulated...

The current crisis is not attributable to 'deregulation" (privatization).

In 1977 Carter signed the Community ReInvestment Act-regulations intended to coerce lenders into high risk loans in 'poor' areas. It lacked teeth and was ineffective (talk about patterns).

It contributed to the S&L failures in the 1980's. It led to increased Regulation of the banking industry(signed by GHW Bush in 1989)

In 1995 Clinton signed new regulations. These REGULATIONS forced lending institutions to give high risk loans or pay huge penalties; he also changed the rules for FF/FF as GSE's to bundle these loans and sell as securities. This allowed Wallstreet to increase their profits, and provide "innovative" (read predatory) loan practices. They ate it up.

At the heart of the FF/FF scandals are Clinton appointees and BO advisors-Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and Jim Johnson. During this time FF/FF violated regualations, and inflated earnings reports to provide these 3 principles with 10's of millions of unearned bonuses.When the regulators (OFEO) went to Congress and reported that FF/FF abuses would precipitate a crisis, the committee members attacked the regulators (kill the messenger) in an attempt to intimidate them. The regulators recommended increased regulations and oversight on FF/FF.

The largest recipients of FF/FF contributions are those that blocked attempt to REFORM those regulations in their committees-Barney Franks and Chris Dodd-both Democrats. Those pushing reform were Republicans (including McCain). These are not opinions they are FACTS.

That's not to suggest that there weren't Republicans that helped themselves financially. But the ORIGIN of the problem was the social engineering (not market forces) to manipulate the lending industry in an attempt to provide housing in poor (read minority) areas. Attempts to stop the dangerous lending practices was seen by the committee members as racial (attacks on F Rianes and limiting the availability of cheap loans to minorities).

Conservatives want everyone to have homes; they just believe they should EARN AND SAVE; Liberals believe those who can't qualify for housing loans are being discriminated against and USE GOVERNMENT REGULATION to FORCE the market to comply.

Those two ideologies are at the heart of the current election; one party uses 'tax the rich to save the poor' class warfare (profit is a dirty word), and the government is the hammer to force compliance; the other party believes that working, saving, investing (making a profit) is the road to success; and governments role is to provide incentives for those behaviors, allow people to keep more of what they earn, and trust people to make better decisions about how to use their own money than government.

Reagan-Clinton-Bush economies were, with a few bumps, the greatest economies in history. More minorities became millionaires than ever before. The current crisis is a result of regulation (Clinton 1995), that defied market basics that have proven to be successful.

[CubanExpress]

The current crisis is not attributable to 'deregulation'

The current crisis is caused by both regulation and de-regulation.... Thats why there is a bunch of finger pointing going on.

The current crisis is a result of regulation (Clinton 1995)

LoL... lets blame Clinton for something that happened 13 years ago..

Below is one of the things that caused the current problem with the lenders that are curently in trouble...and.... Yes, it was regulation... and was passed by Bush in 2002

The most significant financial regulatory action in the Bush Administration was Sarbanes-Oxley which is also known as Sarbox, a law significantly increasing regulation of the accounting and securities businesses. It spawned twenty – count-em – twenty new rulemakings at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and created a whole new regulatory organ, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board .

One result of Sarbox was for capital to flee to private equity funds, or to London, beyond reach of the new rules. This capital flight weakened American investment banks by shrinking their markets. And by the way, the three companies that have required rescue were all regulated by PCAOB. Less-regulated private equity funds seem to be doing just fine.

Everything that is currently happening is related to the Bush Administration...

Reagan-Clinton-Bush economies were, with a few bumps, the greatest economies in history. More minorities became millionaires than ever before.

The Bush economy great??... Bush and great economy should not be used in the same sentence.. . a few bumps??? ... more like driving your car off the Grand Canyon.

More minorities became millionaires than ever before.. I can agree... but dont forget to mention the nationwide bankruptcy

What helped Clintons Economy boom was the debut of civilian internet..it was groundbreaking

The internet + Chuck Norris = Can kick Everyones Arse!

[Big Daddy]

lets blame Clinton for something that happened 13 years ago..

Which part of the word 'Origins' confuses you? I actually went back to 1977 and Carter where the first steps occurred. Clinton signed legislation that rewrote the FF/FF regulations that directly led to this crisis. The center of the lending crash has Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fingers all over it. Neither would exist without those 2 Presidential signatures. Without FF/and FF there would not be a crisis.

The current crisis is caused by both regulation and de-regulation.... Thats why there is a bunch of finger pointing going on.

I agree.

Below is one of the things that caused the current problem with the lenders that are curently in trouble...and.... Yes, it was regulation... and was passed by Bush in 2002

I agree. Sarbanes Oxley contributed-and Bush signed it. That doesn't diminish the centrality of the Community Re-Investment Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the liberal cabal that not only allowed, but fueled the abuses that brought us down. And no matter how many people try to deflect attention from it-the faces on those video tapes beating down the regulator and assuring the American people that there is 'NO PROBLEM' where all democrats-most were up to their armpits in FF/FF money. The only folks ringing the warning bell in 2005-2008 were Republicans.

The Bush economy great??... Bush and great economy should not be used in the same sentence.. . a few bumps??? ... more like driving your car off the Grand Canyon.

Bush, after inheriting a recession, and getting hit by 9/11, presided over a great economy for 6 years-he gets cred for the turnaround. This crisis happened on his watch-so he gets the blame for being asleep at the wheel-no argument from me.

More minorities became millionaires than ever before.. I can agree... but dont forget to mention the nationwide bankruptcy

Those folks are still millionaires.

The cause of the bankruptcies are the regulations that forced Banks to loan to folks who couldn't afford to repay-via the Community ReInvestment Act, FF/FF and the liberal social engineers at the helm.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, nor will you change mine; my posts are for those who haven't decided-OR haven't had opportunity to hear more than 1 side of the story.

Peace out.

[firebeforice]

We have no choice. Bailout.

As much as I want to vote no on the bailout, i think that we need some form of a bailout for the good of the american people. I know it sounds crazy, but we need to swallow it like a bitter pill or take it like a cayenne suppository ( sounds like it hurts ). regardless of my tasteless metaphors, our financial system is totally f**ked. Eight years of persistent deregulation by the republicans has led us down this path.

do I want the rich to get richer? Hell no!

but here is one example of why i think some form of bailout is necessary.

My mom has worked as an administrator in the Miami dade school system for 30 years. this is her last year before her retirement. her 401k is tied into AIG ( they went belly up). if there is not a bailout she will be screwed for life and might have to work until she is ninety.


this is just one of many examples

[CubanExpress]

Which part of the word 'Origins' confuses you? I actually went back to 1977 and Carter where the first steps occurred. Clinton signed legislation that rewrote the FF/FF regulations that directly led to this crisis. The center of the lending crash has Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fingers all over it. Neither would exist without those 2 Presidential signatures. Without FF/and FF there would not be a crisis.

You cannot place the blame on a law that was passed in 1977 on an incident that took place
during the years 2005-2007

What directly caused this mess was subprime lending.
Subprime lending = lending to borrowers that have low credit scores = default on payments

Under Clintons adminstrations the Community ReInvestment Act was under strict enforcement..

In Clintons era... there were also different morals for spending money... Back then if you didnt save up to purchase something... you didnt buy it.. and it was payed with cash or a check...

For the some that dont know about or remember checks... checks had a balance log to see how much money you had in the bank... you balanced it on your own will.... Make sure you have the money and then write the check...

^^^^^^ This is why subprime loans did good under Clintons belt... people had more control of their spending... thus making payments on houses even though they were considered a subprime candidate for a loan that could default...

Fast foward to the year 2000+ ... Bush adminstration.. Totally diffrent era..Money management...whats that???... and also lets give a big round of applause for electronic money transactions.

Credit cards and debit cards are swiped without even looking or thinking how much money is in your bank account ... With this happening debts added up to epic proportions in a matter of only 8 years...

The Bush adminstration ran over the Community ReInvestment Act with a tank in March of 2005......The CRA was revised to exempt banks of CRA loan data collection and reporting obligations






In other words... if you have a job and say that you make $65,000 year... we will take your word for it and give you a $350,000+ loan... even if you are considered a subprime borrower

This is what put real eastate into warp speed... Lots of people made big money... real fast

Everywhere you looked there was a new housing development... town houses... or houses in general being built.. Big loans were easy to get

The new houses were not being built fast enough to keep up with the amount of loans going out ...making pre owned houses go up in price...an older house only worth $130,000 would now be worth $250,000++ and people would close on them being subprime... Thanks to that "March Propsal"... without it... it wouldnt be possible to do this.

Place blame on things that happend within the same time frame...2005-2007 crisis was directly caused by the CRA that was revised in 2005... I dont know if im making sense??

What im trying to get to is the sense of something that happend in 1977.. which is 31 years old has nothing to do with current events...

Its like placing the blame on Dinosaurs dieing 65 million years ago...for the United States being in a big mess when we find out there is no more oil and no alternative energy plan... Blame the Dinos, there the ones that got us in this mess....damn fossil fuels

The blame should be placed on the borrowers and investors who took the chance with subprime mortgages between the years of 2005-2007.. In other words.. if you knew you couldnt afford it.... why did you buy it...Just because you could get the loan doesnt mean you could afford it...especially if you were lieing in order to get the loan in the first place

If you want to take it a step further.. you can also put blame on the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC...between the years 2005-2007

If Freedie Mac and Fannie Mae were not here to begin with in the first place... It would have been another bank lender involved...

The March Propsal of 2005 would have happened no matter who the financial institution was

I know I'm not going to change your mind, nor will you change mine; my posts are for those who haven't decided-OR haven't had opportunity to hear more than 1 side of the story

LoL.. we are both standing our grounds... but by reading our posts side by side... others can atleast see both sides of our stories...and im sure the others reading it can conclude that between both of our two sides ... there is one BIG mess.

[james380]

Yeah it's called a Cluster F*ck

[Big Daddy]

LoL.. we are both standing our grounds... but by reading our posts side by side... others can atleast see both sides of our stories...and im sure the others reading it can conclude that between both of our two sides ... there is one BIG mess.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[james380]

You will be ours eventually BD.

[Big Daddy]

Place blame on things that happend within the same time frame...2005-2007 crisis was directly caused by the CRA that was revised in 2005... I dont know if im making sense??

What im trying to get to is the sense of something that happend in 1977.. which is 31 years old has nothing to do with current events...

You are making sense, but I'm still trying to 'get' the impact of the 2005 change in the CRA regulations. Educate me further.(really-no sarcasm intended)

As far as 1977-to use Bidens (borrowed) phrase from the debates last night "the past is prologue"
The genesis of the problem was not under-regulation or market forces; if you violate market principles-i.e. force lenders to lend to people who have little likelihood of repayment, sooner or later it bites you in the butt. The Carter bill started the ball rolling-but banks were able to skate around the regulations to limit their risk. Clintons bill changed that-banks were given the carrot via FF/FF that allowed banks to gain huge profits by selling the loans to FF/FF and buying back the paper as securities-which made the FF/FF execs very rich; and the stick-the Clinton bill included stiff financial penalties to banks for not participating in these loans.

This is the context for the period up to 2005-which, if memory serves me, was the time the housing market began to slow, here in Broward.

[james380]

No worries guys the DOW only fell below 10,000 for the first time since 2004. A year ago it was either 13,000 or 14,000. Can't recall which.

Slowly remove the revolver from your mouth.

[CubanExpress]

Place blame on things that happend within the same time frame...2005-2007 crisis was directly caused by the CRA that was revised in 2005... I dont know if im making sense??

What im trying to get to is the sense of something that happend in 1977.. which is 31 years old has nothing to do with current events...

You are making sense, but I'm still trying to 'get' the impact of the 2005 change in the CRA regulations. Educate me further.(really-no sarcasm intended)

The revision enabled small to intermediate sized banks with assets of up to 1 billion dollars exemption of loan data collection and reporting obligations..

Meaning I could go to a small to intermediate sized bank and get a $290,000+ loan on a house with maybe only $5,000 down being a subprime candidate at an intrest only rate..

This is a preditor style loan... The preditor being the small-intermediate size bank not being regulated by the CRA...The lender should do somewhat of a background check to see if the borrower is even able to make payments on a loan of that caliber..

The bank didnt need to do a check-up because they are now excempt from reporting obligations...

If you said you and your wife made a combined income of $65,000 yearly and you showed current employment...you could get that loan at an intrest only rate.. since you clearly show that you can afford it ..

With an intrest only loan you only pay on the intrest...not the principle of the loan

For example, if a 30-year loan of $100,000 at 6.25% is interest only, the required payment is $520.83. In contrast, borrowers who have the same mortgage but without an IO option, would have to pay $615.72. This is the "fully amortizing payment" the payment that would pay off the loan over the term if the rate stayed the same. The difference in payment of $94.88 is principal, which go to reduce the balance.

Borrowers would shoot for this intrest only option to sell later or hope that more income would be made in the upcomming years...to be able to pay the amortizing payment

Ok 2005... 2 years later 2007... lots of jobs are layed off/lost widespread accross the United States... 159,000 ...yes one hundred fifty nine thousand jobs lost in september 2008 alone..just to put un-employment into perpective

Now you cant even pay the intrest only loan...since you have no job... 159,000 people with no jobs for the month of september=suxs for lots of families...

Many will have to surrender their houses to find rentable housing for the time being...as they will not be able to get another loan on a property since they just defualted...

And with the holidays comming up it will make matters even worst..it will be a sad time for lots of families for the remainder of 2008.

This is the context for the period up to 2005-which, if memory serves me, was the time the housing market began to slow, here in Broward.

West palm beach and Port St Lucie was solid in 2005...Port St lucie especially

Im sure Broward county didnt make up the United States mortgage crisis

You have to look at Florida, California, Nevada, Arizona, Virginia, Carolinas, Oregon, Georgia, Washington state, Texas....etc...etc....etc...

Everything as a whole led up to this...

It seemed that the market was "juiced up on purpose"...with its warp speed development to its collision crash...and the U.S. Taxpayer bailout following suit...sometimes you have to add things up to see the answer..

I dont know if you guys noticed the scare tactics involved by the President Dubya..and the secretary of the treasury.. Paulson..

It almost seemed like 9/11...scaring everyone into the war on "terrorism"...we have to go to war to defend our selves from terrorism... We went to war for business....which was for oil

American people didnt fall into the scare tactics this time and called them out... they thought we would be like....oh yeah we need this bailout now to keep the U.S. from falling apart.... Sign it now please...

Its falling apart already...the bailout will drag it out longer..The current goverment failed as a whole to the taxpayers...things of this nature should not happen

Freemarket + Capitalism = take risks to make money...you know you have a chance to get burned...

They took the risks and they got burned...end of story... The bailout should have never happened..

Did anyone hear Mccain last night in the debate say that he as the President would make sure that none of the bailout money would help fund terrorism.... hmmm... now where would he get that idea???

[Big Daddy]

Thanks CE; I follow and agree that banks and security firms violated free market rules that brought down the house.

What doesn't change is the origins of those regulations that allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to sell billions of dollars in high risk loans, and REQUIRED that Banks make those same loans to compete. The regulations allowed those loans to be bundled and sold (leveraged) as securities to increase profits on those high risk loans and supposedly spread the risk-which is at the heart of the rush to buy them. The failure and bailout of FF/FF was the beginning of the current 'crash'.

FF/and FF are basically organs of the democrat party-written into law by them, run by appointees who are the insiders of the party, who defrauded taxpayers under the guise of helping the poor, and foundationally are responsible for this mess.

Forget-"enough blame to go around"-if there were strong republican ties to FF/FF we would be seeing the faces and hearing the names every day on the news. The names and faces are all Democrats-including those who fought against every move to increase oversight-Dodd and Franks. Instead we focus on the 'failure' of free market rules- a bald face lie- and the fault of Wall Street needing MORE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION; now we have the very people at the heart of the FF/FF scandal holding hearings on Wall Street abuses-but NO HEARINGS on FF/FF.

The Republicans most responsible are Bush-no leadership and Paulson/Bernanke-appointees-too little too late.

With fair hearings into FF/FF (which will never occur) when the dust settles-you will see strong Obama ties- he has received the second highest amount of contributions from FF/FF sources (even though he has less than 1 full term in the Senate. He also has financial ties with ACORN (community organizers), who received FF/FF moneys, will receive bailout money, has been found involved in past voter fraud, and is being investigated for voter fraud in other past elections, and as of today in early-voter fraud in swing states in this election.

I repeat-I find many faults with McCain-but Obama is dirty-his history is tied to people who are corrupt and he is protected by a media who have done everything they can to prevent any discussion (or investigation) of the money trails that demonstrate he is NOT A CHANGE AGENT-but rather enmeshed in the Democrat political establishment from Chicago-and the long term insiders in the extreme left of the Democratic party.

PS-for James and other tin foil hat fans-Who benefits when the election is suspended as investigations reveal massive voter fraud? If not suspended then you can count on months of battles in the states and federal courts when the counts are legitimately challenged, before we know who won. (ACORN at the heart of the investigations-legally represented and supported, by training community organizers for them, and funneling state dollars to them, by a young politician in Illinois named-guess who!)

Who runs the country in the meantime? Speaker of the House?

[MoJo]

Damn Republicans!