View Full Version : For those who oppose the 7,000,000,000,000 BAILOUT
VooDoo6Actual
09-22-08, 18:40
redaction
thopkins22
09-22-08, 20:28
Instead of taking our tax dollars and giving it to the already rich and powerful, these funds should be used provide to decent paying jobs, affordable housing, health care and a good education for our children. There is another way!
No. We shouldn't be funding all those things, to do so would be embracing Keynesian economics and a rejection of the free market. Nor should we be funding these bailouts for the same reasons. And frankly, chances of them being paid with tax dollars is slim. They'll be paid with the feds' magic cash...which is worse anyway.
JediMindTricks
09-22-08, 20:51
We are headed towards a dictatorship. History shows that democracies only last about 200 years. Here's something I was reading online, I found it pretty interesting.
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
*** "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."
*** "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
*** "From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
*** "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years"
*** "During those 200 years, those
nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. >From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. >From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. >From courage to liberty;
4. >From liberty to abundance;
5. >From abundance to complacency;
6. >From complacency to apathy;
7. >From apathy to dependence;
8. >From dependence back into bondage"
The 700 billion is no where near enough. The system is dependent on an ever expanding debt creation to continue to exist (fiat, debt based money in a fractional reserve banking system).
Right now dis-inflation is taking hold. In order to stop the contraction, much more debt money would be needed. Money is mainly created when a loan is requested by a consumer and loaned by a commecial bank. You can not force consumers to borrow. The alternative is funding packages by congress that create more debt to make up the difference and try to stop deflation from happening. The problem is 700 billion is no where near enough.
For example, Mortgage borrowing at it's peak was 1900 billion in qtr1 2006. It was all the way down to 81 billion in qtr2 2008 (decelerating). What is the congress going to do next, request 1819 billion dollars of debt to make up for the deceleration in borrowing on a quarterly basis going forward? We are in for a crash. It will not be avoided.
You can see the disinflation taking hold strongly in both the mortgage debt and state and local government debt generation per quarter.
(the Fed's Z1 report)
For Example (Amount of Borrowing per Sector, Section D2 (In Billions):
2007:
Mortgage Debt / State & Local Govt
q1 773.8 / 219.5
q2 764.0 / 206.2
q3 506.2 / 152.5
q4 635.2 / 166.4
2008:
q1 274.4 / 74.4
q2 80.8 / 11.0
So 773.8 in new mortgage loans in Q1 2007 down to 80.8 in new mortgage loans in Q2 of 2008 (The peak was 1st qtr 2006 at 1191 in new mortgage loans).
From 219.5 billion in new state and local borrowing in Q1 2007 down to 11 Billion in Q2 2008.
Business_Casual
09-22-08, 21:18
The two most infuriating things for me are:
A) The people who created the mess (Clinton, Kennedy, Cuomo, Frank, et al) are going to use it for their advantage
B) They don't even know which loans or even whether $700B is close to the real number
M_P
Benevolent dictatorship seems to be the only infallible form of government. Since no one earth exists that could fill that role, we will never see this. We remain a constitutional republic. The farther we stray from the constitutional part the more assurance that we will fail exists. Ancient Rome was a republic, sans constitution.
That being said, doomsayers have been around since before pen met paper.
To the point of the thread: No, government should not involve itself, as a rule, into the private sector. Neither in regulatory OR financial assistance roles. Having said that, I'm not sure everyone here and elsewhere truly understand the ramifications that would have come/are yet to come/probably still will come, from the companies in this sector going under. I am NOT supporting the decision to bail these companies out. Just encouraging people to continue researching and learning.
TUNNEL RAT 33
09-22-08, 22:04
dont worry , next week we're going to bail out all the automakers so they can retool ! glad i've been stocking up on ammo and gun parts - its coming !!
AwaySooner
09-22-08, 22:33
http://www.fedupusa.org/
Watch the solution proposed by this guy, sounds more reasonable to me than bailout.
MarshallDodge
09-22-08, 22:40
Time to press the reset button.
geezerbutler
09-22-08, 22:47
We are headed towards a dictatorship. History shows that democracies only last about 200 years. Here's something I was reading online, I found it pretty interesting.
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
*** "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government."
*** "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."
*** "From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."
*** "The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years"
*** "During those 200 years, those
nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. >From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. >From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. >From courage to liberty;
4. >From liberty to abundance;
5. >From abundance to complacency;
6. >From complacency to apathy;
7. >From apathy to dependence;
8. >From dependence back into bondage"
Man, now that's insightful.
The liberals are hell bent on socializing everything and they're doing a pretty damn good job these past couple of years, with plenty of help from conservatives to boot.
there's been no call for congressional investigations into the actions of republican house/senate members involvement in the mortagage meltdown proves that the democrats are responsible for this"
GEEZER
Makes sense to me......
thopkins22
09-22-08, 23:32
This is why we have bankruptcy laws in this country. These loans aren't going to disappear, for a true correction the banks should fail and this debt will be bought at much closer to market value. It would suck for a little while, but would be infinitely better in the long run for all but poorly run investment firms/poorly run companies. However, contrary to what the party before country crowd will continue to say, both parties are absolutely complicit in our current monetary/economic condition. They'll all vote for whatever abomination gets put forth because they want to look good to Johnny Thumbsucker when they go up for reelection this fall.
This is why we have bankruptcy laws in this country. These loans aren't going to disappear, for a true correction the banks should fail and this debt will be bought at much closer to market value. It would suck for a little while, but would be infinitely better in the long run for all but poorly run investment firms/poorly run companies. However, contrary to what the party before country crowd will continue to say, both parties are absolutely complicit in our current monetary/economic condition. They'll all vote for whatever abomination gets put forth because they want to look good to Johnny Thumbsucker when they go up for reelection this fall.
AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
variablebinary
09-23-08, 05:01
...for a true correction the banks should fail and this debt will be bought at much closer to market value...
That's my opinion as well
If a bank gives out money they can never get a return on, and fail, the debt should either vanish with the defunct lender or some dupe will be found to "buy" the debt and hope they can succeed where the bankrupt lender failed.
The Federal government is the dupe in this case, at the tax payers expense.
What the Fed should have done is laugh at the banks as they burn in hell, and the people, bad and good borrower alike, begin to enjoy their free homes.
So now the Federal Govt expects to renegotiate terms on trillions in bad loans in the hopes bad borrowers will suddenly due their duty. Fail
Bad plan because it isnt like the Federal Govt is going to throw anyone out on the street, especially under an Obama POTUS. More likely, expect a Section 8 like program, where the Tax payer still takes it in the ass.
Fun...
And "A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury," has been a fav quote of mine for years.
KintlaLake
09-23-08, 06:50
...most infuriating things...
Not to mention Sec. Paulson insisting that the bailout extend to foreign banks. :rolleyes:
Our economy is fundamentally broken. A bailout, no matter its size or who benefits in the short term, solves nothing -- it only postpones the collapse.
Let the free market work. Hands off.
Th
What the Fed should have done is laugh at the banks as they burn in hell, and the people, bad and good borrower alike, begin to enjoy their free homes.
The 12 regional Federal Reserve banks are owned by the regional commercial banks in their area. The Fed is part of the problem, not part of the solution. They bail out the banks because they are a part of them. Federal Reserve bank employees are not government employees. The name Federal Reserve is a deceptive political name used to try to decieve people. It's not part of the Federal Government. It was created by Congress and the Chairman is required to testify to both houses of Congress twic each year. Congress could get rid of it if they wanted to through legislation and the President's signature or a veto overrride. Either way, bailouts, or destruction of the central bank is going to be a very painful experience.
We are still not hearing from the most powerful in government, the true root cause which is the style of banking system we are using. Until then we are just voting to give a little more crack (debt) to the (debt) junkie.
Commercial banks create about 90% of the total money supply (debt) in the country through loans that the consumer's request.
Gutshot John
09-23-08, 08:08
It is getting very depressing to see both sides of the aisle point fingers of blame, when both played a significant role in the problem. I remember the "financial modernization act" aka Gramm-Leach-Bliley and while well-intentioned there was no possible way anyone could see the financial implications.
Sadly it is one more situation where no politician can actually tell the truth about it and rather than sitting down and saying "fix it", they sit around and bicker about how they can take the most political advantage.
I'm can't believe we are talking about shifting total government control of the economy. This is the worst kind of welfare and reward for bad behavior. Wealth needs to be destroyed and the economy needs to take its medicine.
I see this getting a lot worse soon but politicians glibly go about their antics.
FUBAR. :mad:
KintlaLake
09-23-08, 09:32
From Section 8 (no kidding) of Treasury Secretary Paulson's proposal to Congress:
"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."
Chew on that for a minute or two, fellow citizens.
Edited to add an excerpt from Chairman Sen. Dodd's opening statement at today's hearing:
"After reading this proposal, I can only conclude that it is not just our economy that is at risk, but our constitution as well."
Word.
thopkins22
09-23-08, 09:58
The Fed is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Peter Schiff has been right about our economy for years. I don't know where Glenn Beck really stands, but pretty good commentary.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMstcGRezhw&feature=related
The scariest thing is all the parts and people are still in place to repeat this.
It is like paying off a debtors credit card, but not taking the credit card away. He is now free to go charge it back up.
30 cal slut
09-23-08, 10:20
this monetary mess brought to you by:
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/alan_greenspan.jpg
:rolleyes:
we now return you to your regularly scheduled m4carbine.net programming.
.
You know, I knew it was coming. I just had no clue how fast ... :(
this monetary mess brought to you by:
Actually the root of this monetary mess is America has changed from a Land of Opportunity to a Land of Entitlement.
Politicians have convinced too many folks they are Entitled to a home, new car, college education, healthcare, job etc. And you are entitled to have RIGHT NOW even if you cannot afford.
The fact is, you are entitled to NONE of these things, they are merely opportunities you can achieve if you work hard, and make good decisions.
Business_Casual
09-23-08, 13:57
No, the root of this mess is very squarely set in the Democrat party.
Clinton and Cuomo set rules for housing that required banks to lend to people who couldn't afford it. That was called Community reinvestment. Janet Reno made it clear she would prosecute any bank who didn't comply. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, run by Democrats, made funds available to banks so they could - expressly and to no other purpose - pool bad mortgages into securities. Now the failure of one mortgage is linked to the stock market. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd - heads of the house and senate banking commitees - took plenty of campaign donations from the banks they were supposed to be "regulating" and providing "oversight" for over the past two years.
Yeah, I'd call this mess an "oversight."
M_P
http://www.fedupusa.org/
Watch the solution proposed by this guy, sounds more reasonable to me than bailout.
I did not watch the videos but the white paper (link on above page) sounds reasonable and prudent to a non-financial professional like me.
No, the root of this mess is very squarely set in the Democrat party.
I was being polite and not mentioning them by name. I thought Land of Entitlement pretty much said it loud and clear.
Land of Entitlement
I'd like to see the video...
Actually the root of this monetary mess is America has changed from a Land of Opportunity to a Land of Entitlement.
You started out so strong, and then you went to
Politicians have convinced too many folks they are Entitled to a home, new car, college education, healthcare, job etc. And you are entitled to have RIGHT NOW even if you cannot afford.
Politicians didn't convince anyone of anything. People elected the politicians that told them what they wanted to hear and already believed.
The fact is, you are entitled to NONE of these things, they are merely opportunities you can achieve if you work hard, and make good decisions.
Exactly.
What I haven't seen one iota of in this thread is anyone blaming "the people". Banks, politicians, "the man".... it's the people's fault. Period.
If you sold an old house for 2x-3x what it was really worth, and moved into another house that cost even 2x more than that, this is your fault.
If you're carrying credit card (or home equity) debt more than you can pay off in a month yet have a big screen, a PS3, or frankly a "black rifle" at all, this is your fault.
If you can't understand that the government CANNOT simultaneously increase services and lower taxes, this is your fault.
If you ever screamed and wailed that the government owed you more services, this is your fault.
If you've ever filed personal (not business) bankruptcy, this is your fault.
Bring back debtor's prison.
If you can't understand that the government CANNOT simultaneously increase services and lower taxes, this is your fault.
While I am not in favor of increasing services in almost any case, this is not strictly true.
IRS receipts rose to record levels after the Bush tax rate cuts. Higher than they had ever been before. Lower tax rates often encourage increased economic activity which can lead to higher tax receipts.
And as a corollary, raising tax rates can often lower receipts as the higher tax rates kill off or drive economic activity underground.
Which is all well and good, but the government cannot, just like you and I, spend more than they take in. And, just like you and I, if they DO get in the bad habit of spending more than they take in, at some point you have to cut back and use a windfall to pay off the debt.
There ain't no free lunch.
You can't get a "bridge to nowhere" by buying an extra two pairs of khakis at The Gap.
Which is all well and good, but the government cannot, just like you and I, spend more than they take in. And, just like you and I, if they DO get in the bad habit of spending more than they take in, at some point you have to cut back and use a windfall to pay off the debt.
There ain't no free lunch.
You can't get a "bridge to nowhere" by buying an extra two pairs of khakis at The Gap.
Agreed.
The reason it works slightly differently for the government than for you and I, in regards tax rates etc, is that you and I have to put out work to get paid. The government takes what it wants at the end of a gun through taxation and peoples' responses to that can increase or decrease overall economic activity which affects that wealth stealing (taxation) by the government.
We cannot strictly compare the running of the government to the running of a company or a family. The overall principles are the same (you cannot spend more than you take in etc) but the details are vastly different as you and I and companies have to expend effort to earn our income while the government demands and takes its income.
Actually, you can compare it.
Think of the services that the government provides as their "work", and think of us as the consumers, and the bosses. If the government doesn't provide enough services for the money they take in, we get rid of them.
So it's still all our own faults. We let them stay. ;)
You started out so strong, and then you went to
What I haven't seen one iota of in this thread is anyone blaming "the people". Banks, politicians, "the man".... it's the people's fault. Period.
I'm not gonna debate the point of responsibility, because we all made choices. However, the prosperity that came as a result of our involvement in WWII, which was proceeded by the economic turmoil of the Great Depression, gave impetus to Wall Street to tell people they were due a better life because of all they had suffered. And we the people bought into it. The Greatest Generation may have done alot of noble things, but setting our economy up for this fall was most certainly not one of them. Insisting that our consumption rate must be maintained after the war was very wrong thinking and very self-serving. It was at that point that our economy began to take on larger than life proportions. How many times have we heard "it's all about the economy"?
We the people have made some horrific and selfish choices. But we had a great deal of help from Wall Street and our own leaders to make those poor choices.
Actually, you can compare it.
Think of the services that the government provides as their "work", and think of us as the consumers, and the bosses. If the government doesn't provide enough services for the money they take in, we get rid of them.
This is a faulty comparison as the governments income is not related to their "work."
The only relation is an indirect one in which the people we elect authorize the programs that provide the services or "work" and we have some input at election time. But that is only indirect.
My point is that the government gets its money in a way different from you and I and hence needs to be governed by different operating procedures even if the overriding principles are the same (cannot run a deficit for ever, etc).
This is important because too many people make a direct comparison and come up with faulty "solutions". For example, while not always true due to other outside influences, within reason, lowering tax rates can often get you more income, but if you and I quit our jobs or get a lower paying job, we will always have less income.
And we the people bought into it.
We the people have made some horrific and selfish choices.
These are the important parts to remember.
This is a faulty comparison as the governments income is not related to their "work."
The only relation is an indirect one in which the people we elect authorize the programs that provide the services or "work" and we have some input at election time. But that is only indirect.
My point is that the government gets its money in a way different from you and I and hence needs to be governed by different operating procedures even if the overriding principles are the same (cannot run a deficit for ever, etc).
This is important because too many people make a direct comparison and come up with faulty "solutions". For example, while not always true due to other outside influences, within reason, lowering tax rates can often get you more income, but if you and I quit our jobs or get a lower paying job, we will always have less income.
I don't really care to debate the issue, because it's just sprung from one small part of my overall point, and has very little to do with that point.
"We the people" are to blame for the current situation of the economy. Anyone that wants someone to blame would do well to walk into their bathroom and gaze into the mirror.
If we don't, no "solution" is ever really going to stick.
thopkins22
09-23-08, 20:37
"We the people" are to blame for the current situation of the economy. Anyone that wants someone to blame would do well to walk into their bathroom and gaze into the mirror.
Yes and no, we are to blame for negative savings and poor policy, unfortunately the whole thing is being exacerbated by unelected officials....the treasury and the Fed.
Yes and no, we are to blame for negative savings and poor policy, unfortunately the whole thing is being exacerbated by unelected officials....the treasury and the Fed.
That's like a criminal blaming a cop for arresting them AFTER they commit the crime.
If we didn't want to turn our financial and economic futures over to people we have no control over, we shouldn't have acted like little kids that stole $5 out of mommy's purse.
I'm going to start handing out copies of 5th grade history books to folks.
I take no responsibility for the current situation.
As someone who used to work on a daily basis with people who needed mortgages and saw too many people who never should have been approved, gotten approved, I expected this to happen eventually.
The banks gave out mtg's like candy at Halloween time, as long as they got their two points and a laundry list of fees, nearly anyone could get a no income, no job verification mtg. if they were willing to do the above and pay 1/4 to 1/2 pt. extra on their rate.
As a result of the above trend and knowing what was coming , I dumped all stock. When you have Investment Bank C.E.O.'s getting $120 and $160 million dollar bonuses when their company just flopped something is wrong. One C.E.O. got a company car and driver for 5 years as part of his package, after the company went into the toilet. That money should have went to the shareholders, or the employess pension fund, not the C.E.O. who helped run the company into the ground. Some people need to go to jail for this.
When I look in the bathroom mirror, I see someone who saw what was coming, someone who may capitalize on the banks greed by buying some of their foreclosures, not someone who is to blame for the current situation that was many years in the making. M.H.O.
thopkins22
09-23-08, 21:32
That's like a criminal blaming a cop for arresting them AFTER they commit the crime.
If we didn't want to turn our financial and economic futures over to people we have no control over, we shouldn't have acted like little kids that stole $5 out of mommy's purse.
Good analogy...and I understand what you're saying. If we're to reign the Fed back in and make it act within it's charter we need to elect people who actually understand what makes a free market tick. Something that's been exceptionally rare in the past I dunno....100 years.
With few exceptions(Reagan/Goldwater/a few others), libertarian leaning politicians have been laughed off the stage in American politics. Sometimes with reason, but we sure as hell could have avoided this current debacle.
Forgive my disorganized thoughts, I'm still without ac here in Houston and consequently haven't gotten a good nights sleep in a while. Guess I need a bigger generator.
I take no responsibility for the current situation.
Address for the history book? It's on me.
As someone who used to work on a daily basis with people who needed mortgages
No one needs a mortgage.
and saw too many people who never should have been approved, gotten approved, I expected this to happen eventually.
Outside the typical "you're a citizen and you did nothing...you voted....you didn't vote.... etc etc" part of it being all of our fault... You worked in this field, recognized a problem, and did nothing. Believe me when I say, I don't intend for that to sound dickish, or like this situation is entirely your fault, or even more your fault than anyone elses, I'm simply trying to make you understand how you contradicted yourself in your own post. No animosity I assure you.
The banks gave out mtg's like candy at Halloween time, as long as they got their two points and a laundry list of fees, nearly anyone could get a no income, no job verification mtg. if they were willing to do the above and pay 1/4 to 1/2 pt. extra on their rate.
As a result of the above trend and knowing what was coming , I dumped all stock. When you have Investment Bank C.E.O.'s getting $120 and $160 million dollar bonuses when their company just flopped something is wrong. One C.E.O. got a company car and driver for 5 years as part of his package, after the company went into the toilet. That money should have went to the shareholders, or the employess pension fund, not the C.E.O. who helped run the company into the ground. Some people need to go to jail for this.
When I look in the bathroom mirror, I see someone who saw what was coming, someone who may capitalize on the banks greed by buying some of their foreclosures, not someone who is to blame for the current situation that was many years in the making. M.H.O.
Just another small contradiction.
I'm with you on capitalizing. I wish you luck. The environment should be bountiful in the coming years.
Forgive my disorganized thoughts, I'm still without ac here in Houston and consequently haven't gotten a good nights sleep in a while. Guess I need a bigger generator.
FEMA isn't handing them out like condoms at the free clinic? They did down here after Wilma. Up to $800 per family if you showed up with a receipt for a generator after the storm. The federal government buying generators so that people could be less uncomfortable (bearing in mind that Wilma was in November, so it's not like it was hot or anything, it was in fact a beautiful vacation as far as I was concerned and I'd like to see a November hurricane every year) after a localized natural disaster. This is also Boca, where the average income per family is somewhere north of $200k/year. Thank god FEMA showed up to reimburse them that $800 as I'm sure they all would have gone bankrupt from the cost.
Pretty damn indicative of the entire problem.
ZDL:
I did not contradict myself. The Banks are not in the habit of listening to me when setting their lending criteria. There was plenty of fraud involved in the documentation for obtaining mortagage approvals, none of which I had anything to do with. There is nothing I could have done to prevent this, including no one I could have voted for who could have changed this.
While we can agree to disagree here. While you meant no animosity, I'll pass on the free text book. Your sarcasm is not appreciated and contributes nothing to this discussion.
ZDL:
I did not contradict myself. The Banks are not in the habit of listening to me when setting their lending criteria. There was plenty of fraud involved in the documentation for obtaining mortagage approvals, none of which I had anything to do with. There is nothing I could have done to prevent this, including no one I could have voted for who could have changed this.
While we can agree to disagree here. While you meant no animosity, I'll pass on the free text book. Your sarcasm is not appreciated and contributes nothing to this discussion.
Not sarcasm in the realm your thinking. I attempted to inject some e-humor as tone and meaning are difficult to discern by reading text. Simply didn't want you to believe I was being irrational or a jerk.
I'll let this die as this and my response to your post die as it's not the point of this thread. We've stated our cases well enough.
VooDoo6Actual
09-23-08, 23:01
redaction.
Zero collective bargaining ability in action.
There's only so much you can do in some situations. This being one of them.
These are the important parts to remember.
Rob, we were told explicitly that it was un-American not to spend in this manner. The propaganda that has been spread since post-WWII concerning the importance of our "precious" (please note the inference to the One Ring) economy is astounding. Tell me that American advertising doesn't play to the basest part of the human psychy. Tell me that every politician since at least FDR hasn't said "it's the economy, stupid".
I do not disagree that we are all responsible, but to deny that our leadership and Wall Street had anything to do with this is most naive.
We throw away any sense of moral absolutes and succumb to our basest desires and we think we can continue on as before. This economy is just a symptom of a much larger problem.
America is dead. And my suggestion to the members of this board is that'd you'd be best served by preparing for the decay that will follow. Because I can guarantee that you ain't gonna bring it back to life.
What I haven't seen one iota of in this thread is anyone blaming "the people". Banks, politicians, "the man".... it's the people's fault. Period.
If you sold an old house for 2x-3x what it was really worth, and moved into another house that cost even 2x more than that, this is your fault.
Really? Tell us, if you were looking to move in say, '06 for whatever reason, how would you have handled the issue differently? Do you have access to a sub-market of homes that others aren't privileged to priced according to your preferred guidelines rather than those of the market?
Joe homeowner did not create this mess by selling a home for what the market demanded at the time, nor for buying a home for what it was worth at the time. The forces that dictated those prices were bigger than he. All he could do was stay put if he saw a potential problem, but maybe that was not an option or, like so many, he did not see the market crashing as bad as it did.
Really? Tell us, if you were looking to move in say, '06 for whatever reason, how would you have handled the issue differently? Do you have access to a sub-market of homes that others aren't privileged to priced according to your preferred guidelines rather than those of the market?
Joe homeowner did not create this mess by selling a home for what the market demanded at the time, nor for buying a home for what it was worth at the time. The forces that dictated those prices were bigger than he. All he could do was stay put if he saw a potential problem, but maybe that was not an option or, like so many, he did not see the market crashing as bad as it did.
This is not what I'm talking about.
What I'm talking about are the people that moved for NO REASON other than their inflated house price meant they could move into a more expensive home. People that essentially "traded in" one perfectly good house for a "better" house, and who could only afford to do so because of the market being screwed up by other people doing the exact same thing.
Not to mention, if a person found themselves in the situation you describe, the stupid thing to do was to sell one house and go buy another. The smart thing to do was to sell the current house at the inflated rate, go rent for two years, and buy back your old house (or one just like it) for less than you sold it for today.
What I find more interesting is all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth and "uh uh, not me" from so many that would consider themselves conservatives if asked and who are always all in favor of "personal responsibility". Guess that only applies when it's the other guy huh?
Not to mention, if a person found themselves in the situation you describe, the stupid thing to do was to sell one house and go buy another. The smart thing to do was to sell the current house at the inflated rate, go rent for two years, and buy back your old house (or one just like it) for less than you sold it for today.
You are cherry picking scenarios while also generalizing. Who was to say that his home or the equivalent would be worth less in 2 years, enabling him to buy it back at a discount? Was something carved in stone?
Tell me, have you ever heard of anyone doing or even contemplating such a thing? Selling their home on a market gamble, then gambling again that it goes back up at a projected time so that they can buy at a discounted rate? What if it went up in value, or values stabilized for a decade? What about the lending restrictions in place today making mortgages much harder to obtain?
The smart thing to do was to sell the current house at the inflated rate, go rent for two years, and buy back your old house (or one just like it) for less than you sold it for today.
Oh come on. That is silly. You really did not think this answer through. Nobody can see the future and know when the bubble would burst and if they would be able to buy back. Never mind where do they store stuff for 2 years? There are also Capital Gains Tax issues, Mortgage interest issues, etc.
The smart thing to do was not think your house was worth 3x what you know it is worth just because some idiot tells you so. Just continue to go about your business of not get caught up in the gold rush.
Evidently you're one of these people that bought/sold in this time period, and are just out to get offended, so I'm just going to leave you to your indignation.
The bigger point/issue here is that if we, collectively, as Americans make it through this and don't learn from it that you cannot build a life/country on debt, then there's really no point in recovering in the short term.
Although, it's evident that we're never going to learn. The pre-war generation that lived through the Depression the first time (the parents of "the greatest generation") learned their lessons. Unfortunately it got watered down with each passing generation to the point that the current generation has lost it.
Oh come on. That is silly. You really did not think this answer through. Nobody can see the future and know when the bubble would burst and if they would be able to buy back. Never mind where do they store stuff for 2 years? There are also Capital Gains Tax issues, Mortgage interest issues, etc.
The smart thing to do was not think your house was worth 3x what you know it is worth just because some idiot tells you so. Just continue to go about your business of not get caught up in the gold rush.
See above. Don't get lost in the minutia.
Evidently you're one of these people that bought/sold in this time period, and are just out to get offended, so I'm just going to leave you to your indignation.
What a baseless, arrogant, factually incorrect statement. Somebody having a bad day?
You are wrong on your point, accept it without blindly attacking those who expose your error.
It doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong (even though I'm not), as chasing that one single point is missing the bigger picture.
See my post above. If all you have to discuss is the minutia then this is pointless.
See above. Don't get lost in the minutia.
You introduced the minutia with this silly sell your house and rent plan for two years plan.
We finally get a really good, very relevant, non gun related thread going and it gets trashed....:mad:
variablebinary
09-24-08, 13:18
There is nothing wrong with debt. Like everything else in the universe, all things in moderation. Without debt very few would have a car, home, education or day to day needs between paychecks.
There is however, a big gap between having manageble debt and living beyond your means.
We finally get a really good, very relevant, non gun related thread going and it gets trashed....:mad:
Just clarifying fact from fiction, nothing more.
thopkins22
09-24-08, 14:48
Oh come on. That is silly. You really did not think this answer through. Nobody can see the future and know when the bubble would burst and if they would be able to buy back. Never mind where do they store stuff for 2 years? There are also Capital Gains Tax issues, Mortgage interest issues, etc.
The smart thing to do was not think your house was worth 3x what you know it is worth just because some idiot tells you so. Just continue to go about your business of not get caught up in the gold rush.
Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff saw it coming and said so everytime they were invited on a financial show. Jim Rogers was the partner of Soros back in the 70's when they made something like 1700%.
thopkins22
09-24-08, 14:51
There is nothing wrong with debt. Like everything else in the universe, all things in moderation. Without debt very few would have a car, home, education or day to day needs between paychecks.
There is however, a big gap between having manageble debt and living beyond your means.
There is something wrong with it though. People have been borrowing to consume for years in this country and as a function we have a negative savings rate and rely on foreigners to fund our consumption. At some point that gravy train will end, and we'll have a very steep hill to climb.
Nobody can see the future and know when the bubble would burst and if they would be able to buy back.
And I'm not buying that. It was a case of people didn't want to hear anything about a bubble. I cant begin to recall how many people I tried to warn and how they all told me I was nuts. I know that I wasn't the only one who felt like Cassandra in this case. They just didnt want to hear the truth and have to face the fact that their house they bought for 200K and was now worth 400K and was recently re-fied for 125% of value was over priced and would lose value. The truth was too much for them.
Jim Rogers and Peter Schiff saw it coming and said so everytime they were invited on a financial show. Jim Rogers was the partner of Soros back in the 70's when they made something like 1700%.
Really? So they sold their homes at peak value, lived in Apt for 2 years, and then bought their homes back after the value dropped out?
I doubt it.
And I'm not buying that. It was a case of people didn't want to hear anything about a bubble. I cant begin to recall how many people I tried to warn and how they all told me I was nuts. I know that I wasn't the only one who felt like Cassandra in this case. They just didnt want to hear the truth and have to face the fact that their house they bought for 200K and was now worth 400K and was recently re-fied for 125% of value was over priced and would lose value. The truth was too much for them.
So you too sold your home at peak value, lived in Apt for 2 years, and then bought it back after the value dropped out?
Gosh, maybe Rob_s is right.
WOW. Very few people in this thread have even the slightest clue what they are talking about. Someone link the "unqualified opinion" thread for a refresh on when to keep your mouth shut and ears open.
This isn't just about mortgages. Mortgages just hit the skids first and hardest. Look at all the unsecure consumer debt (credit cards). We've made an industry out of talking card companies down to pennies on the dollar just in hopes of getting some of their money back. And then there's all the "x years same as cash" schemes to get us to spend money we don't have in hand. So, our "precious" economy will be our downfall. Amazing what unrestrained greed and self-indulgence can accomplish.
WOW. Very few people in this thread have even the slightest clue what they are talking about. Someone link the "unqualified opinion" thread for a refresh on when to keep your mouth shut and ears open.
Maybe you can clarify what side your on, as with 15 years experience in residential land development and real estate, I know I for one am credible in this particular department.
I can also tell you that I sat in many a meeting in '04 and '05 cautiously figuring how much more to pay for raw land to develop, and there was concern that we were all starting to go overboard. "All" as in my company and our competition (Toll, DR Horton, Lennar, KHovnanian, etc...). The prospect of a bubble was introduced, and then downplayed by my superiors. Either that or it was inferred that a bursting bubble was too worst case scenario, and that a leveling out period was more likely. If we wanted projects, we had to pay an increasingly competitive price for the farm, literally. Bottom line, no one knew for sure what would happen or when. Just speculation.
That higher price paid changed the market landscape of many towns, as the resulting higher new home prices in the area increased the value of existing homes as well.
thopkins22
09-24-08, 17:06
Really? So they sold their homes at peak value, lived in Apt for 2 years, and then bought their homes back after the value dropped out?
I doubt it.
Jim Rogers is extremely rich so I sincerely doubt it mattered to him, and Peter Schiff did exactly what you said. Many places in the country you can rent a $1,000,000+ house for pretty cheap.
But more than that is how they invested their clients money. Commodities like wheat, corn, oil, and so on have sky rocketed as they predicted. Foreign currencies have been MUCH better for money market stuff, and the heng sang index is still a good buy.
I wish I would have listened, I'd be worth much more today.
What's of value is WHY they were able to predict this. It's hardly rocket science, it's fundamentals. With artificially low interest rates, it's no wonder they were able to avoid currency devaluation and real estate blunders(especially Rogers, as he profited so greatly the last time we printed too much money). We're currently pushing down an unsustainable path.
It's similar to the tech bubble when the hip Wall St. crowd said P/E Ratios no longer mattered. Well, they do matter. Just like deficits and inflation matter.
Added*I sincerely doubt that either one of them would advocate now as being a good time for anyone to get into new debt. We're witnessing the snowball picking up speed, plenty of stuff can and probably will go wrong in the next year or five.
I thought the following comments to be pretty interesting. I'm sure some will squak at the references to Biblical "End Times" prophecy, but many, including I believe such these things will come to pass. Not necessarily in the manner that Mr. Collins has opined...we will not now with any certainty until the events actually transpire. In any event take it for what it's worth to you. As I said, I simply thought that it was an interesting perspective on the whole thing.
___________________________________________________________
PAULSON SEEKING TO GRAB “RECEIVER” STATUS OVER ENTIRE USA?
Steven Collins
September 22, 2008
Today’s print version of the USA Today had a piece of information on its front page that just about made me choke on my breakfast. Its front-page, above-the-fold story was “Amid urgency, questions grow about $700B bailout.” It had a prominent sidebar entitled “Who’s in Charge?” The text in the sidebar about this bailout plan’s provisions stated: “Treasury Secretary’s decisions would be ‘non-reviewable’ and ‘may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency,’ plan says.” Do you grasp the apocalyptic import of these words?
The gargantuan bailout plan (which the White House is trying to get Congress to pass quickly before they realize what it actually will do to the nation), apparently gives limitless power to Sec. Henry Paulson. He would be “above the law” and would be “above the courts” and have more authority than the federal government’s own agencies, if the USA Today article is factually correct. I went to the USA Today’s website and found out the story had been “spiked” from its own website! I could not find the USA Today’s own lead story at its website even though I searched for it by name, by subject and by its authors (who were Sue Kirchoff, Barbara Hagenbaugh and Paul Davidson). Even a Google-search turned up nothing in the establishment media. When a major media spikes its own lead story, it is often because they “let out” something the masses were not supposed to know.
Keep in mind that the sweeping authority to be granted to Sec. Paulson may have some limits placed on him in the actual language of the bill, but that it not known at this point. The fact that the information was quickly “hushed up” argues that the bill’s language is hardly benign for the American people or the nation. In its worst case application (the one asserted in the language cited in the USA TODAY), Sec. Henry Paulson would, in effect, become the “Receiver” who will begin to oversee the national bankruptcy of the entire USA…and his decisions would not be appealable in “any court of law” or by “any administrative agency” (to use the exact USA TODAY language). Sec. Paulson would essentially be able to rule the nation by “executive orders” that would overrule even President Bush because Bush is in charge of federal “administrative agencies,” but the bailout bill would exalt Paulson over all such federal agencies.
Paulson’s first decree might be to shut down the first amendment, forbidding all media and press to report anything about the economy or monetary system that was not pre-approved by his office. Those who defied that order might find out that Paulson would next repeal the Constitutional right of Habeas Corpus. What if Paulson decided that the 2nd amendment right to “own an bear arms” was a “risk to his administration” and he ordered confiscation of all firearms owned by the public? After all, if Paulson is the Receiver over a national bankruptcy, he could liquidate any private American assets to satisfy foreign debts. Since a few million armed American property owners would resist this effort, Paulson might ban forearms ownership to make sure his “repo” men aren’t fired upon. Has anyone told the NRA about Paulson’s apparently limitless power grab?
To do all this, someone whose decrees “may not be reviewed by any court of law” may decide to nationalize all police forces to enforce all his dictatorial decrees. Hello to the new Gestapo? Could he simply “cancel elections” because they might “threaten his authority” (remember his decisions would be “non-reviewable” by anyone). If the USA Today’s report is literally true as reported, Henry Paulson would become Dictator over the USA. We would have our own American “Fuhrer.”
Over the weekend, Goldman-Sachs and Morgan-Stanley were magically transformed by the wizards at the Fed into “Bank Holding Companies” so they could become regular banks instead of “investment banks.” They could become the banks which Paulson could use to liquate American assets to pay off all foreign banks. Think this is an outlandish possibility? Media reports indicate the bail-out bill would also permit Paulson’s “bailout” to include foreign banks with operations inside the USA. What a slippery slope we are on.
Let’s hope this all gets stopped by a Congress which, at last, finds its brains and backbone to act in the interests of the voters and the nation. If allowing Sec. Paulson to become a “god” over the USA who is above all laws and agencies of the government sounds like a bad idea to you, I strongly urge you (right away!) to contact your state’s senators and your congressional representatives to oppose this bailout which gives Sec. Paulson (or anyone else) such dictatorial powers over the entire nation. If this happens, the United States of America, as we know it, may be flushed down the toilet by an act of a Congress which acts on this bailout before it knows what it is really approving! The US dollar could also lose its international reserve currency status and be replaced by a new form of “world money.” If Paulson has limitless authority, he can decree the dollar out of existence and replace it with a new “world currency.” Congress may think it is “giving an inch” to Sec. Paulson, but he intends to “take a mile” from Congress.
A websearch can find blogs and stories confirming the White House’s desire to give Sec. Paulson dictatorial powers. I’ve attached two such links below. I’m not making this up. Do a websearch for “Paulson’s decisions to be “non-reviewable,” and check it out for yourself. That’s how I found the two links below.
Bible prophecy warns that a global (and evil) monetary/economic system will be imposed on the nations in the latter days. Revelation 13: prophesies that a “beast” system will come into being with global authority and that it will have controlling powers over the money system and economic transactions (verses 16-18). The current power-grab by Sec. Paulson may be thwarted in Congress, but if it comes to pass, we may be seeing the arrival of the “beast” system.
Now let’s consider who benefits from the bail-out powers given to Sec. Paulson. Sec. Paulson is a former top executive of Goldman-Sachs. Goldman’s old firm is one of the Wall Street crowd which caused the sub-prime mortgage collapse by inventing the “securitization” of mortgage loans. Wall Street “securitized” all kinds of loans (mortgage, auto, credit card, etc.), and also allowed mega-trillions of derivatives to be created without regulatory oversight. If Congress grants Sec. Paulson authority which cannot be challenged by either courts or federal agencies, he can essentially “pardon” all his Wall Street buddies from the sins they have committed against the nations and its taxpayers. In appointing Sec. Paulson as National Receiver, Congress would be appointing one of the Wall Street “foxes” which has already looted much of the “chicken coop.” Consider who else would gain from this action.
If Sec. Paulson is appointed de facto “Receiver” to liquidate the USA’s assets to pay its foreign debts, he would (as all Receivers do) represent the interests of the creditors. Who is the largest foreign holder of US debts? China! Sec. Paulson has made, according to media reports, well over a 100 trips to China. Do we see a connection here? Sec. Paulson could act as China’s designated “repo” man to seize America’s assets if Congress is foolish enough to make him “a law unto himself.” From all his visits to China, it is obvious that Sec. Paulson knows the leaders of the Communist Chinese Party (which governs China) really, really well by now.
A book I purchased a few years ago at www.newsmax.com was entitled “Unrestricted Warfare: China’s Master Plan to Destroy America.” It was an English-language version of a document drawn up by two Colonels (Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui) in the People’s Liberation Army of China re: how China could defeat and take over the USA via asymmetric warfare. It advocates that China wage economic and financial warfare against the USA as well as wage electronic warfare vs. the USA via computer hacking efforts vs. sensitive US defense and business information networks. This has already happened. China has bought up close to a trillion dollars of US debt, gaining massive influence over the US economy and monetary system. China has hacked into many sensitive US electronic systems (as previous blogs have documented–see Archives). China’s overall goal, as is clear in this Chinese book, is to so weaken the USA that it collapses from an economic, social and monetary crisis that China (and its allies Russia, Iran, etc.) do not need to conquer the USA and the West militarily. They want the USA to fall into their lap like “ripe fruit.” If Paulson gets dictatorial powers from Congress, China may get its wish.
However, Ezekiel 38 indicates that Russia, China, Iran and their many allies will have to invade the USA and the West (called “Israel” in Ezekiel’s the prophecy because the USA and many European nations are descended from the ten tribes of Israel–as readers of my books already know) to seize our assets and physical wealth (Ezekiel 38:12-13). According to this prophecy, China and Russia do not wish to “nuke” the USA, they want to come and occupy it and seize its wealth. Ezekiel 38’s prophecy about a Russian-Chinese invasion of the USA could take form as a “foreclosure raid” by foreign creditors. Americans could also learn that excessive debt owed to foreigners can be as dangerous as an invading foreign army. Check out my article (What Kind of Captivity?”) which explains the origins of the Babylonian economic system and how debt could have been responsible for many of the “captivities” the Israelites experienced in the book of Judges; wherein, they became slaves to foreigners while living in their own Promised Land. The same could happen to Americans today, especially if Sec. Paulson gets dictatorial powers to transfer America’s assets to America’s foreign creditors.
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/seafan/2578
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/09/22/paulson/?source=rss
IroquoisSnakePlissken
09-24-08, 18:52
Hopkins is right.
The Economic "Laws of Physics" can only be "defied" for so long, until what is currently happening begins to happen.
Everything has gone up in a disproportionate fashion to real wages. Housing prices. Commodity prices. Food prices. Ammunition prices.
We're reaping what we've all sown, and we're witnessing a coup de'tat of what was once the Government of the United States of America.
Seriously, what's being proposed is some Banana Republic bullshit that goes against everything this nation of rugged individualism was founded upon:
Responsibility for One's Actions.
I'd like to see any of you LEO's shirk responsibility for anything you do in uniform.
I'd like to see any of you soldiers shirk responsibility for anything you do in uniform.
You, unlike the power brokers on Wall Street, and the pimps and weasels and greasebags in the Beltway, have taken oaths that you stand behind. And if you don't stand behind your oaths, and you choose to shirk responsibility whilst holding the office you do, either as a LEO or a member of the Armed Forces, someone will hold you accountable. I'd argue no one on this forum is a priveledged class, who has lived a carefree life of reckless abandon. Everyone here, in one way or another, has paid their dues in life.
Sure, greedy John Q. Sixpack wanted something for nothing. Unearned riches, and suckled the bitter teat of entitlement, but those loans didn't just approve themselves.
It was an unholy union of people wanting something for nothing, and the banksters seeing an opportunity for quick and easy cash.
Both parties hold equal stake in this sordid affair, but I personally do not support bailing either one of them out.
Let John Q. Sixpack reap what he sows, and live out his greedy existence in a cardboard box in the slums. You bought a house you couldn't afford. Shame on you.
Let the greasebag Wall Street Playerz reap what they have sown, and provide no compensation, no bailouts, no nothing. Game over. You ****ed up. That's called Capitalism. You took a risk that turned out to not be advantageous for you. Deal with it, and close up shop. Someone will come in and fill the void.
When does it end?
Are we going to bail out the Qwik Stop on the corner? Haka Laka's been charging a wee bit too much for gas, and the customers have gone elsewhere...TIME FOR A BAILOUT!
Are we going to bail out the Pizza Hut that's not been doing so hot? They gave a couple of customers botulism, but that's not a big deal! They shouldn't close up shop. Business has been down for 'em ever since. Where's their slice of the pie?
While we're at it, let's bail out the Aimpoint Clone manufacturers. Since all these nasty reviews have been showing up the internet, their sales haven't been what they used to. Time for a bailout!!!
Seriously folks. We need to notify the leadership in this country that we do not support this at any cost. Even if that cost is a diminished quality of life for a while.
Pick your poison. You wanna take it now, and cowboy up, and deal with the repercussions of an Economy out of sync with reality? Or do you want to bear witness to quite possibly the dissolution of the United States of America as we knew her?
You decide. Comfort, or honour.
The ones who are complaining most about the bailout probably didn't have much problem cashing their 'bailout' stimulus check.
By the way, the Austrian School of Economics has been warning about this for decades.
Fiat currencies only have a life of about 70 years. We went totally off the gold standard I think in 1971, the clock is ticking.
I never received an economic stimulus check.
Guys, this has been a long time in the making, at least since Freddie Mac was created during the Great Depression/New Deal era, and arguably way back when the Supreme Court finally ruled that the Income Tax was not unconstitutional. But those events are so firmly entrenched in our nation's history and economy that it does no good to cast blame and aspersions at the current cast of characters or administration and intelligently believe that just "SAYING NO" to the bail out will leave us better off. It infurriates me too, but Paulson is no socialist, and Bernake is one of the most off the hook smart economists in the world. They're playing the cards in their hands right now, and while I believe some of my ideas would place a lesser burden on the economy and the taxpayer, I'm not going to put my brain in frying pan with those guys. Paulson is world famous, not just for being CEO of Goldman Sachs, but because of the work he has done helping other countries facing issues from high inflation to currency crisis. So, the anonymously written article in the OP blames everyone now in power and proposes nothing. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of our markets know that doing nothing now will cause a literal seizure of our credit markets and then the rest of the world. So, propose an alternative, but please don't be so naive to believe that we can hide under some rock of truly free market capitalism that hasn't existed since the Great Depression.
Just saying "NO" to the so called bail-out without proposing an alternative is saying YES to a global meltdown of the credit markets and then a consequential dominoe effect of every institution that relies on credit.
Amazing what we have forgotten, ignored, and are willing to compromise in the course of a mere 232 years.
It's time to hit the reset button. Resetting will upheave our current lives and make things INCREDIBLY difficult for us compared to what we are used too. However, our COUNTRY will be able to rebuild and our children will be able to prosper and not have our mistakes to pay for. Parents have been passing down their problems to their children for too long. It absolutely has to stop right now.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Some things change, some don't.
They're playing the cards in their hands right now
What did they inherit and what is their part in the current crisis? If they are the geniuses you say, why didn't they head this off at the pass? It seems somewhat opportunistic to be suggesting broad new controls as part of the bail-out, after being at the helm of the ship. Is there a possibility they believe 700 billiion of our tax dollars is cheap to get more control centralized in Washington?
Just saying "NO" to the so called bail-out without proposing an alternative is saying YES to a global meltdown of the credit markets and then a consequential dominoe effect of every institution that relies on credit.
Why do folks keep insisting "credit" will dry up? IMHO, there will still be places for solid financial interests to get capital. Perhaps fast and loose will be gone, but won't solid and steady will rule the day?
thopkins22
09-25-08, 08:00
Just saying "NO" to the so called bail-out without proposing an alternative is saying YES to a global meltdown of the credit markets and then a consequential dominoe effect of every institution that relies on credit.
WTF Are you talking about? It would be crazy in the short term no doubt, but unbelievably better in the long run. There is plenty of capital out there, and if you have any faith at all in the marketplace then you realize where there is a demand, somebody will step up and provide the service. Would there be less credit? HELL YES, in fact that's the medicine we've been needing. Fundamentals dude, we need to get away from this negative savings rate crap anyway.
The whole problem was created by government intervention, and yet these are the same douchebags that are going to magically save us with yet more government intervention? No, what they are going to do is ruin the dollar and send us even further down the path of European socialism.
No, what they are going to do is ruin the dollar and send us even further down the path of European socialism.
From what I understand, what they are planning to do is much more akin to fascism than socialism:
Some are alleging that the US government’s accelerating bailout of banks, insurance companies et. al. is socialism. Although it is government intervention in extremis, such intervention in the markets does not constitute socialism.
The bailout of investment banks and corporations by the US government is fascism; the control and intervention of government by corporate interests designed to further corporate and state control. The multi-trillion dollar state support of JP Morgan, AIG, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and now perhaps soon GM, Ford, and Chrysler is fascism, not socialism.
Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. Benito Mussolini
http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/schoon/2008/0923.html
So you too sold your home at peak value, lived in Apt for 2 years, and then bought it back after the value dropped out?
Gosh, maybe Rob_s is right.
Nope. But I didnt try the 'upgrade' game and I didnt try the 're-fi to 125% of home loan value with an ARM loan' like so many other did. Why? Because I paid attention to the reality of the situation, because I had enough of an understanding about economics and supply and demand and history to know that this was a bubble that could not be sustained. This wasnt rocket science. The warnings were there. Hell as thopkins22 there was a corollary from not even 10 years prior to this melt down and people just willfully ignored it.
Nope. But I didnt try the 'upgrade' game and I didnt try the 're-fi to 125% of home loan value with an ARM loan' like so many other did.
Now, this is a totally different aspect to the overall problem, and likely much more to blame for fueling it. As a result of credit getting too easy to obtain, and home values increasing sharply creating equity that wasn't there maybe just 6 months before, many did go too far with refi's no doubt. They took advantage of their newfound wealth without really thinking all the consequences through. Even if the market stayed stable for years, anything over a 90% loan-to value, especially with a ARM or interest only loan due to convert in 2-5 years, was risky regardless.
Again, this is a legit complaint. Making people who bought or sold their homes during the boom years out to be evil, greedy bastards is not.
Nope. But I didnt try the 'upgrade' game and I didnt try the 're-fi to 125% of home loan value with an ARM loan' like so many other did. Why? Because I paid attention to the reality of the situation, because I had enough of an understanding about economics and supply and demand and history to know that this was a bubble that could not be sustained. This wasnt rocket science. The warnings were there. Hell as thopkins22 there was a corollary from not even 10 years prior to this melt down and people just willfully ignored it.
So your comments had nothing to do with the context of what I wrote......
variablebinary
09-25-08, 12:03
**** these banks and Wall Street pricks. Let them close up shop. No bailouts for anyone.
Play stupid game, win stupid prize.
This is not what the founding fathers intended...
variablebinary
09-25-08, 12:07
Anyone remember this. Like I said above, **** em...
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
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.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
variablebinary
09-25-08, 12:16
More truth...
The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 15, 2008
Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.
Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.
But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Reinvestment Act*, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.
Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.
In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.
At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.
The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.
There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.
But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.
Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.
While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.
Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.
*In the original version of this editorial, the Community Reinvestment Act was mistakenly listed as the "Community Redevelopment Act".
So your comments had nothing to do with the context of what I wrote......
Why should I respond the way you want to your strawman statement? You might want to try to change your bait. Better luck next time. OTOH My comments had everything to do with disproving your contention that everyone was stumbling around, blind, in the dark and they were all victims.
The fact remains that a lot of folks on all sides of the equation (from home owners to corporations to the .gov, to the fed) got greedy and willfully ignored history and reality and now they don't want to pay the price for their folly.
I honestly don't know what should be done about this "bailout" plan. In general I am against govt intrusion. However, the gov't has already intruded so much and screwed things up so much that it may take more intrusion to get things back to where they should be. I just don't know.
I just got this in my email from the Motley Fool founder Tom Gardner...
--
FROM: Motley Fool Co-founder, Tom Gardner
================================================================
Dear Fools:
We need your help.
Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has put together a plan that is
actively under debate and allows the Treasury to invest in
assets that are crushing bank balance sheets. We view this plan
as being an important step in allowing the global financial
system to recapitalize itself. We agree with financial
intellectual titans Warren Buffett and Bill Gross, as well as
both presidential candidates, that the Paulson Plan needs to be
passed and will benefit Main Street.
We believe that if the Paulson Plan is done correctly, American
taxpayers will profit not only from the return of lending
capacity to our banks, but also from these troubled investments.
However, the plan should embrace the tenets of free-market
capitalism. The government should demand equity stakes in the
banks.
We think taxpayers deserve to benefit from a deal soundly rooted
in free-market principles. We, the undersigned, encourage you to
call the people who represent you in the House and Senate and
demand that the approved deal include provisions for equity
ownership. Go to www.house.gov and www.senate.gov to find the
phone numbers for your elected representatives.
Finally, even though these are extraordinary times, we stand by
our belief that the best way to build long-term wealth is
through equity ownership. Just look at who is doing a lot of
buying of late -- Warren Buffett.
We encourage you to take a few minutes -- now! -- to call your
elected officials and let them know that there needs to be an
equity component for taxpayers.
Onward,
Tom Gardner, CEO and Co-Founder, The Motley Fool
Scott Schedler, President, The Motley Fool
Bill Mann, Senior Advisor, Motley Fool Hidden Gems, Pay Dirt,
and Global Gains
P.S. We have opened a discussion board where Fools can gather to
talk about this important issue. Click here to come and share
your opinions.
http://www.fool.com/m.asp?i=3064770&u=31985317
Why should I respond the way you want to your strawman statement? You might want to try to change your bait. Better luck next time. OTOH My comments had everything to do with disproving your contention that everyone was stumbling around, blind, in the dark and they were all victims.
Uh, No.
My contention was that rob_s claim that:
Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
The smart thing to do was to sell the current house at the inflated rate, go rent for two years, and buy back your old house (or one just like it) for less than you sold it for today.
Was not realistic and not practiced by anybody.
In reality, I was one of the first in this thread to point out these people were not victims, but caused their own pain as a result of:
Actually the root of this monetary mess is America has changed from a Land of Opportunity to a Land of Entitlement.
Politicians have convinced too many folks they are Entitled to a home, new car, college education, healthcare, job etc. And you are entitled to have RIGHT NOW even if you cannot afford.
The fact is, you are entitled to NONE of these things, they are merely opportunities you can achieve if you work hard, and make good decisions.
Next time RIF before typing.
Well let's see. The Govt. hands out money to people who don't want to work and gives money to people who don't even pay taxes( that would be almost half of the people out there who don't pay taxes ). They also give handouts to people who are not even citizens of this country and are breaking the law just by being here.
Now you have John Q Investor who has worked all his life and payed taxes to the tune of 28% of his income and is a law abiding citizen. John has saved and invested and built up a nice portfolio. If the Govt. wants to pump 700 billion into wall street to make Johns account a little greener I don't have a problem with it.
thopkins22
09-25-08, 14:19
Now you have John Q Investor who has worked all his life and payed taxes to the tune of 28% of his income and is a law abiding citizen. John has saved and invested and built up a nice portfolio. If the Govt. wants to pump 700 billion into wall street to make Johns account a little greener I don't have a problem with it.
It's not going to make John's account greener. Well, it might temporarily keep his numbers up(won't work forever,) but it will make his dollars worthless. Again, your proposed fix is not a fix at all, but a continuation of the shitty policy that got us here in the first place.
Fundamentals. Borrowing from foreigners/printing huge amounts of money is not a fix...it's the problem, and it's not sustainable. The further down this path we go, the harder we'll all be hit when it truly hits the fan. This stuff is taught in econ 101. Even Greenspan himself admitted as much during his appearance in I.O.U.S.A..
Whatever, I guess you're with the instant gratification crowd.
Politicians have convinced too many folks they are Entitled to a home, new car, college education, healthcare, job etc. And you are entitled to have RIGHT NOW even if you cannot afford.
I would argue that it's not just politicians that have encouraged Americans to think that way. The entire advertising business is built on that very idea.
Uh, No.
My contention was that rob_s claim that:
Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
The smart thing to do was to sell the current house at the inflated rate, go rent for two years, and buy back your old house (or one just like it) for less than you sold it for today.
Was not realistic and not practiced by anybody.
In reality, I was one of the first in this thread to point out these people were not victims, but caused their own pain as a result of:
Actually the root of this monetary mess is America has changed from a Land of Opportunity to a Land of Entitlement.
Politicians have convinced too many folks they are Entitled to a home, new car, college education, healthcare, job etc. And you are entitled to have RIGHT NOW even if you cannot afford.
The fact is, you are entitled to NONE of these things, they are merely opportunities you can achieve if you work hard, and make good decisions.
Next time RIF before typing.
That's not entirely true. I bought and sold many houses during this boom, dealt only in cash save 1 time, sold the house I was living in, and have in fact rented a small house up until this month, in which I bought a 3200 sq ft built in 2006 in foreclosure. My family will live in this house until we are ready to move to Tennessee. (hopefully next year this time.... can't f-ing wait!)
Here is an article in the NY Time about how Sweden faced basically the same issue back in 1992 and how it overcame the problems... Food for thought (may require a NYT login to read)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin
Uh, No.
My contention was that rob_s claim that:
Originally Posted by rob_s View Post
The smart thing to do was to sell the current house at the inflated rate, go rent for two years, and buy back your old house (or one just like it) for less than you sold it for today.
Was not realistic and not practiced by anybody.
In reality, I was one of the first in this thread to point out these people were not victims, but caused their own pain as a result of:
Actually the root of this monetary mess is America has changed from a Land of Opportunity to a Land of Entitlement.
Politicians have convinced too many folks they are Entitled to a home, new car, college education, healthcare, job etc. And you are entitled to have RIGHT NOW even if you cannot afford.
The fact is, you are entitled to NONE of these things, they are merely opportunities you can achieve if you work hard, and make good decisions.
Next time RIF before typing.
Not quite, it lookes like you need to be reminded what this conversation is all about. To help you here is a recap.:
Nobody can see the future and know when the bubble would burst
To which I replied:
And I'm not buying that. It was a case of people didn't want to hear anything about a bubble. I cant begin to recall how many people I tried to warn and how they all told me I was nuts. I know that I wasn't the only one who felt like Cassandra in this case. They just didnt want to hear the truth and have to face the fact that their house they bought for 200K and was now worth 400K and was recently re-fied for 125% of value was over priced and would lose value. The truth was too much for them.
To which you replied:
So you too sold your home at peak value, lived in Apt for 2 years, and then bought it back after the value dropped out?
Gosh, maybe Rob_s is right.
Its you who needs to relearn that RIF. No where did I say anything about selling a home, renting, and rebuying the home. But you tried to make it out like I did, so I replied with:
Nope. But I didnt try the 'upgrade' game and I didnt try the 're-fi to 125% of home loan value with an ARM loan' like so many other did. Why? Because I paid attention to the reality of the situation, because I had enough of an understanding about economics and supply and demand and history to know that this was a bubble that could not be sustained. This wasnt rocket science. The warnings were there. Hell as thopkins22 there was a corollary from not even 10 years prior to this melt down and people just willfully ignored it.
So you replied:
So your comments had nothing to do with the context of what I wrote......
Now where you gut this from is a mystery. In fact here was my reply:
Why should I respond the way you want to your strawman statement? You might want to try to change your bait. Better luck next time. OTOH My comments had everything to do with disproving your contention that everyone was stumbling around, blind, in the dark and they were all victims.
The fact remains that a lot of folks on all sides of the equation (from home owners to corporations to the .gov, to the fed) got greedy and willfully ignored history and reality and now they don't want to pay the price for their folly.
So what does this all mean? It shows that you arent getting the RIF concept. Not me. I was speaking to what you said about people being unaware of what was going on, a specific point. You in turn have tried to bring in what Rob_S said and make it a part of the debate between you and I. Sorry but that dog dont hunt.
It's not going to make John's account greener
Well at least it did today.:D
thopkins22
09-25-08, 16:12
Well at least it did today.:D
Yes, it might put a halt on the short term panic, but I wouldn't get too comfortable. The whole point is that it's simply putting off the inevitable...and more than likely making the inevitable that much more painful and prolonged when it hits.
New growth is a beautiful thing for all involved, but it doesn't happen until the forrest burns, the trick is not putting the fire off for years, because it'll be that much more destructive when it happens. That's not the best analogy...but it works.
To which you replied:
Its you who needs to relearn that RIF. No where did I say anything about selling a home, renting, and rebuying the home. But you tried to make it out like I did, so I replied with:
Originally Posted by Renegade View Post
Nobody can see the future and know when the bubble would burst
.
Whatever dude. Keep quoting me out of context as you see fit and ignore the fact the quote you are clipping had an AND in it, and was directed at rob_s, not you who mentioned selling/renting/buying again. Yeah, I have the RIF problem. Whatever.
Page 3:
Originally Posted by Renegade
Originally Posted by rob_s
The smart thing to do was to sell the current house at the inflated rate, go rent for two years, and buy back your old house (or one just like it) for less than you sold it for today.
Oh come on. That is silly. You really did not think this answer through. Nobody can see the future and know when the bubble would burst and if they would be able to buy back. Never mind where do they store stuff for 2 years? There are also Capital Gains Tax issues, Mortgage interest issues, etc
The smart thing to do was not think your house was worth 3x what you know it is worth just because some idiot tells you so. Just continue to go about your business of not get caught up in the gold rush.
We will be studying this one for years. What I want to know is what your thoughts are for adjustements going forward? What changes will you make? If you have any powder dry, as Rob aludes to, there will be some oportunities. I saw plenty during the RTC times but was just getting started at the time.
Does anyone actually think that this country could fall into Communism, or some other type of Totalitarianism? Do you think it could ever become a dictatorship?
I would hope that most Americans would fight against such a change.
It is a very scary thought.
but I wouldn't get too comfortable
Oh I am far from comfortable and I agree with what you say. I was just glad there wasn't more pain today. Tommorrow will be a bad one I'm afraid if there is not good news (for investors)on the passage of a bill.
WTF Are you talking about? . . . .
Sorry, I don't respond to posts that begin with profanity; it generally indicates that the writer can not think of a rational manner in which to discuss the issue.
What did they inherit and what is their part in the current crisis?
Treasury Secretary Paulson has been on the job a little over one year and he has inherited a monetary and fiscal crisis not of his making, but of the making of our government for at least the past 80 years.
If they are the geniuses you say, why didn't they head this off at the pass? It seems somewhat opportunistic to be suggesting broad new controls as part of the bail-out, after being at the helm of the ship. Is there a possibility they believe 700 billiion of our tax dollars is cheap to get more control centralized in Washington?
Neither Paulson nor Fed Chairman Bernake have been in power long enough to head this off at the pass. It goes so much borader that it is almost incomprehensible. Monetary policy and interest rates alone could not have prevented it and fiscal policy from the administration could not have head'ed this off at the pass. I agree that Wall Street executives are capitalists until they're in troulbe and then just like any other industry they will ask for and take any government assistance they can get. Remember, while not perfectm, we the taxpayers still get the assets purchased from the $700B proposed and like the RTC, will get any revenues produced from the reverse auctions.
Why do folks keep insisting "credit" will dry up? IMHO, there will still be places for solid financial interests to get capital. Perhaps fast and loose will be gone, but won't solid and steady will rule the day?
Credit has alredy dried up. U.S. and foreign banks quit loaning money to each other, let alone to citizens seeking a mortage. The Fed and Treasurey asked Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to put together a $70B loan package to AIG and they could not make it work after talks between the parties. Then Warren Buffett invested $5B in Goldman showing that if Golman Sachs needs capital to lend and invest. Being probably the premier and best managed investment bank on Wall Street, Goldman was in danger because it could not get short term credit. I got a lot of calls because a client owns Goldman Sachs Bonds . . . .I've been watching this mess and all I could tell him is I'm pretty sure they will make it but right now anyone who says they know with a certainty what the right course of action is, or what you should do with your money, doesn't know anything
I've been watching this mess and all I could tell him is I'm pretty sure they will make it but right now anyone who says they know with a certainty what the right course of action is, or what you should do with your money, doesn't know anything
Now there's a dose of cold hard truth.
thopkins22
09-25-08, 21:38
Sorry, I don't respond to posts that begin with profanity; it generally indicates that the writer can not think of a rational manner in which to discuss the issue.
Yet you did respond. I apologize for offending your sensibilities, I didn't realize that an acronym was that profane, but it certainly doesn't change the fact that I'm right. Mises, Raynd, Smith, Hayek, Friedman, Rothbard, and even Greenspan(though he didn't practice it) all wrote and argued my position with far more intelligence and rationality than I can...who agrees with you? Keynes? Robert Mugabe?
You say "Neither Paulson nor Fed Chairman Bernake have been in power long enough to head this off at the pass." No, but they could make our future much better by not continuing the same failed policies that got us in this mess. What they are doing has not prevented, nor will it prevent any future problems, all they are doing is exacerbating them by destroying the dollar.
You say credit is drying up. Much of it yes. Much of it was was being forced down our throats by artificially low interest rates, and deserves to dry up. Tough medicine. It's what we need, we WILL have to adjust from being a nation of borrowers and consumers to a nation of savers. Sorry, it's going to happen. Whether or not it happens on our own terms is what's at stake.
The only people claiming it was unavoidable are those who are demanding the bailout, and the politicians because they don't want to look incompetent.
Whatever dude. Keep quoting me out of context as you see fit and ignore the fact the quote you are clipping had an AND in it, and was directed at rob_s, not you who mentioned selling/renting/buying again. Yeah, I have the RIF problem. Whatever.
Page 3:
Just to help you out a bit more, this is what you said to Rob_S in post #51
Oh come on. That is silly. You really did not think this answer through. Nobody can see the future and know when the bubble would burst and if they would be able to buy back. Never mind where do they store stuff for 2 years? There are also Capital Gains Tax issues, Mortgage interest issues, etc.
The smart thing to do was not think your house was worth 3x what you know it is worth just because some idiot tells you so. Just continue to go about your business of not get caught up in the gold rush.
This is your post #64 (not its not post #51) where you were responding directly to me and what I had said in post #62
So you too sold your home at peak value, lived in Apt for 2 years, and then bought it back after the value dropped out?
Gosh, maybe Rob_s is right.
Nope. I'm not taking any of your posts out context or using any creative editing. Every post I quoted is your exact words.
I honestly don't know what should be done about this "bailout" plan. In general I am against govt intrusion. However, the gov't has already intruded so much and screwed things up so much that it may take more intrusion to get things back to where they should be. I just don't know.
. . . . .
A voice of reason amid truly troubled fiscal and monetary times. Unfortunately, there are times in a mostly free market where government intrusion is the fastest and "least bad" method for getting us back to a point where we can attempt to repeal the intrustions piece by piece. . . . even if it is a big ugly puzzle our federal government has put together. However, smashing the table the puzzle rests upon could bring us down into a cold depression for years to come. And make no mistake about it, there is plenty of blame for all of us to share in this. There is also the good old mostly free market. All economic markets are cyclical, and we're in a nasty cycle of several bad fiscal, exchange markets, and monetary events coming together at the same time. The ideologues would have us "let capitalism cleanse everything out." Maybe that would be best, but it's hard when we'd be sacrificing the jobs of tens if not hundreds of thousands of American jobs and mortgages/homes in the name of an ideal that all those listed economists never had to face in real life . . . . and none of them ever contemplated the type of situation we face now. I don't think there are many smarter, more capable men for the job than Sec'y Paulson and Chm. Bernake, and I certainly trust their plan more than any alternative deal that Congress can cook up. If we do nothing some of us may not eat. . . . but practically "nothing" is not even on the table right now: it's either the Paulson/Bernake Plan or whatever the Democratic Congress comes up with as an alternative. The Republican proposals are what threw a wrench in the whole thing. Now, as I'm writing this I'm learning that the largest FDIC insured banck, Washington Mutual, has failed.
I'm stuck with the conclusion that if we do something we may just be able to get back to where we were 36 months ago, and get another chance at tackling excessive federal budget deficits and an overly weak dollar . . . . but if we do nothing and let the textbook academics have their way, . . . well, nobody knows because it's never been tried and I personally don't want to try it on something of such an enormous scale. :(
Just to help you out a bit more, this is what you said to Rob_S in post #51.
Hey thanks, I never realized the posts were numbered!
You say "Neither Paulson nor Fed Chairman Bernake have been in power long enough to head this off at the pass." No, but they could make our future much better by not continuing the same failed policies that got us in this mess. What they are doing has not prevented, nor will it prevent any future problems, all they are doing is exacerbating them by destroying the dollar.
In part I agree. I too believe that the Fed was too slow to lower interest rates during the first economic slow down, and then when they finally began lowering ratest they did their typical staged lowering again and again which probably made things worse, but certainly did not cause the credit crisis we are facing now. I have never been a fan of a weak dollar, but i am also no fan of an overly strong dollar - each has its own downsides to our economy.
You say credit is drying up. Much of it yes. Much of it was was being forced down our throats by artificially low interest rates, and deserves to dry up. Tough medicine. It's what we need, we WILL have to adjust from being a nation of borrowers and consumers to a nation of savers.
I'm not saying it, credit has dried up. Period. If you work with any bank or financial institution you will know that credit is prohibitive to get for even small businesses or banks that can't get short term loans from other banks. The low interest ARMs made the mortgage loan crisis worse no doubt, but again is just one part of this entire mess. It can't all be laid at the door of low interest mortgages that people couldn't afford. "Tough medicine" is an easy prescription, and maybe it would work, until you see what it does in practice to real people.
You could rephrase your statement that we are a nation of spenders, and we always have. If we were to take the money we currently spend and save it we would become a nation in depression. We should gradually shift to more saving and less spending on credit, but as consumer confidence and spending decline so will our economy and then the real ripple affects will kick in. The government can't hand out stimulus checks forever.
http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2008/09/25/bailout-the-sucker-punch.aspx
VooDoo6Actual
09-29-08, 11:18
What amazes me is there really is no public outcry for reform...
I would protest this cause in a heart beat PEACEFULLY BUT nonetheless let the policy makers know the disatisfaction w/ this Bailout as opposed to a Workout.
Not to mention the $20 Million dollar severance bonus to the New soon to be Ex CEO of WaMu.
OBSCENE simmply OBSCENE salary or clause for anyone to have in a contract.
This is a BIG DEAL folks and where is the OUTCRY ?
This is a BIG DEAL folks and where is the OUTCRY ?
Most legislators have said the phones have not stopped ringing, and this is the #1 voter issues in years, at least where I live.
This is a BIG DEAL folks and where is the OUTCRY ?
Congress cares about themselves and their partnership with the Federal Reserve, not us.
Pelosi just mentioned how she was not going to go into certain things because she knew they wanted to go home.
700 billion is not enough. It is just not enough if you look at the credit slow down. They will be back for more money/debt very soon. You can tell it is not enough if you know how the credit/debt/money system works at the central and commercal bank levels and the level at which debt issuance is slowing (fed reserve z1 report). Not to mention that banks will not lend to each other or business in fear of needing the capital if deposits start to walk out the door.
Barney Frank said in 2004-2005 over and over that he saw no safety and soundness issues with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He has no credibility, but Pelosi is talking about his exceptional leadership and judgment right now and then there was applause on the floor of the House. The hearings on Fannie's CEO Raines turned into Congress back slapping the regulator they created OFHEO, for even suggesting there were accounting problems.
These sick people are so busy praising each other for what they did when Congress over the years is the root of the problem.
This is when I wish I was independently wealthy and could finance TV ads that lay out exactly the culpability (across all parties) for this. Name the names.
geezerbutler
09-29-08, 12:38
This is when I wish I was independently wealthy and could finance TV ads that lay out exactly the culpability (across all parties) for this. Name the names.
Yeah, like a T. Boone Pickens.
I have thought the same thing.
The corrupt idiots that played a part in the collapse get up on TV and champion the work the've done to avert further castastrophe and there's only a couple of media outlets that will challenge them and put the truth out there.
I swear Brarney Frank is a repugnant human being (he's like a fat ass Mr. Roper) and Nancy Pelosi with her crows feet and those sagging ass 38 DD's are about to make me vomit.
Sorry, I had to vent.
I believe there's a special place for them alongside David Hasslehoff and Saddam Hussein......
President Bush is not off the hook either, stick a fork in him......he's done.
This country is on the brink of Socialism, and it's not paranoid histeria either.
If anyone thought the gun grab was bad before, just wait.......
I don't know how it's all gonna shake out either.
VooDoo6Actual
09-29-08, 14:24
redaction
Here is an article concerning it being rejected, as was already mentioned.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080929/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown
It'll be passed by tomorrow or Wednesday (when the Senate votes on their own version) at the latest. The only reason it didn't pass today is that Peloser's speech blaming everything on Bush and the congressional GOP made a couple of GOP reps angry enough to change their vote at the last minute. Once everyone's panties get unwound, it will pass, hopefully with more funding from the parties being bailed out and equity stakes to ensure payback in it but eventually it will pass.
Business_Casual
09-29-08, 15:39
hopefully with more funding from the parties being bailed out and equity stakes to ensure payback in it but eventually it will pass.
Huh? Could you explain your thought(s)?
M_P
the right people don't care about the right things in this country. we have very limited accountability and we forgive. actors, athletes, etc. face a short time of being slapped around and ridiculed and then they're placed back on their pedestals. this excludes oj who keeps f-ing up. vick will be back in the nfl even though he was fighting dogs and feeding his neighbors dogs to his own. you watch, it'll be forgotten in a few years and he'll be back on the field. an grant screws a discusting hooker instead of his gorgeous wife and he was back making a huge paycheck pretty quickly. bryant screwed around on his wife and bought her off with a freakishly big diamond.
nobody cares that these scum are still allowed to be in the limelight.
Huh? Could you explain your thought(s)?
M_P
Like what Sweden did. Make the banks getting bailed out fork over equity in their banks to the government in exchange for the bailout. (Like AIG etc have already).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html
Huh? Could you explain your thought(s)?
M_P
about which part? the equity and insurance aspect that the GOP house has been pushing to attempt to shield direct tax money and protect the foundation of the free market? or the fact that there will eventually be a bill and it will eventually pass?
I believe that Congress will not go back to their constituents before November having passed nothing to attempt to resolve this issue.
I also believe it'll pass. I do have an uneasy feeling that the new bailout plan will be worse.
SPARTAN HOPLITE ARMS
09-29-08, 22:42
Hi all. I'm a new member of the forum and a police officer from NY. Figured I'd drop my 2 cents about the bailout..but first a sidenote about Mr. T Boone Pickens and his crusade to push for Green technology and energy. I don't know if this is fact or fiction but I recently read that this gentleman has invested a great deal of his own money in Green tech, including wind farms, and is in serious danger of losing a substantial portion of his investment. That's why he's pushing this plan so heavily so he's not exactly being altruistic.
Anywho, like I always told my wife, why should we be punished by having to pay the bills for greedy people, imbeciles who thought they could buy expensive homes on measly incomes and idiots like a co-worker of mine who think they're Donald Trump trying to flip houses left and right?
I understand something needs to be done, but imagine how that feels..My wife and I searched for a home in one area of NY and it was too damn expensive so we went somewhere where the homes were affordable and we're fine. And why is it that no one mentions Obama's advisors who helped fannie mae and freddie mac screw everything up..and his affiliation with Madeline Talbott and the nuts at ACORN. Scary stuff..
Business_Casual
09-29-08, 22:47
Ah, I got 'cha now. I didn't get the context at first. I have a hard time believing that "equity" in a bank means anything when the government owns it. I think that just means there will be an opportunity for mischief.
I think that there is an excellent chance we will get a bail out package later this week.
I think it will only delay and worsen the crisis. There will surely be a price to pay for putting the government in charge of the banks - and it may be fatal to a lot of us.
M_P
Ah, I got 'cha now. I didn't get the context at first. I have a hard time believing that "equity" in a bank means anything when the government owns it. I think that just means there will be an opportunity for mischief.
What it means is that the big greedy fat cats lose everything as the banks current equity structure goes flat and a new one is put in place with the government owning it. It severely punishes the shareholders including the fat cats who have big stakes etc which is one way they milk things for money.
Then the government slowly sells their stakes when things settle down and the banks go public again, but much more humble and under new ownership.
It also means the banks may try other ways of solving their problems before they stick their hands out for gov't money, which is what some Swedish banks did when they learned the terms of the bailout in 92.
Hi all. I'm a new member of the forum and a police officer from NY. Figured I'd drop my 2 cents about the bailout..but first a sidenote about Mr. T Boone Pickens and his crusade to push for Green technology and energy.
For being an oil man, Mr Pickens seems to be kind of dumb.
We don't have an energy problem in the US, we have a liquid fuel problem. You can't run your car on wind energy or solar power. The world economy runs on liquid fuels.
So you do need to "drill first, drill now" and do all you can to get liquid fuels. That buys you time to figure ways out to replace liquid fuels, which will take a heck of a lot longer than 10 years including the infrastructure necessary to support your replacement and to replace all the vehicles and trains and airplanes, many of which have enormous life spans, which rely on liquid fuels.
For being an oil man, Mr Pickens seems to be kind of dumb.
We don't have an energy problem in the US, we have a liquid fuel problem. You can't run your car on wind energy or solar power. The world economy runs on liquid fuels.
So you do need to "drill first, drill now" and do all you can to get liquid fuels. That buys you time to figure ways out to replace liquid fuels, which will take a heck of a lot longer than 10 years including the infrastructure necessary to support your replacement and to replace all the vehicles and trains and airplanes, many of which have enormous life spans, which rely on liquid fuels.
eguns,
I just don't think he is "selling" his Plan logically. He favors drilling, then using domestic Natural Gas to replace crude oil while wind energy, solar energy, nuclear energy, electric and hydrogen vehicle technology can all start producing enough to fill the gap. I agree that too often he seems like he's only standing in front of wind mills - just to build the electrical towers and get the wind energy where it is needed will take at least a decade. Maybe he doesn't talk as much about oil drilling and Natural Gas production because it would alienate too many environmentalists that he probably needs to "sell" it. At a minimum he knows how to make money.
I fear I'm jumping into the middle of a tangent on this T Boone Pickens thing, but I can provide some insight into my understanding of the T Boone plan. I live in Oklahoma, went to T-Boone's pet university, and work as an engineer in the natural gas pipeline industry with ties to the electric utility business.
Here in OK, we have large natural gas deposits, and while it's used in homes extensively it also fires our electrical generation plants. Expanding our wind power generation will free up natural gas for two purposes -- fueling vehicles, and for transport to the eastern part of the country were it can lessen the need for heating oil in homes (and maybe fuel some power plants out there in place of coal?). Natural gas isn't perfect but it does burn a little cleaner than gasoline or oil (though it does sacrifice some efficiency, if I remember correctly). Under his plan these are measures to lessen environmental impact and dependence on oil to bridge the gap until more permanment "alternatives" are developed.
Not endorsing or condemning the Pickens plan, just sharing some info from somebody local.
Nathan_Bell
09-30-08, 09:23
I fear I'm jumping into the middle of a tangent on this T Boone Pickens thing, but I can provide some insight into my understanding of the T Boone plan. I live in Oklahoma, went to T-Boone's pet university, and work as an engineer in the natural gas pipeline industry with ties to the electric utility business.
Here in OK, we have large natural gas deposits, and while it's used in homes extensively it also fires our electrical generation plants. Expanding our wind power generation will free up natural gas for two purposes -- fueling vehicles, and for transport to the eastern part of the country were it can lessen the need for heating oil in homes (and maybe fuel some power plants out there in place of coal?). Natural gas isn't perfect but it does burn a little cleaner than gasoline or oil (though it does sacrifice some efficiency, if I remember correctly). Under his plan these are measures to lessen environmental impact and dependence on oil to bridge the gap until more permanment "alternatives" are developed.
Not endorsing or condemning the Pickens plan, just sharing some info from somebody local.
Problem is that wind cannot be counted on as a base grid generator. You still end up needing almost as much 'back-up' capacity as the wind generates due to fluctuations in the wind.
The bigger the windfarm, the harder the grid gets hammered. If you have a "little" 120 KW private unit a 10% fluctuation is not really going to cause you much grief, you might have your switching gear get a little warm as it tries to decide whether to dump power to the grid or heat dissapate it. Now let's say you have a commercial farm with hundreds of these units and you get a 10% change in the wind, not such a little issue to deal with.
IMHO Pickens' plan is him trying to angle $ from the federal gov't.
Like what Sweden did. Make the banks getting bailed out fork over equity in their banks to the government in exchange for the bailout. (Like AIG etc have already).
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/business/worldbusiness/23krona.html
If there is to be a bail out, it does appear that the Swedish plan may be the best one to use.
Interesting thing I heard on the radio today. That $700 billion number? Apparently in an article published in Bloomberg last week it was stated by some one in the Treasury dept that the number is not based in any reality. Like Dr. Evil from Austin powers, they just pulled out a really big number that may be just right, or too much, or not enough. The problem is that they dont have any data to justify that $700 billion number.
I don't know if it has been posted yet because I have not read this thread, but go to youtube and type in "Burning down the house" for a very good video explaining the situation. I'd post the link but every time I do it shows that time Warner wanted the video pulled. It is still on there today. Spread the word around it may change peoples mind on how they vote in November. Also here is another youtube link showing that the majority of republicans wanted and investigation and a new monetary system back in 04'. This link does work:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs&eurl=http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.member.html
Don't buy into this bailout or any future bailout to being a solution to this problem or the future problems we are going to face as a nation very soon. This bailout is only one bubble of many that is going to burst. You cannot fix capitalism with socialism. If left alone yes we will have a recession and Americans will have to spend less and be fiscally responsible. But that is the system of capitalism. If left alone the system will cleanse itself. Times will be hard and for those that played the market, thats the risk you take. I have not made poor financial decisions and it will effect me an those alike. I have friends that are for the bailout because of the short term fix and there finacial portfolio in stocks and there retirement 401K's. My retirement is in Jepordy as well. I am willing to take the hit so my children and grandchildren don't have to go through a Depression or worse. Ultimately though I think the government will come up with a "socialistic" solution to the problem that will only make our economy worse down the road. If you think thats fine and want to suspend free enterprise and do away with capitalism for a short time then why not just have a communistic structure or dictatorship in times of hardship so congress does not have to get involved. After all they got us into this mess. Hell for all I know it may be better, who am I kidding. Sarcasm of course. I would not get my info from Fox News or any other affiliate anymore either. They are all jumping onto the Bailout bandwagon because they want to save their own materialistic asses and there stocks are at risk. I think people need to look at the bigger picture and see that our survival as a people and a nation are at risk. I've been preaching the financial state of our nation for over two years and people around me called me a dooms day profit. Now here there are only beginning to surface and people still are in denial. Glenn Beck has been preaching the same on his radio show and on his Cable show and the mainstream media that said he was crazy is now jumping on the bandwagon.
Remember catch phrases that you see at the end of your emails were not meant to be just catch phrases. They meant ever word and intended future generations to live by those rules. A Democracy historically only last 200 years. Are you willing to stand up and fight and make us an exception to the rule?
... our survival as a people and a nation are at risk.
Interesting. Survival of the fittest. Maybe the good ol' USofA isn't "fit" anymore. That is a possibility.
The sad thing is your more right then you know. I'd say at least half of the United States population wants government to provide for them in a Socialistic fashion. The other so called conservative half want the government to provide a few values. People don't seem to understand that what ever your base value belief system whether it be Facism, Socialism, Liberalism or Conservitism, you need to stand behind your belief system even when it isn't convieniant to you. Otherwise your cannot call yourself a Conservative or whatever the case may be. In this case we have slowly asked our elected official what can you give me, me, me. The government has slowly provided what we the people have asked for. Now we have more policies and government entities that resemble a Socialistic style of government just as much as a Democracy. Welfare, buyouts, social security, you name it. The government was never intended to provide for you anything. Freedom is meant to be hard.
SPARTAN HOPLITE ARMS
09-30-08, 17:49
You guys are certainly right about it. My biggest concern is will this all be corrected? When people get used to government largesse they become dependent on it. Just look at Katrina and New Orleans for a prime example. Of course no one was there to save the day initially, hence the looting and pillaging, homicides, rapes, etc. And when people tried to defend themselves with firearms? OH OH! We can't have that! I just can't see how people can be weaned off grants, hand-me-downs and free govt money. It seems like we're destined to see the end of a free America with the policies and plans set in motion by leftists, environmentalists and Politically Correct wack jobs. One of my buddies suggested that the likeliest eventuality is another Civil War and the breakup of the U.S. I'm beginning to believe that this might be the case and it's freaking me out. Someone tell me I'm overreacting. :(
One of my buddies suggested that the likeliest eventuality is another Civil War and the breakup of the U.S. I'm beginning to believe that this might be the case and it's freaking me out.
Personally, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. Smaller government, more localized, less likely to produce powermongers. Nope, it wouldn't bother me a bit.
Personally, I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. Smaller government, more localized, less likely to produce powermongers. Nope, it wouldn't bother me a bit.
I guess that depends on where you are located. If the individual area you end up in has minimal resources, you might find it a bit bothersome. If the area next door gets possession of the tanks, planes, nukes, etc., you might also find cause for concern.
I guess that depends on where you are located. If the individual area you end up in has minimal resources, you might find it a bit bothersome.
I'm in Iowa. Why would this bother me?
If the area next door gets possession of the tanks, planes, nukes, etc., you might also find cause for concern.
Why? You really believe each individual state is going to want to war with the other?
Nathan_Bell
10-01-08, 16:25
I'm in Iowa. Why would this bother me?
Why? You really believe each individual state is going to want to war with the other?
Yup, because they would be individual nation states. Go look at Italian and German history to see what happens when you have a buncha little nation states.
Why? You really believe each individual state is going to want to war with the other?
Leaders are ready to do long-term damage to our economic system to appease the loudest whiners in the short term, just wait till they have hungry masses and the neighbors have plenty of food...
I'm not sure we (Americans collectively) have enough gumption to form smaller local groups with any level of cohesion high enough to do anything but sit around in a group and whine for the gov't to come save us.
I don't think we're headed quite toward that level of distaster.
Yet?
[QUOTE=rmecapn;226363]I'm in Iowa. Why would this bother me?
Me too. I agree though. With government being as large as it is the only way to start to stand up to it would be individual States beginning things by standing up to the Federal Government in favor of more States rights and then maybe it would kick off from their. Not going to happen though. Problem is with the exception of my man Steve King, Iowa is extremely Liberal. Especially eastern Iowa.
Just an added thought. In today's society it would be implied with so many disconnected obtuse individuals, any such talk about taking back our government is labeled wacko. People are so naive they don't want to here about the nations problem as a whole. They just want to watch American Idol and other reality TV shows in their spare time. Reminds me of the movie the Matrix. I think if most of the people in our country would choose the blue pill. LOL. I fear for my children and grandchildren.
Yup, because they would be individual nation states. Go look at Italian and German history to see what happens when you have a buncha little nation states.
Given yours and LOKNLOD's statements I would suggest you believe we need a very strong central government then, to keep us under control. Something along the lines of the Third Reich or Kremlin seems logical, given your assesment. I knew it would happen eventually, I just never realized how many folks, who claim to love liberty, would actually support such a move.
America is dead. Smell that? It's her rotting corpse.
Given yours and LOKNLOD's statements I would suggest you believe we need a very strong central government then, to keep us under control. Something along the lines of the Third Reich or Kremlin seems logical, given your assesment. I knew it would happen eventually, I just never realized how many folks, who claim to love liberty, would actually support such a move.
It does not follow that you need strong central control like the Third Reich or the Kremlin to keep all the states in control.
You just need the states to feel that they are all part of a bigger and better whole. Even with states that have more power and rights than today and a less overbearing central government, it works, because they believe in being part of the better whole.
Thing of the first 150 years of the country. It did fall apart somewhat when one group of states ganged up on another one with the Civil War but it worked pretty well otherwise.
VooDoo6Actual
10-02-08, 10:06
redaction
Thing of the first 150 years of the country. It did fall apart somewhat when one group of states ganged up on another one with the Civil War but it worked pretty well otherwise.
States lost what rights they had at that very point. The Union spoke and said you couldn't leave. Sorta reminds me of being the member of a gang or the mafia. You can enter, but you can never leave. We've made a mockery of the Constitution and we continue to do so.
Personally, I whole-heartedly believe we are headed straight for a fascist central government. While Obama may be a Marxist and McCain a neo-con, they and the rest of the powermongers in Washington will be more than willing to sacrifice some of their ideology for an increase in control.
We'll see if the House resists the temptation to sign, but I sincerely doubt it.
thopkins22
10-02-08, 10:31
Given yours and LOKNLOD's statements I would suggest you believe we need a very strong central government then, to keep us under control. Something along the lines of the Third Reich or Kremlin seems logical, given your assesment. I knew it would happen eventually, I just never realized how many folks, who claim to love liberty, would actually support such a move.
America is dead. Smell that? It's her rotting corpse.
That's the way I read it too. Perhaps we all need to read Atlas Shrugged again.
thopkins22
10-02-08, 10:34
States lost what rights they had at that very point. The Union spoke and said you couldn't leave. Sorta reminds me of being the member of a gang or the mafia. You can enter, but you can never leave. We've made a mockery of the Constitution and we continue to do so.
Personally, I whole-heartedly believe we are headed straight for a fascist central government. While Obama may be a Marxist and McCain a neo-con, they and the rest of the powermongers in Washington will be more than willing to sacrifice some of their ideology for an increase in control.
We'll see if the House resists the temptation to sign, but I sincerely doubt it.
And again you are spot on. No other president has damaged liberty more than Lincoln. He was a tyrant in every sense of the word.
Nathan_Bell
10-02-08, 11:04
Given yours and LOKNLOD's statements I would suggest you believe we need a very strong central government then, to keep us under control. Something along the lines of the Third Reich or Kremlin seems logical, given your assesment. I knew it would happen eventually, I just never realized how many folks, who claim to love liberty, would actually support such a move.
America is dead. Smell that? It's her rotting corpse.
No, I believe the opposite, do not put words in my mouth. I am simply stating that your little Balkanization would result in a cluster****. Do not make blanket accusation of calling me a Nazi or a Communist based on me stating your idea is a ****up waiting to happen.
Simplest way to fix the ****up that our nation has become is to eliminate direct taxation by the Federal government, get the giant cesspool drained by drying up the huge sums of $$ going through those assbags hands.
Simplest way to fix the ****up that our nation has become is to eliminate direct taxation by the Federal government, get the giant cesspool drained by drying up the huge sums of $$ going through those assbags hands.
The economic situation may be the catalyst for our undoing, but it's not the root of our problem. Fixing the economy will do nothing to change the character of this nation.
The economic situation may be the catalyst for our undoing, but it's not the root of our problem. Fixing the economy will do nothing to change the character of this nation.
He did not saying anything about the economic situation. He said to stop direct taxation. Stop the politicians from having money to play their power games with.
He did not saying anything about the economic situation. He said to stop direct taxation. Stop the politicians from having money to play their power games with.
OK. So in the real world, how does one expect to accomplish that?
Rmplstlskn
10-02-08, 16:45
He did not saying anything about the economic situation. He said to stop direct taxation. Stop the politicians from having money to play their power games with.
That will only happen when the RESET is pushed, resulting in the Revolutionary War II and/or the Civil War II... :(
And I have only read the works of a few men who could write up a spiffy Declaration of Arms...
Rmpl
Do not make blanket accusation of calling me a Nazi or a Communist based on me stating your idea is a ****up waiting to happen. .
I implied that it's amazing how many folks, who otherwise claim to be "liberty loving Americans", would be more than willing to move us towards a fascist or socialist state just to "save the union".
If you really think the powermongers in Washington are going to slit their own throats for the good of the nation, then you are hopelessly naive. This nation is going down and there ain't a damn thing any of us can do about it.
That will only happen when the RESET is pushed, resulting in the Revolutionary War II and/or the Civil War II...
That will NEVER happen. Insurrection will get you labeled a terrorist and then see you dead faster than you can say "revolution". Just ask the LEO's and mil folks in the crowd.
He did not saying anything about the economic situation. He said to stop direct taxation. Stop the politicians from having money to play their power games with.
Taxes don't really pay for anything other than interest on the national debt. Did anyone read the Grace Commission report to the President in the 1980's? All tax payer revenue is gone before one service is provided. At this point in time, looking at current incoming taxes and costs, some money is available to spend on services, but not much. Interest on the national debt is now 10's of millions of dollars per hour.
http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/list-gra.htm
The problem is the Congress is in a partnership with the Federal Reserve so that they do not have to tax us directly to spend money. They raise the debt ceiling to authorize the treasury to print more bonds, the bonds are purchased by the Federal Reserve with a Federal Reserve Check. There is no real money behind the Federal Reserve Check, the electronic Federal Reserve Notes are just deposted in the Treasury's account for spending. The end result is the Congress can spend the money because they can have it created. The result is the same as direct taxation through inflation of the money supply, but is noticed much less (the reduction in purchasing power of the dollar) than seeing it taken out as a line item as Federal taxes on your paycheck.
What does the Federal Reserve get out of the transaction? Treasuries, that are debt intruments (bonds) that the Fed calls Assets, and provide the Asset base for the fractional reserve banking system used by the commercial banks to create loan money out of thin air (based on the borrowers signature on the loan document promising to repay the debt).
Most people don't believe this is how our banking system works because it is so repulsive. For example, when you sign a note promising to pay a mortgage for your home, the money does not exist yet. Your signature on the note, gives the legal right to the bank to create the money on the spot. So you have to work for years and years to pay off a loan when the money was created in the blink of an eye.
For anyone who does not understand fractional reserve banking, including reserve ratios that let money be created from thin air, please read the Federal Reserves own publication called, "Modern Money Mechanics" that can be found on the internet as a pdf document. http://landru.i-link-2.net/monques/MMM.pdf
The root cause of most of our problems is a bad banking system.
Rmplstlskn
10-02-08, 17:13
That will NEVER happen. Insurrection will get you labeled a terrorist and then see you dead faster than you can say "revolution". Just ask the LEO's and mil folks in the crowd.
I would hope (and I believe MOST of) the LEO and .mil (or ex-.mil) that frequent THIS SITE would know the difference between insurrection and justifiable revolution...
Rmpl
Given yours and LOKNLOD's statements I would suggest you believe we need a very strong central government then, to keep us under control. Something along the lines of the Third Reich or Kremlin seems logical, given your assesment. I knew it would happen eventually, I just never realized how many folks, who claim to love liberty, would actually support such a move.
Please don't misconstrue me -- the intent of my statement was that I don’t think that many modern Americans have the “testicular fortitude” to start breaking away and forming smaller independent states or groups of states, in the even of a breakdown at the federal level. Society is pretty well engrained with the “hang on and wait for the gov’t to fix it” mentality. Especially in heavily urban areas, but a heavy dependence on gov’t subsidies has many rural/agriculture areas feeling entitled to gov’t support, as well. This is all a bad (horrible!) thing, of course!
I don’t think a strong, centralized federal gov’t is the answer. And I don’t think a loose-knit confederation of individual states would work well, either. The success of the United States is because we are just that – states, united. A careful balance between interests of the individual states and interests of the nation as a whole is the only way to hold it all together with both prosperity and liberty. If the 13 colonies had formed 13 nations, I doubt the American Revolution would be much more than a historical anecdote. And if one big strip of land was formed, it would have fragmented much sooner than the 1860s.
It’s all about balance – the founding fathers figured it out and our country falters when it deviates from that course. In either direction.
Personally, I whole-heartedly believe we are headed straight for a fascist central government. While Obama may be a Marxist and McCain a neo-con, they and the rest of the powermongers in Washington will be more than willing to sacrifice some of their ideology for an increase in control.
I only wish I could disagree. Power seeks more power. I honestly believe some folks do have good intentions --- like fighting terrorism or protecting America --- but the road to hell is paved with those, we know. And even if they "mean well" it doesn't matter if they just serve as useful idiots to create easily abused powers for the next guy -- the one with no good intentions, the real tyrant.
In the meantime, we've got to "do what we can, with what we've got". If we can't push the reset button, and we can't take our ball and go home, then we can either shut up, accept it, or fight it through the channels we've got. It sucks ass, but it's the world we get up and face every day. No one's got a bigger stake in this than me, I've got a toddler and one on the way, and I'd do anything for them to grow up in the world I grew up in, only a few years ago, or a better one, but not the cesspool it's becoming.
I would hope (and I believe MOST of) the LEO and .mil (or ex-.mil) that frequent THIS SITE would know the difference between insurrection and justifiable revolution...
You are woefully naive of the reality then my friend.
The following quote was taken from a thread over on lightfighter.net. The quote references a question brought up by a member who was concerned about what folks would do if Obama were elected and a Democrat controlled Congress enacted an AWB that had no grandfather clause. The individual I quote spent 8 years in the US Army Infantry and served with the Old Guard. He is a respected member of Lightfighter and a moderator over there.
It's a stupid line of thought because the only sober and sane way to deal with such nonsense is to follow whatever the law is and deal with the problem through proper channels (voting, advocating pro-gun legislation, lawsuits, etc.).
Or to think of it another way, there are lots of pretty committed people who oppose Roe vs. Wade, right? They do all sorts of political things to further their cause. Everyone knows this and accepts it. Right up until some <one> blows up an abortion clinic. At that point, the <person> in question becomes a terrorist. When that happens, they become the enemy of everyone on this board. Period.
Back to the gun control thing. This is primarily a military and police board. What answer do you think you're going to get if you ask a group of people like that what they'll do if big brother goes looking for everyone's guns? I'll make it easy for you, they'll continue to do their jobs. If they don't they will be replaced by people who will. That's how it works in real life. Any fantasies of general insurrection in the event of draconian gun confiscation efforts by some sort of national decree are just that, a fantasy. Because if you or anyone else thinks they are going to successfully take on a SWAT team or a squad of Infantry, you are either delusional or talking out of your <head>. If the .gov comes for your black guns, you won't leave the country or make an Omega Man style last stand. You’ll follow the law and complain about it, because that's how the world works.
Until then, don't vote for people who advocate gun control and don't start stupid walter mitty fantasy threads on this board.
According to his quote, there is no such thing as "justifiable revolution". Even his statements in the second paragraph, would have our Founding Fathers labeled as terrorists by today's standards.
In the meantime, we've got to "do what we can, with what we've got". If we can't push the reset button, and we can't take our ball and go home, then we can either shut up, accept it, or fight it through the channels we've got. It sucks ass, but it's the world we get up and face every day. No one's got a bigger stake in this than me, I've got a toddler and one on the way, and I'd do anything for them to grow up in the world I grew up in, only a few years ago, or a better one, but not the cesspool it's becoming.
Drive on warrior!
Believe me, I have hope. My hope, however, is not in this nation. My hope resides elsewhere and provides me great assurance. My goal and my sincere desire is to impart that same hope on my progeny.
As for the United States of America ... well ... it was great while it lasted.
skipperbrown
10-03-08, 09:36
OK. So in the real world, how does one expect to accomplish that?
By getting rid of your politician and replacing him with someone who has your views as per the constitution with your vote. If you can't find said person to represent you, then be a real Amercian, step up to the plate and run for office! Start a grass roots campaign!
It's real e z to complain, but it's real hard to actually take matters into your own hands. It's a royal pain to run for office, with all the forms, meetings, knocking on doors and basically taking up all your free time and then some. Only a few are willing to do it and the ones that are don't always turn out so great and make bad decisions. Oh, wait! I'm referring to our Congress.
According to his quote, there is no such thing as "justifiable revolution". Even his statements in the second paragraph, would have our Founding Fathers labeled as terrorists by today's standards.
I spent 3/4 of a semester at college arguing just that point with a history professor (head of the department!) that insisted just that in our "honors" American History class. He referred to me directly as an "extremist" and "terrorist" because I openly defended the American revolution. This was fall of 2001...put that context together. He had the gall to actually hand out a sheet of "his values" and discuss them for a full class period. one was that he opposed any and all forms of "radicalism" -- I wonder how many famous history-making conformists he got to study as a historian? I dropped the class (with an A at the time) but stayed in as long as possible just to provide an opposing viewpoint to his madness.
Believe me, I have hope. My hope, however, is not in this nation. My hope resides elsewhere and provides me great assurance. My goal and my sincere desire is to impart that same hope on my progeny.
As my dad says: "I've read the book, and I know how the story ends..." ;)
By getting rid of your politician and replacing him with someone who has your views as per the constitution with your vote. If you can't find said person to represent you, then be a real Amercian, step up to the plate and run for office! Start a grass roots campaign!
It's real e z to complain, but it's real hard to actually take matters into your own hands. It's a royal pain to run for office, with all the forms, meetings, knocking on doors and basically taking up all your free time and then some. Only a few are willing to do it and the ones that are don't always turn out so great and make bad decisions. Oh, wait! I'm referring to our Congress.
And which political office do you hold within your community?
For the record, someone is in the Congress and did run for POTUS that shares my views. This pathetic excuse of a nation mocked him and ridiculed his ideas. It is Ron Paul.
I was talking reality, not some utopian idealistic fantasy land. I am much too pragmatic than to believe this system is going to change because of some idealistic newcomer (even if they do get to Washington). Palin did just as you said and they're eating her and her family alive. One could even argue that Obama is that same type of newcomer, yet to get there he had to crawl in bed with the devil. Sorry, just because you refuse to smell the rotting decay of America, doesn't mean it's not dead.
skipperbrown
10-03-08, 11:45
And which political office do you hold within your community?
For the record, someone is in the Congress and did run for POTUS that shares my views. This pathetic excuse of a nation mocked him and ridiculed his ideas. It is Ron Paul.
I was talking reality, not some utopian idealistic fantasy land. I am much too pragmatic than to believe this system is going to change because of some idealistic newcomer (even if they do get to Washington). Palin did just as you said and they're eating her and her family alive. One could even argue that Obama is that same type of newcomer, yet to get there he had to crawl in bed with the devil. Sorry, just because you refuse to smell the rotting decay of America, doesn't mean it's not dead.
I don't hold a political office. I didn't say that I did. I do volunteer my time for non profit orgs I believe in to give back something to the community that has supported my business and helped make me successful.
I just hear a lot of belly aching about what's wrong with the country but I don't see many doing anything about it. Come on, let's step up to the plate: What have you done to effect a change?
I'll start: I've sent over 300 emails to my representatives this year telling them how I believe they should vote and why. I give over 200 hrs a year in community service. Not much, borderline pathetic actually, but I'm contributing something positive. What have you done? I'm sure there are lots of members on this board that put my service to shame. Let's hear from you! If you're not doing anything, f-ing get involved. This country won't get better on its own!
It's e z to whine. Put that wasted energy into something productive. If this is really such a bad rotting and decaying hood, what country are you going to move to that's better and when are you moving?
Lead, follow, or get out of the f-ing way. This forum is full of step up to the plate leaders. You are a sheepdog, right? Here's your chance to step up and lead. Get out there and make a difference. No whining!
VooDoo6Actual
10-03-08, 12:45
redaction.
Lead, follow, or get out of the f-ing way. This forum is full of step up to the plate leaders. You are a sheepdog, right? Here's your chance to step up and lead. Get out there and make a difference. No whining!
You have no flippin' clue, my friend. I gave 27 friggin' years of my life. I damned near sacrificed my marriage in the process (not to mention my life). And what have I seen in return? A pathetic excuse for a people who put their hands out like someone owes them their living. Powermongers in leadership positions who would sell their soul to satan to maintain their power. The Constitution I swore to uphold and defend relegated to toilet paper status.
As for my future actions, I will spend my time and resources ensuring my family will survive the coming collapse. I ain't wastin' my time trying to revive a corpse. Call it whining all you want ... it doesn't change a damn thing.
Jay Cunningham
10-03-08, 13:32
Tone down the nonsense or this will be locked.
skipperbrown
10-03-08, 14:07
We are on the same team. My apologies to any I offended.
Rmplstlskn
10-03-08, 14:31
You are woefully naive of the reality then my friend.
The following quote was taken from a thread over on lightfighter.net. <snip> He is a respected member of Lightfighter and a moderator over there.
According to his quote, there is no such thing as "justifiable revolution". Even his statements in the second paragraph, would have our Founding Fathers labeled as terrorists by today's standards.
That quote is one of the most depressing things I have read in quite awhile... and there has been a lot of bad news lately. :(
Rmpl
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmecapn View Post
You are woefully naive of the reality then my friend.
The following quote was taken from a thread over on lightfighter.net. <snip> He is a respected member of Lightfighter and a moderator over there.
According to his quote, there is no such thing as "justifiable revolution". Even his statements in the second paragraph, would have our Founding Fathers labeled as terrorists by today's standards.
That quote is one of the most depressing things I have read in quite awhile... and there has been a lot of bad news lately. :(
Rmpl
Man, what is that guy thinking?:confused:
I guess if the US was going to become a Communist State or a Facsist State, he would just sit on the side lines and ride it out. Screw that, I hope most freedom loving Americans would rise up.
TheActivePatriot
10-03-08, 19:34
Even if open rebellion is futile, it's still better to die doing what's right than to suffer through unjust oppression to maintain the status quo. If it comes to it, I for one am going to have quite the tale to tell to those who've gone before when the Valkyries ferry my soul to Odin's hall. :cool:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8
Did he just say what I thought he said?
bigshooter
10-03-08, 22:10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaG9d_4zij8
un-****ing believable.
my stomach has been in knots all day after they passed that shit.
reminds me of when I was younger, when I had made a BIG mistake and there was nothing I could do to change it, you know when alls' you can do is just relish in the regret.
there has never been a more clear cut example of the gooberment outright refusing to follow the will of the people.
thank god they know what's best for us.
VooDoo6Actual
10-04-08, 13:22
redaction.
One piece of analysis that seems to be missing in all of dialog I have seen on this:
If the govt is going to buy all this bad paper, then that means that the banks holding all of this bad debt is going to be selling something. When a banker sells something he is going to get a commission on the sale. If he makes money he gets paid, if he looses money he still gets paid.
My problem is that win or loose, the people responsible for this mess will still get a big pay day.
For my money, I want to see some people in Allenwood.
AwaySooner
10-04-08, 18:18
http://www.boston.com/business/markets/articles/2008/10/04/mass_may_seek_a_us_loan_as_credit_markets_dry_up/
Mass state second in line for handouts. Funny all these liberal states are the first to ask for "help". Houw about budget cut you leeches!
Did he just say what I thought he said?
Oh, I believe he said it. And I believe he was told it. And I also believe it will eventually occur. I especially believe it will occur if we see Democrats control Congress with BHO as POTUS. Their Marxist ideology will require it. The American people will hail it as a wonderful way to secure their pathetic existence, thanks to the western propaganda machine (MSM), which promotes this Marxist ideology. And the folks enforcing it will be obedient to the cause. At that point one will wonder, who are the sheep and who are the sheep dogs, and who in the heck is the shepherd ...
I suggest flying under the radar as much as possible.
VooDoo6Actual
10-06-08, 10:57
redaction.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.