# GDG*** Bail-Out Bust ***GDG



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

It looks like we will now see just how dire the situation is on Wall Street _and_ Main Street since the Bail Out deal was just defeated in the House with two thirds of Republicans and one third of Democrats voting against. For now the Wall Street reaction is still a little muted as traders wait to see if there is some way for the issue to be reconsidered. However, it looks like there is a possibility that DOW losses will set a new record for one day.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> It looks like we will now see just how dire the situation is on Wall Street _and_ Main Street since the Bail Out deal was just defeated in the House with two thirds of Republicans and one third of Democrats voting against. For now the Wall Street reaction is still a little muted as traders wait to see if there is some way for the issue to be reconsidered. However, it looks like there is a possibility that DOW losses will set a new record for one day.


All is not lost. Something will get done, but it will have to be something better. I hate the concept, but we're going to have to live with some degree of bail out. They just can't fleece the taxpayer to cover their mistakes without a strong provision to return what they're taking, and without rewarding mis-managers.

Evan


----------



## Byron Musick (Sep 19, 2008)

Things are not that bad, let the market CRASH! Then invest 700 Billion! You know, buy low, sell high! Then we can make some real bucks...... (a little sarcasm)

Goes against the very foundation of free enterprise, not sure I like a monetary GOV fix of poor business practice's, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Evan said:


> All is not lost. Something will get done, but it will have to be something better. I hate the concept, but we're going to have to live with some degree of bail out. They just can't fleece the taxpayer to cover their mistakes without a strong provision to return what they're taking, and without rewarding mis-managers.
> 
> Evan


I agree, something WILL be done, but it has to be right the first time...this was not


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

I think once it came out how much money some of the big wigs took away with them, folks just weren't so eager to help them out.


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

Hopefully this will open it up for a real investigation. 

I've been talking with some conservative Democrats, which we have plenty of in this state, and they all hope this will be the end of the Nancy/Harry pathetic handling of most of their leadership. Term limits were never more necessary.

UB


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Last Frontier Labs said:


> I think once it came out how much money some of the big wigs took away with them, folks just weren't so eager to help them out.


unfortunately the problem is much more complex than that, this is not a bailout for a few wealthy individuals it is one for every investor and saver in the country

my parents survived the great depression but they were young and poor, if the stock market crashes prepare yourselves for the worst financial calamity of modern civilization


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

For once, the voice of the people made it to the voting floor.
Both McCain and Obama have had the rug pulled out from under them as both had gone on record as supporting the bail out, even if tepidly.
Now is the time to see if the majority of this country has still got the stones to weather a major storm and fight their way back again. Any of you realize how close we were to a truly nationalized banking system?

"I fear hurricanes and lightning, theres a bad moon on the rise"


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

The taxpayers didn't cause this mess, bureaucrats and some wall street crooks were at the bottom of it. The long suffering American Taxpayer should not have to bail out the guilty parties in this one. Barney Frank, Cris Dodd and the former heads of the now defunct financial giants ought to bear the brunt of this mess, not the working stiffs of america.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Nancy Pelosi pulled the old "bait and switch" today. Hope all you folks on the left coast remember this come her next campaign for re-election.

Term limits *indeed* regards,

kg


----------



## Pepper Dawg (Sep 26, 2007)

2tall said:


> For once, the voice of the people made it to the voting floor.
> Both McCain and Obama have had the rug pulled out from under them as both had gone on record as supporting the bail out, even if tepidly.
> Now is the time to see if the majority of this country has still got the stones to weather a major storm and fight their way back again. Any of you realize how close we were to a truly nationalized banking system?
> 
> "I fear hurricanes and lightning, theres a bad moon on the rise"


I couldn't agree with you more!


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> unfortunately the problem is much more complex than that, this is not a bailout for a few wealthy individuals it is one for every investor and saver in the country
> my parents survived the great depression but they were young and poor, if the stock market crashes prepare yourselves for the worst financial calamity of modern civilization


Ed, I realize that, but I don't think we want to set the precedent of bailing out companies that make serious errors in judgment. People need to be held accountable and they are not.

I read today that one of the firms hired a gentleman for 17 days to try and help solve the crisis. He was unable to help, but made a cool 22 million for his 17 days...

My grandparents spoke to us regularly of the Great Depression and the abject poverty they survived. 
I hope the stock market is not doomed, but they were already saying it was going to take more than the 700 billion for the bailout.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

2tall said:


> Any of you realize how close we were to a truly nationalized banking system?
> "


Perhaps if the regulators knew a little history we would not be repeating what occurred in the early 80's

The Republic National Bank Of Dallas was then the largest bank West of the Mississippi River. As the banks and savings and loans in Texas failed all of the locally owned banks went under or merged with bank holding companies forming new entities. Familiar names like the Mercantile National Bank of Dalls, the Fort Worth Ntional Bank and First National Bank of Fort Worth also disappeared to be replaced by Nations Bank, NCNB (later Bank One, now Chase Bank).

a little bank history from Wikipedia

"The company first opened as the Guaranty Bank and Trust Company in 1920, founded by a University of Texas law school alumnus named Eugene DeBogory. In 1922 when Guaranty obtained a national charter it assumed the name Republic National Bank of Dallas. When the company began servicing farm and ranch loans, it was required to establish a Texas subsidiary, Republic Trust and Savings Bank, to comply with regulations governing national banks at the time. In 1928 the regulations changed, allowing the state-chartered Republic Trust and Savings Bank to be merged back into the parent company, forming the Republic National Bank and Trust Company.
During the next decade Republic acquired North Texas National Bank, and invested in several other Texas banks during the banking crisis of the 1933. In 1938 the name changed again back to Republic National Bank of Dallas. By 1948 Republic had grown to become the largest bank in Texas. In the 1980s, toward the tail end of a lengthy period of expansion and acquisition, Republic acquired the Houston National Bank and held a substantial portfolio of loans to the real estate industry in Texas.
In the late 1980s Savings and Loan crisis, Texas in general and Republic's loan portfolio in particular was hit hard by real estate devaluation. In efforts to remain solvent Republic merged with Interfirst Bank, also based in Dallas, resulting in the First Republic Bank Corporation. The combined First Republic Bank was unable to weather the downturn and was shuttered within a year, in what was at the time the largest bank failure in US history. In 1989-1990 NCNB Corporation acquired First Republic from the FDIC, and in 1991 changed its name to NationsBank."

please note "Texas in general and the Republic's loan portfolio in particular was hard hit by real estate devaluation", does this sound familiar, if so where were the regualtors?


----------



## Creek Retrievers (Jul 1, 2005)

EdA said:


> unfortunately the problem is much more complex than that, this is not a bailout for a few wealthy individuals it is one for every investor and saver in the country
> 
> my parents survived the great depression but they were young and poor, if the stock market crashes prepare yourselves for the worst financial calamity of modern civilization


I agree about the complexity of the bail out plan. Yes limitations are being placed on what bank executives can do with the money, but the 700 billion dollar bail out plan will not prevent a recession or another Great Depression. Even the most conservative economists question if this will work and some suggest this is nothing more than corporate welfare.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Last Frontier Labs said:


> I read today that one of the firms hired a gentleman for 17 days to try and help solve the crisis. He was unable to help, but made a cool 22 million for his 17 days...
> .


that will be small potatoes compared to the billions of dollars that small individual investors like you and me stand to lose collectively


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> that will be small potatoes compared to the billions of dollars that small individual investors like you and me stand to lose collectively


Ed, I really do get it, but I'm just not sure the bailout is gonna fix this mess and then where will we be???


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Ed, don't forget to bring your monopolization forward with the timesIt didn't stop at Nationsbank, that is now Bank of America, very soon to be one of the 3 Banks of the World Triumverate!

If I'm a little cynical today, in addition to the entire economy collapsing as we speak, I lost my entire retirement account from Wachovia today when Citi bought it for $1 a share. I got in at $60:-x


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

EdA said:


> unfortunately the problem is much more complex than that, this is not a bailout for a few wealthy individuals it is one for every investor and saver in the country



I've been saving 25% of my income each year for many years. The rest of the country was spending us into oblivion, and the big losers are the savers/investors. I could have blown all that money and had myself a really big time.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Last Frontier Labs said:


> Ed, I really do get it, but I'm just not sure the bailout is gonna fix this mess and then where will we be???


then you better have 100% of your assets in cash in FDIC insured accounts, government insured bonds, and gold or enjoy being poor and possibly unemployed.


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> then you better have 100% of your assets in cash in FDIC insured accounts, government insured bonds, and gold or enjoy being poor and possibly unemployed.


I don't know of anyone in this situation except for my parents. Mom sold the last of their stocks 2 weeks ago.

I don't know what the answer is....


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

I say put Donald Trump in charge of the 700 billion and see what he can do with it.


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

EdA said:


> that will be small potatoes compared to the billions of dollars that small individual investors like you and me stand to lose collectively


Sorry Ed, but really you know you love dogs to much to ever want to retire anyway

Whatever happens will happen. Hope The People will clean out the trash on the political side, and the market will clean out the house on Wall Street. 

Hell, I've always liked the exillerating feeling of living on the edge!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Captain Mike D said:


> Sorry Ed, but really you know you love dogs to much to ever want to retire anyway
> !


it won't matter much if people do not have $$$$ to spend on their pets, I'll be out of a job anyway..


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

I don't trust the U S Congress to come up with a good plan. They are not quailfied to handle this bailout because most are idiots. I say, " Don't bail them out, vote the bums out of Congress and let the chips fall where they will"! 

ANY SOLUTION CONGESS COMES UP WITH WILL NOT WORK AND IT WILL ONLY BE WORSE A FEW YEARS FROM NOW!


----------



## Pepper Dawg (Sep 26, 2007)

EdA said:


> that will be small potatoes compared to the billions of dollars that small individual investors like you and me stand to lose collectively


We lose anyway! If the current Pols have their way we the tax payers will be on the hook for the $700 Billion bailout.


----------



## Andy Symons (Oct 2, 2003)

This just goes to show how scary it is to have Pelosi third in line to the White House. She had the votes to pass this crummy bill, but then made a last minute speech on the House floor bashing Republicans for this crisis. Result, rebellion of the Republicans she needed to vote yes and some in her party also bailed on her after the stunt.


----------



## Pepper Dawg (Sep 26, 2007)

Mr Booty said:


> I don't trust the U S Congress to come up with a good plan. They are not quailfied to handle this bailout because most are idiots. I say, " Don't bail them out, vote the bums out of Congress and let the chips fall where they will"!
> 
> ANY SOLUTION CONGESS COMES UP WITH WILL NOT WORK AND IT WILL ONLY BE WORSE A FEW YEARS FROM NOW!


Well Said!!!!


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Andy Symons said:


> This just goes to show how scary it is to have Pelosi third in line to the White House. She had the votes to pass this crummy bill, but then made a last minute speech on the House floor bashing Republicans for this crisis. Result, rebellion of the Republicans she needed to vote yes and some in her party also bailed on her after the stunt.


Mean nasty lady hurt my feelings. Screw the country...


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

Andy Symons said:


> This just goes to show how scary it is to have Pelosi third in line to the White House. She had the votes to pass this crummy bill, but then made a last minute speech on the House floor bashing Republicans for this crisis. Result, rebellion of the Republicans she needed to vote yes and some in her party also bailed on her after the stunt.


ahhhhhhh haaaaaaaaaa....someone else that wants to see it for what it is.

the deal was done...but the DANG DEM's had to have that RETARD (of course had to be from my state) Pelosi open her big mouth.

Here is what is really scarrrrrrrrrrry....IF IT WAS SUCH A GOOD PLAN....why didnt the dem's vote it through...they have control...they only needed 45 votes...

something is wrong about that...ignore the "we want bi-part" BS...they dont care about that thats "smiles, shaking hands and kissing babies" they dont care about you and I, nor do they care about Bi-Partison votes...

713.41 down and counting.....

NCA


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Last Frontier Labs said:


> Ed, I realize that, but I don't think we want to set the precedent of bailing out companies that make serious errors in judgment. People need to be held accountable and they are not.
> 
> I read today that one of the firms hired a gentleman for 17 days to try and help solve the crisis. He was unable to help, but made a cool 22 million for his 17 days...
> 
> ...



Yep. Fishman at WAMU. He got paid $8 mill just to take over for Killinger. I believe the exit plan calls for another $8 mill or more for him.

I had WAMU stock. Took it in the shorts.

What I find interesting in this $700 billion bailout plan, it that there are EARMARKS in it. We can't even seem to get away from the pork when our economy is on the brink of disaster.

WRL


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> I say put Donald Trump in charge of the 700 billion and see what he can do with it.


Hey BBG I thought Trump was in bankruptcy too.:razz:


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

WRL said:


> We can't even seem to get away from the pork when our economy is on the brink of disaster.
> 
> WRL


The system has been broke for a long time because we have an uneducated electorate. 

WE wouldn't be in the mess if voters were required to be property owners first! 

Time for a political revolution! If not, we keep all the same idiots in Congress and get just as big a one in Obama as President. 

Hailcall to Ceasar, "it's time to cross the Rubicon" !


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Obviously more of us get this than don't. But it deserves to be said that there is no such thing as "government money". Any money the government has came from us. We the people, who earned and paid taxes.

That 700 billion isn't coming from the hated "rich". It's coming from all of us who pay taxes. I like the idea that enough of our elected leaders are insistant upon assurances that when they sell the paper they're proposing to buy to other lenders, that we get it repaid - restored, not given as a gift from Uncle Sam.

Again, I believe a deal will get done. I just hope it's the best deal _we the people_ can get our grandstanding congress people to come up with.

Evan


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

When asked about Pelois speach

_Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., scoffed at the explanation._
_“Well if that stopped people from voting, then shame on them," he said. "If people's feelings were hurt because of a speech and that led them to vote differently than what they thought the national interest (requires), then they really don't belong here. They're not tough enough."_
_More than a repudiation of Democrats, Frank said, Republicans' refusal to vote for the bailout was a rejection of their own president._
_"The Republicans don't trust the administration," he said. "It's a Republican revolt against George Bush and John McCain."_


This is the stuff that proves they need to be thrown out. I will admit that both sides do similar things but if you don’t think this statement was made with the sole purpose of gaining votes for BHO then you are a fool. You cannot trust any of them with this matter because they don’t have a clue! It is all about political and personal gain. They could have had a deal but the democrat leaders had to try an leverage this to their advantage in the presidential election. It proves that they don’t have our best interest in mind.


----------



## labdoc (Apr 18, 2003)

Hurray, and hopefully it stays as a failed bailout plan. I don't buy all the doom and gloom and many economists don't either. The only way I see the stock market crashing is if the investors in the market buy the hype and bail out. Yes there may be some painful times but we should allow the FREE market to regulate itself. 

Ready to invest more money if the market plummets regards.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

duk4me said:


> Hey BBG I thought Trump was in bankruptcy too.:razz:


 
He was once....I believe that was quite some time ago and I think he is doing pretty good these days;-). Shows he has experiance


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

badbullgator said:


> I say put Donald Trump in charge of the 700 billion and see what he can do with it.


And his qualification is that he managed to bankrupt his own company while sticking others with the major losses and preserving his own wealth?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Untwist the panties Jeff it was a joke.......


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> And his qualification is that he managed to bankrupt his own company while sticking others with the major losses and preserving his own wealth?


 
In my neighborhood we have a name for folks like that- Democrat.

I'm off to buy all the whiskey and cigarettes I can get my hands on. I'm betting we will be working on a barter system by the weekend.

Slowly sinking into the sunset regards

Bubba


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

badbullgator said:


> Untwist the panties Jeff it was a joke.......


Not twisted. His mode of operation is actually a model for many of the most successful people on Wall Street. 

My concern is that our money system operates because a network of regional and national banks loan each other trillions of dollars each day in anticipation that the money will come back at night. These intra-day loans are essential to our entire monetary system. 

The closest we ever came to threatening that network was when Continental Bank, which was the primary "concentration" bank in the mid-west went under. It was immediately taken over by Bank of America, avoiding a collapse that would have stuck all those intraday loans into Chapter 11 limbo. 

Today the system is on the verge of a similar crisis as banks refuse to loan money to each other for fear of being the loser in a nationwide game of hot potato. We all lose if that continues since it could literally affect the movement of money outside of the Federal Reserve system.

I have major problems with any bail out plan since I believe that a small group of people have profited inordinately by placing their financial institutions at risk. However, most of those people have already moved their money to safer havens and will be the last in line to pay the cost of their greed. This is the same dilemma we faced in the S&L crisis when even those who went to jail ended up very very wealthy. However, the rest of us are going to be stuck with paying for the damage, whether we do it through a bail out program or through the loss of our own assets and income.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

labdoc said:


> Ready to invest more money if the market plummets regards.


Make no mistake it will plummet and a lengthy recession could follow, better wait for it to hit bottom (where ever that is), but by then you may have spent the dollars you would have invested to survive..


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Here is a great hedge opportunity...

Take the Georgia Dawgs and lay the points this weekend!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> I have major problems with any bail out plan since I believe that a small group of people have profited inordinately by placing their financial institutions at risk. However, most of those people have already moved their money to safer havens and will be the last in line to pay the cost of their greed. This is the same dilemma we faced in the S&L crisis when even those who went to jail ended up very very wealthy. However, the rest of us are going to be stuck with paying for the damage, whether we do it through a bail out program or through the loss of our own assets and income.


And THAT'S a fact

the big dogs get away relatively unscathed while the small individual investors gets left holding the proverbial bag, my brokerage account lost about 50% of it's value in the 80s, I have alot more at stake today but as the DOW has slowly but surely retreated from 14,000 +/- history may repeat again repeat itself .......:-x :shock:


----------



## labdoc (Apr 18, 2003)

The strong (and well armed) will survive. Pessimism will cause the market collapse, not anything the government does or doesn't do. It is also interesting that congress is hearing 10:1 opposing the bailout. Apparently many others are as naive as myself.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

labdoc said:


> The strong (and well armed) will survive.


Somehow my plan for retirement did not include carry a .45 cal automatic on my hip and an assault rifle in my truck..


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

I can say that I am so glad I decided to focus on paying off my home rather than investing more and really glad I didn’t take out a loan to remodel when my house value went up 100% + a couple of years ago. I owe so little on my home that I think I will be able to ride this out no matter what happens


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

EdA said:


> Somehow my plan for retirement did not include carry a .45 cal automatic on my hip and an assault rifle in my truck..


Ed, it's a GREAT plan for the .001 percent that it'll work for......

kg


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

K G said:


> Ed, it's a GREAT plan for the .001 percent that it'll work for......
> 
> kg


 
I bet the survivalist websites are getting record hits today!


----------



## Mistyriver (May 19, 2005)

2tall said:


> If I'm a little cynical today, in addition to the entire economy collapsing as we speak, I lost my entire retirement account from Wachovia today when Citi bought it for $1 a share. I got in at $60:-x



WOW Carol!! I thought we all learned that hard lesson when Enron failed. All you eggs in one basket?


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Wachovia was my employer for 10 years. When I left there I left my 401k in their stock as they looked the strongest of all my options!. When it started going down, I was sure it was coming back. We have other things available to us, but damnit that was mine and they gave it away! (To Ken Thompson!!!!)


----------



## labdoc (Apr 18, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> I can say that I am so glad I decided to focus on paying off my home rather than investing more and really glad I didn’t take out a loan to remodel when my house value went up 100% + a couple of years ago. I owe so little on my home that I think I will be able to ride this out no matter what happens


And THAT is what we all should learn from these days behind and ahead. Credit and greed caused this mess. 

By the way Ed, I like the idea of walking around with a .38 on my ankle. Heck I do so much "armed hiking" some days while hunting that it's becoming commonplace.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

labdoc said:


> . Pessimism will cause the market collapse, .


The people I truly feel sorry for are the ones who made the irrevocable decision this year or last year to retire, OPTIMISTIC that their investments would sustain their current value or even increase in value over the years. How about 7% loss in your net worth TODAY alone???


----------



## Terry Britton (Jul 3, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> I bet the survivalist websites are getting record hits today!


http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=economy survival&cmpt=q

At least the economy survival websites are booming.


----------



## Terry Britton (Jul 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> The people I truly feel sorry for are the ones who made the irrevocable decision this year or last year to retire, OPTIMISTIC that their investments would sustain their current value or even increase in value over the years.


Back before I cashed out in Febuary, I mad 30% while the market went down 20%. I would highly recommend the book, Rule #1. www.rule1investor.com 

It just covers how to steer your investments safely through rough seas.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Maybe I am nuts but I just ordered 2 pcs of equipment today. Just like in the late 90's I am choosing not to participate in a down turn in the economy. Since 99 our piss ant little shop has grown 25 times from its 1st year. Maybe wal-mart will buy the banks cause they aint going anywhere. Last check they were up again.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

A portion of our retirement in Thrift Savings with the USDA, is in Wall Street. I told my husband to pull out last week with the 'bump' of news of a bail out and he didn't do it. We just took a 25,000.00 hit.....

I'm trying really hard not to panic--but I gotta say--Cramer made a lot sense the other day when he said "protect your capital at all costs". What a mess. Anyone want to buy 40 acres of CRP hunting ground in St. Elmo Illinois? I'm selling it cheap!!! Not kidding--going to pay off the home place and hunker down. 

Stocking up on bread and noodles regards,


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

EdA said:


> Somehow my plan for retirement did not include carry a .45 cal automatic on my hip and an assault rifle in my truck..


The movie Idiocracy seems to be a pretty accurate representation of where we are headed.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Terry Britton said:


> Back before I cashed out in Febuary,.


The problem with "cashing out" if you are a long term investor close to retirement is the huge amount of captial gains tax you would pay, now that the markjet has eroded it might look like it would have been a smart play (in hindsight of course), people like me can only hope the market reaches bottom soon or make a new 10 year economic plan. 

A grinding recession will bring about job cuts, lost tax revenues for governments at all levels, further weakening of the housing market, and general economic malaise which will include bankruptcies and more lost jobs. No jobs no money to spend on consumer goods, bye bye GM and Ford, Chrysler too......adios Delta, Northwest, US Air (oh, I forgot they're already bankrupt), and American Airlines (teetering on bankruptcy)


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Interesting that the DOW loss of 778 points today translate to a loss of market value of about $800 billion in one day.


----------



## labdoc (Apr 18, 2003)

EdA said:


> The people I truly feel sorry for are the ones who made the irrevocable decision this year or last year to retire, OPTIMISTIC that their investments would sustain their current value or even increase in value over the years. How about 7% loss in your net worth TODAY alone???


I do too and those who will lose houses and jobs. The number one rule of Wall Street investing is "past market performance is not a guarantee of future gains" or something like that. It is gambling with a history of market gains over a long period. That is what people forget and sadly it is not the taxpayers job to make the market a guarantee at income. Diversification is the second rule in my book to keep from losing it all at once. Besides you're a rich veterinarian......


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Time to invest in the stock market while everything is down! My 401K isn't looking so hot right now except for the percentage I have in a foreign oil/fuel based mutual fund I have been buying for about 2 years now.....up about 20% even with oil prices on the decline, it has balanced out my loser funds...During a low market almost 10 years ago, I bought a bunch of voicestream stock. Market came back, voicestream bought out by T-mobile, T-mobile got BIG---I sold my shares and made off like a bandit.....Now is the time to buy stock, not retire from investing.....This is a perfect opportunity to work the market. 

I was soo tired of everyone recommending to buy houses the last three years....loans are easy, prices will keep going higher and so on.....prices in Washington State were so overinflated it was a joke. 10 year old 3 bedroom ramblers which sold for $85K new were selling for over $350K. 

Now, the housing boom just crashed like the internet/tech stocks did not long ago.....It was purely the fault of the slimy bankers, real estate agents who pushed homeowners to buy more than they could afford and housing developers over building. George Bush or any other government official had little to do with the whole housing crash.....Blame cute little Sally Sales girl trying to get her commission for selling a house to a family who couldn't afford it then, working with her little fancy loan broker friend to add on riders, ARMs, riders on the ARMs, prepayment penalties all just to get someone into a house it is obvious they can't afford....that is what is wrong with America, America.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

labdoc said:


> Besides you're a rich veterinarian......


some years ago a local veterinarian 20 years my senior askled me if "I was on the veterinarian's retirement plan", my reply was "I don't know what is the veterinarian's retirement plan", his reply "you work until you die", I guess that's my new retirement plan......


----------



## Last Frontier Labs (Jan 3, 2003)

Interesting article
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

CBR KAIE said:


> Time to invest in the stock market while everything is down! .


not just yet, the bottom has not been reached ;-)


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I'm retired, but on the bright side, we own our home. It ain't gonna be fun.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

CBR KAIE wrote:
It was purely the fault of the slimy bankers, real estate agents who pushed homeowners to buy more than they could afford and housing developers over building. George Bush or any other government official had little to do with the whole housing crash.....Blame cute little Sally Sales girl trying to get her commission for selling a house to a family who couldn't afford it then, working with her little fancy loan broker friend to add on riders, ARMs, riders on the ARMs, prepayment penalties all just to get someone into a house it is obvious they can't afford.

Wouldn't you know ... I sell real estate  

The perennial problem with our profession is that during a housing boom people rush into becoming agents expecting to get rich quick. Our modest-sized area saw the number of agents go from about 1300/1600 to over 2600 in two years' time. Only about 5% of those who begin in real estate survive after 10 years. At any given point in time, one might expect 50-70% of the agents in the membership to really know what they're doing. Imagine how low that %-age gets when the newcomers' numbers double almost overnight.

The same scenario occurs with mortgage loan officers when there's a housing boom. So, I blame the inexperience of those individuals. Nobody uses an ARM mortgage when fixed rate mortgages are available at under 6.5%, for God's sake. ARMs came into favor in the 80s when fixed rate mortgages were 13%. Only one way for those high rates to go. It was a wise move back then, but not when fixed rates are already at historic lows.

I do disagree that even these inexperienced people "forced" buyers into houses they couldn't afford. A large part of this group of buyers had not learned about "deferred gratification". So, the inexperienced agents & loan officers, even if they did (or could) explain the consequences of these funky loans, had listeners who didn't want to hear the facts. I, personally, put no buyers into ARMs. With counselling, some were willing to accept the facts of lowering their expectations of what they could afford. The loan officers I have come to know over 15 years are responsible individuals. 

The builders *did *rape and pillage. They raised prices regularly on their home packages based on "what the traffic would bear." They do not have my sympathy now. Many of the large builders also have their own mortgage companies and title insurance companies, so they made $ on each transaction in several different ways. They also preferred to rely on their own on-site sales people for larger profit, so they reduced the commission they were willing to pay to outside agents during the boom period.

The buyers who bought new construction over the past two years are watching their equity erode fastest of all. Builders are scrambling to reduce their inventory and are offering "free" upgrades, doing away with lot premiums, and making it nearly impossible for any of the 2-year owners to sell their homes if they have experienced job loss, divorce, or job relocation. More recently, they have outrightly reduced the pricing on the homes. They hated to do that since they well knew how the rest of the neighbors were going to feel about that.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Last Frontier Labs said:


> Interesting article
> http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html


Good article by the economist! A bailout just avoids market forces. 

The major pileup of debt was a conundrum in the market. Interest rates have been kept artificially low to support the spending habit. Apparently this was done to keep other countries buying this country's debt. For that we can thank Greenspan & his clone, Bernanke.

Government has been bailing on their obligations for several years with their callable bonds. There has been very few safe places one can put cash & earn a reasonable rate of return. This has existed for many years & is a real blow to the lifestyle of those who are savers. Try getting even a 5% rate of return with a reasonable assurance of safety. This shouldn't come as any surprise to any one, that the devil has shown ready to collect his due. 

Now, I don't work in the industry like some who have posted, but one did not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize something was wrong with the outlandish bonuses being paid to political cronies from the GSE's. What is very revealing is the level that the Democratic machine has interwoven itself into these GSE's & the mess they have created. Now they are in charge of the bailout & are dictating the terms, Does that make anyone slightly uncomfortable? 

Regardless of what happens, & only collectively do our congresspeople know how mad we are, they will ignore us & go their philandering ways. The only answer is to vote them out of office, & Good Luck on that, they took care of that with redistricting to create safe districts. Tom Foley, the reigning Speaker of the House at the time, failed to recognize that his constituents felt strongly about term limits & when he opposed the institution of same was summarily voted out of office. & he was a few levels above the leadership that exists today in Congress.

I'm not sure a long recession would'nt be good for the country, maybe we would pay more attention to what the other people are doing to us. 

Where's Barry Goldwater when we really need him?


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Where's Barry Goldwater when we really need him?


America's last real Conservative.

What would Barry do?

He would be the first to say the the government has no business getting involved! It is too much government that got us into this mess.

How dumb do we have to be to put any faith into a solution that has Polosi, Reid, Dobbs and Frank involved?


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> CBR KAIE wrote:
> It was purely the fault of the slimy bankers, real estate agents who pushed homeowners to buy more than they could afford and housing developers over building. George Bush or any other government official had little to do with the whole housing crash.....Blame cute little Sally Sales girl trying to get her commission for selling a house to a family who couldn't afford it then, working with her little fancy loan broker friend to add on riders, ARMs, riders on the ARMs, prepayment penalties all just to get someone into a house it is obvious they can't afford.
> 
> Wouldn't you know ... I sell real estate
> ...


Actually, its not the bankers, real estate agents or mortgage brokers fault.

Its the fault of society.

WE (collective world) have come to accept that deficit spending is ok. Once you put the toe in the water, its not long before the foot follows and the body after that.

You're an oddball these days if you have no cc debt, no vehicle payment or no mortgage payment.

Its the "norm" to owe somebody or something money.

Time to stop pointing a finger at others and start looking to ourselves. Time for US to take responsibility for ourselves.

That is the biggest problem with government today. We rely on them to "take care of us" and to "keep us from hurting ourselves".

No one twists your arm when you buy a home. You get "approved" for x amount of dollars but you have the CHOICE of how much to spend. When I bought my home 10 years ago, the mortgage brokers said I could afford a $260k home. I said NO WAY JOSE.......I "settled" for a home at $200k. 

Ten years later, and another house later, I have NO INTEREST in owing anybody ANY money. Cash is king. 

Lets make a push to be responsible for ourselves and our either bad decisions or our good decisions.

Life doesn't happen TO you. You make life happen.

WRL


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

WRL said:


> Actually, its not the bankers, real estate agents or mortgage brokers fault.
> 
> Its the fault of society.
> 
> ...



We all benefited from an over-inflated economy and now we will all pay the price.


----------



## luvmylabs23139 (Jun 4, 2005)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> CBR KAIE wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cgoeson (Jan 22, 2008)

Therre is an upside to this... Oil dropped below $100 a barrel.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Some sanity from a suprising source CNN!

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/29/miron.bailout/index.html


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

Ouch, 778 points.....

Hoping to weather the storm....


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

luvmylabs23139 said:


> Gerry Clinchy said:
> 
> 
> > CBR KAIE wrote:
> ...


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

I promised myself I would keep out of American politics, but our media has been full of the rising dire US situation for years. Now that it has reached a peak, blame is worthless........I cannot help wondering, if the elections were not imminent, would congress have been more .......how do we say in dog terms........biddible?

The world is watching with interest. The world not only the US needs the bail out. Sins of our fathers...............


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Aussie said:


> The world not only the US needs the bail out. Sins of our fathers...............


That's the sad truth, as I see it. I'm offended that we must actually do a thing like this, but I'm convinced that a form of governmental bail out has to happen. I just hope and pray that it's more carefully done than has been proposed so far. I'd like to personally strangle the dolts who've been playing politics with it! 









Evan


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Aussie said:


> I promised myself I would keep out of American politics,
> 
> *Please don't. Your perspective is different and gives "us" a view of "us" we can't get any other place.*
> 
> ...


Wild Times In The Market Place Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

*"The resultant pout, which should have been expected given the nature of the relations and tension of the moment, by the Republicans reminded me of a spoiled child."*

Of course the accusations made toward Republicans must be accepted without qualification, especially when thrown by the actual culprits, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, and "yes", Barack Obama via ACORN, who directed Fanny and Freddie to make the bad loans most responsible for the ultimate failures. Then they get to stand in front of cameras and spout "shame on the Republicans for not doing it our way". Yeah, good stuff, alright.

Media speak is not reality speak regards,

Evan


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

We are debating whether this bill should have passed, but do we know enough of the details to judge whether it was a good plan or not? 

Republicans voted against a bill promoted by a Republican President. Was that a political ploy to disassociate with the administration for campaign reasons? Or were the votes based on the pros and cons of the proposed plan?

Democrats voted against in large numbers as well. This supposedly went against their leadership's desires.

I'd be interested to hear why those who voted against the plan did so. As far as we know, McCain returned to DC to vote on the bill. Do we know if Obama was there to vote as well?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Come on Evan, the media and hollywood knows what is best for this country......don't you know that


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> I'd be interested to hear why those who voted against the plan did so. As far as we know, McCain returned to DC to vote on the bill. Do we know if Obama was there to vote as well?



So far as I know, the vote was in the House. McCain and Obama are in the Senate.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Buzz said:


> So far as I know, the vote was in the House. McCain and Obama are in the Senate.


Correct, but if you want ot know who voted how

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=31025


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Joe S said:


> The recent speech by the Speaker was at best, ill advised & ill timed.


Small wonder that Congress enjoys lower approval ratings than the President who is at the least, trying to do something about the problem that Bill Clinton, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank. Barack Obama (Yes, he has done something, look at the contributions he received from FNM & FRE) & their cohorts managed to put together & sustain. All Nancy was doing is spinning the blame where it does not belong in her own Ham Handed way.



Joe S said:


> The resultant pout, -----------------------, by the Republicans reminded me of a spoiled child.


Your partisanship is showing. Only 60% of the Speakers party voted with her. Does that sound like approval from her own party? Remember the D's are the majority party. Or was the package, hastily cobbled together, unpalatable even for her own party?

As a fiscal conservative, I am disappointed that 40% of the so called R's could hold their noses & vote for this.

Remember, this didn't happen overnight, it has been many years coming & I would like to see serious deliberations where the taxpayer is fully protected & there are no EARMARKS. Something will happen & the longer it takes increases the chances that the taxpayer will not be left holding a bag with negligible worth. 

Have a nice day Joe.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Evan said:


> *"The resultant pout, which should have been expected given the nature of the relations and tension of the moment, by the Republicans reminded me of a spoiled child."*
> 
> Of course the accusations made toward Republicans must be accepted without qualification, especially when thrown by the actual culprits, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, and "yes", Barack Obama via ACORN, who directed Fanny and Freddie to make the bad loans most responsible for the ultimate failures. Then they get to stand in front of cameras and spout "shame on the Republicans for not doing it our way". Yeah, good stuff, alright.
> 
> ...


Do you think that Alan Greenspan and the SEC Chairman have clean hands?


----------



## labdoc (Apr 18, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> We are debating whether this bill should have passed, but do we know enough of the details to judge whether it was a good plan or not?
> 
> Republicans voted against a bill promoted by a Republican President. Was that a political ploy to disassociate with the administration for campaign reasons? Or were the votes based on the pros and cons of the proposed plan?
> 
> ...


Any bill that places $700 billion taxpayer dollars on the line for some investment banks is a bad bill IMHO. As far as Republicans distancing themselves from Bush, if the shoe fits... have you seen his approval numbers lately. Maybe they voted nay because they have received calls 10:1 from constituents urging a nay vote. That is a novel idea to listen to the voters but the possibility must be considered.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Buzz said:


> Do you think that Alan Greenspan and the SEC Chairman have clean hands?


Absolutely not, nor does Bernanke.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Buzz said:


> So far as I know, the vote was in the House. McCain and Obama are in the Senate.


Oops ... I should have been asking what their opinions were on the bill presented for the vote in the House ... whether they supported it or not.

I missed the thread about who voted how, but thought it interesting how some of the voting split within the same party in some states, i.e. one D or one R voting differently than the rest of the Representatives of their own party in their state.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Evan said:


> *"The resultant pout, which should have been expected given the nature of the relations and tension of the moment, by the Republicans reminded me of a spoiled child."*
> 
> Of course the accusations made toward Republicans must be accepted without qualification, especially when thrown by the actual culprits, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, and "yes", Barack Obama via ACORN, who directed Fanny and Freddie to make the bad loans most responsible for the ultimate failures. Then they get to stand in front of cameras and spout "shame on the Republicans for not doing it our way". Yeah, good stuff, alright.
> 
> ...


Take a deep breath, Evan.

I thought it was pretty clear my disgust was with both sides of the aisle. I'll try and be more clear in the future. We are in this mess because *NEITHER *party had the testicular fortitude to do the right thing by the people that elected them way back when.

We, as a country, need to try and get our arms around the fact that *NEITHER *side of the aisle is always *RIGHT OR WRONG*. Those that thing otherwise are simply not connected to reality.

Reality Is A 700 Billion Dollar Bail Out Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Your partisanship is showing.
> 
> *Actually, it wasn't, but you must of have missed the part about the Speaker and you deleted the part where I said it was to be expected on the part of the Republicans.*
> 
> ...


Kindest Of Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Joe S. said:


> We, as a country, need to try and get our arms around the fact that *NEITHER *side of the aisle is always *RIGHT OR WRONG*. Those that thing otherwise are simply not connected to reality.
> 
> Reality Is A 700 Billion Dollar Bail Out Regards,
> 
> Joe S.


That is exactly where I come down on it. This forum is so far to the right that I end up coming off sounding like a Democrat. I have been registered Republican and Democrat at different times in my life. But now I have a visceral dislike of both parties. The truth is, I'm and independent. I never voted for Clinton. But then, I never voted for Bush either. Most people tend to gravitate to the media sources that reinforce their view and take what is reported as absolute truth. I tend to pay close attention to both sides, and it is mind numbing to see the reality distortion field in action - on all sides.

There is NO ONE in this thing that has clean hands. It is a complicated story that lends itself to both sides trying to pin the crisis on some boogeyman that their constituents have an emotional response to.

My favorite quote is from Jon Stewart.



> Liberals and conservatives are two gangs who have intimidated rational, normal thinking beings into not having a voice on television or in the culture.


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

Was anyone surprised that the House not scheduled to meet again until Thursday?


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Not really and it is probably for the best.


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

The govt, repubs and demis can't even run the DMV or anything else correctly. I don't think I want to give them a chance to waste another 700 billion dollars. It's going to be the same greedy idiots that will get their hands on this money. I say let them fail. In time new banks will rise and hopefully be watched a little better. They want this money so they can keep loaning it to people that DON"T qualify.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Greg E said:


> In time new banks will rise and hopefully be watched a little better. They want this money so they can keep loaning it to people that DON"T qualify.


And in the meantime what happens to those who do qualify but can't get loans for new and growing businesses?

There is much more at stake than some bank failures, to believe (and vote) otherwise is short sighted.


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

Im guessing that for someone that actually qualifies there will be someone willing to loan. There always has been.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Buzz said:


> This forum is so far to the right that I end up coming off sounding like a Democrat.


Funny how times change. When I was growing up in SD I would have been considered a moderate in my views, which were generally shared by most of the state's citizens. Though the city people did expect a little more government in their lives - that would have been Sioux Falls by itself. 

But having McGovern & Daschle represent your state in the nations capital does tend to cloud people's judgment. & they find that it's easy money to get a government check rather than earning it themselves. & the downward spiral starts & can only be halted by some sort of catastrophe. My high school friends who remained in or around the state fall in that group, called "Farming the Government" in whatever manner.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

EdA said:


> And in the meantime what happens to those who do qualify but can't get loans for new and growing businesses?
> 
> There is much more at stake than some bank failures, to believe (and vote) otherwise is short sighted.


It's part of the "lynch mob" mentality, Ed. People only care about what they think is in it for them, regardless of the overall impact on the economy.

Ignorance is rampant regards,

kg


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

K G said:


> It's part of the "lynch mob" mentality, Ed. People only care about what they think is in it for them, regardless of the overall impact on the economy.
> 
> Ignorance is rampant regards,
> 
> kg


So I'm ignorant because I don't want to give the same crooks 700 billion more dollars. I wouldn't even consider it.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Marvin S said:


> FMy high school friends who remained in or around the state fall in that group, called "Farming the Government" in whatever manner.


To me South Dakota folks seem to align more with the Libertarian philosophy. Except when it comes to Farm Subsidies... They seem most turned off by the anti gun nuts and the animal rights nuts. It is interesting that they have managed to send folks like McGovern, Daschle, Johnson, and Herseth to congress. Of course Herseth was endorsed by the NRA. I know a lot of people who voted for her based on that endorsement alone... Johnson's brother used to be my family doctor. He used to laugh when they tried to paint Tim as anti gun/hunter - they grew up hunting birds.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

DOW 10,606.06 +240.61 +2.32%

I am not convinced that anything needs to be done. The market will correct because for every loser there is someone waiting to profit form their loss. Yesterday’s loss, by percentage, was only the 17th biggest in history. All things considered that was not so bad if we are to believe that we are on the brink of economic collapse. Of course in all honesty I don’t know anything really about the bailout other than what I have read and am far from an economic genius, but then again I really don’t think that 99% of the house or senate are either and I don’t really think they have the knowledge to know what to do. 
I think a lot of them are buying into the hype and are voting because they are afraid if the do nothing something bad will happen without thought that if they do the wrong thing the end result could be worse. 
Our area was number 2 in foreclosures for some time now, currently we are 6th. The housing market here is WAY, WAY down in terms of price, but sales are actually increasing because some people out there did not foolishly invest and now have the cash (yes cash) to buy bargain properties. While some poor slob paid 400K for a home that was only worth 150K and went into foreclosure because he had an ARM thinking he could flip the home in no time, someone else is now buying that home for 98K. One looser and one winner…….


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Greg E said:


> I don't want to give the same crooks 700 billion more dollars. I wouldn't even consider it.


Perhaps a little in depth research would help you to reconsider your absolute opposition, the "crooks" you speak of were operating within the parameters given them by the real crooks who represent you in Washington. 

Unlike the Enron debacle this is not about criminal behavior.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> some years ago a local veterinarian 20 years my senior askled me if "I was on the veterinarian's retirement plan", my reply was "I don't know what is the veterinarian's retirement plan", his reply "you work until you die", I guess that's my new retirement plan......


Was that the same one whose "retirement Plan" was in the trunk of his car???

Jerry


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

EdA said:


> *And in the meantime what happens to those who do qualify but can't get loans for new and growing businesses?
> *There is much more at stake than some bank failures, to believe (and vote) otherwise is short sighted.


See post below by GREG E.....




Greg E said:


> *Im guessing that for someone that actually qualifies there will be someone willing to loan. There always has been*.


Agreed, 100%...point in case..3 days ago I Pre-qualified for a new home loan, and just yesterday my father Pre-qualified for a Car loan...My best friend that I went fishing with yesterday (my B-day, fishing trip..yea buddy) who ownes his own business (electrical contracter) just got a nice business loan. There is money out there for those who qualify and there are people and banks willing to loan it out.



badbullgator said:


> DOW 10,606.06 +240.61 +2.32%
> 
> I am not convinced that anything needs to be done. The market will correct because for every loser there is someone waiting to profit form their loss. Yesterday’s loss, by percentage, was only the 17th biggest in history. All things considered that was not so bad if we are to believe that we are on the brink of economic collapse. Of course in all honesty I don’t know anything really about the bailout other than what I have read and am far from an economic genius, but then again I really don’t think that 99% of the house or senate are either and I don’t really think they have the knowledge to know what to do.
> I think a lot of them are buying into the hype and are voting because they are afraid if the do nothing something bad will happen without thought that if they do the wrong thing the end result could be worse.
> ...


positive state of mind regards,

NCA


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

EdA said:


> Perhaps a little in depth research would help you to reconsider your absolute opposition, the "crooks" you speak of were operating within the parameters given them by the real crooks who represent you in Washington.
> 
> Unlike the Enron debacle this is not about criminal behavior.


Well said.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> Agreed, 100%...point in case..3 days ago I Pre-qualified for a new home loan, and just yesterday my father Pre-qualified for a Car loan...My best friend that I went fishing with yesterday (my B-day, fishing trip..yea buddy) who ownes his own business (electrical contracter) just got a nice business loan. There is money out there for those who qualify and there are people and banks willing to loan it out.


If the current situation continues check back with me in 30 days, there are 117 banks currently on the FDIC "Watch List"

Pessimistic/Realistic Regards,


----------



## Roger Perry (Nov 6, 2003)

Seems to me that if the 60%+ of the republicans had voted for the bail out instead of against it, the bailout would have passed. It seems like the republicans will not even help bail out their own President.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Roger.....the dems could have passed it without and Reps. Seems to me they all feel it is just a bad idea and it is. Now, as is always the case, it is all the republicans fault


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

EdA said:


> If the current situation continues check back with me in 30 days, there are 117 banks currently on the FDIC "Watch List"
> 
> Pessimistic/Realistic Regards,


We will see and I hope I am right and you are wrong Ed. I can say that I just bought a truck last week and had lenders beating each other up trying to loan me money for it (I paid cash thanks)


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Roger Perry said:


> Seems to me that if the 60%+ of the republicans had voted for the bail out instead of against it, the bailout would have passed. It seems like the republicans will not even help bail out their own President.


Not too sure about that- it seems that 12 members of Barney Franks OWN committee voted against the measure. Interestingly enough that happens to be the exact margin and even more interestingly the exact number of "offended souls" that he promised to talk "uncharacteristically nicely" to.

Not too sure about this "bailout" - make a list of all the things that the dumbass in chief and his advisors got right.

Pardon the interruption regards

Bubba


----------



## cotts135 (Aug 5, 2008)

There is a whole lot of blame to go around here. First Pelosi being the leader of the house should have known what the vote was going to be. Second Boehner who said that he had the necessary votes but didn't and then ultimately blamed it on Pelosi for giving a partisan speech. Then you have Paulson and Bernanke who for months said everything was fine when obviously it wasn't and finally Bush who did nothing also. 
Now all I see is each political party pointing fingers at each other. Why isn't someone standing up taking accountability and trying to solve this problem. This just shows why are political system is broke and why Congress only has a 15% approval rating. 
Ironically because the system is broke it might turn out that they put out a better bill that truly addresses the problems and proves to be more effective in the long run.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> I hope I am right and you are wrong Ed.


Believe me, so do I, but I find little cause for optimism, the trickle down effect of an extended recession is troubling to contemplate.

I am virtually debt free, I stand to lose a substantial portion of my life savings but I will survive only relinquishing a few years of comfy retirement. I fear for those younger and not so well poised to survive a serious economic down turn.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

EdA said:


> Believe me, so do I, but I find little cause for optimism, the trickle down effect of an extended recession is troubling to contemplate.
> 
> I am virtually debt free, I stand to lose a substantial portion of my life savings but I will survive only relinquishing a few years of comfy retirement. I fear for those younger and not so well poised to survive a serious economic down turn.


 
Same here Ed, but I had already figured I would have to work another 10-15 years. Looks like it will now be 15-20 but that would only make me 64 so I think I am still ahead of the game. My retirement is not even worth looking at right now but I am happy that is the only real loss I have taken or really stand to take. I wish I could say it is becasue I am a savy investor, but it is actually just becasue I decided that paying off my home was the best thing I could do for my future and other than a retirement fund or two that is where all my "extra" money has gone. I figure that as long as I have a roof over my head I can always feed myself. 
Teach a man to fish/hunt regards


----------



## Byron Musick (Sep 19, 2008)

Look at the stock market today, going up under the speculation that the President will get this bailout passed. Hopefully it will purchase the default loans which include the actual mortgages, vice just giving the failing mortgage company cash.

I also do not believe that the Market system will crash as feared due to this, sure it will take a hit, but it may just need a one considering the speculation that has drove fuel costs sky high, which in turn made just about everything else even more expensive. Sometimes a market reset is necessary; these are needed to keep the prices of commodities real. It is certainly not the “End of the World” as we are led to believe.

Another thing I would like to see is the institution of a ONE party system. A party that takes the best idea’s of all and pushes for the improvements that benefit all Americans.

Instead of GOP, DNP or IND…

How about RFBA, Retrievers For the Betterment of America…

May have to work on that one, just made it up! Besides, maybe Dog’s can make better decisions!


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

It is due to the fact that the GOVERNMENT setup a system that got us in this mess. They basically created Fannie May and Freddie Mac and said we will insure whatever you do. So they go out and run carte blanche knowing that their butts are covered, and keep shareholders happy with returns. There should have been a major red light when banks were loaning 125% on mortgage loans like people change underwear.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Pelosi wanted the bill to tank so that she could blame the GOP this close to an election. Look at the names of the dems who voted Nay, many of them owe their present chairmanships and other positions of power to Pelosi. Barney Franks own committee members voted Nay as he and Pelosi and the majority whip did nothing to bring her recalcatrant troops into line. This way the dems who have election fights on their hands can go home and say they voted Nay to their constituents. The bailout was doomed from the start by the very party that made the economy tank in the first place. Think its the fault of any of the GOP folks in DC? Think again, if it were Pelosi and Reid would be investigating tehm with an eye to putting them in the slammer.

http://beltwayblips.com/video/shocking_video_unearthed_democrats_in_their_own_words/


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

All things are cyclical. And things are never as bad as they are made out to be. Remember the early 80's? High unemployment, housing market tanked, virtually no construction being done, and interest rates hovering around 13% if you could get them. Being a contractor, those were some pretty ugly times. But then married and wife convinced me to change my carreer path and things seemed to get better. People were overjoyed when the interest rates dropped to 8-9%. 

Remember the late 60's- early 70's? Aerospace tanked and engineers were dumped out onto the streets in droves. Housing market crashed and new subdivisions stood empty. Many ex rocket scientists were taking employment in fast food industry or where ever they could find it. I was just starting college at the time majoring in engineering. After some very serious thought finally changed majors to chemistry. 

Was talking ot my mom the other night and she has her recollection of the great depression and the dustbowl migration that she endured in coming to California in the 30's. Her memories are of even lessor expectations; no running water. Hot water prepared by boiling a big kettle on the stove, hence only weekly baths. etc. 

I guess thinking of the past is part of the old timer syndome, was just talking to a fellow dog person the other day about the changing expectations of the differing generations. Example, my new truck came with a subscription to Sirus radio. Sirius radio has a station Radio Classics, which are the old radio dramas of the 40's & 50's. These are what I remember listening to as my families form of entertainment as we did not have a TV until I was about 6-7. I like to occasionaly listen and reflect to those nights in the living rooms of my past listening to the radio next to the fire. However some of my brothers and sisters do not understand as they only remember TV. But they joke about how small it was or how it was always broken.

Now it seems that every room of the house has a TV conected to cable or satellite. And if you don't have a 40 inch screen.... I also remember party line telephones. One phone per house generally located in the main hallway. Most of the time you never had any problem getting out, but there was alyays the time where you had to wait forever. Now every room in the house has a phone and every one over 6 years of age has a cell phone. 

One of my pet peeves as I now own and manage several apartment buildings is that the tenents don't seem to be able to budget their incomes with attention to the priorities (Or that their priorities are so markedly different than mine). It seems that they always have the funds to pay their cellphone/cable tv bills and to buy fast food, at the expense of their rent. And then I'm the bad guy when I insist on prompt payment of the rent. Yet my upbringing was that your priorities were housing and food came first and then if there was anything left over...

Sorry for the ramble, but I don't see anything that is occuring today as any different than what other generations have gone through. It may get tough for a year or so, but will turn around and become better eventually. Just keep a roof over your head and food available until then.

T. Mac


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Dow +389.48 +3.76% 10,754.93


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Come on Evan, the media and hollywood knows what is best for this country......don't you know that


I'm sorry, BG. Sometimes I forget my media indoctrination! 
















Evan


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> Take a deep breath, Evan.
> 
> I thought it was pretty clear my disgust was with both sides of the aisle. I'll try and be more clear in the future. We are in this mess because *NEITHER *party had the testicular fortitude to do the right thing by the people that elected them way back when.
> 
> ...


Sorry, Joe. With all the Washington BS in the air I'm a little nervous about taking too deep a breath. I have a BS allergy!!







I agree that there is ample blame to go around on the hill!

*OUR 700 Billion Dollar Bail Out* Regards,

Evan


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> The bailout was doomed from the start by the very party that made the economy tank in the first place. Think its the fault of any of the GOP folks in DC? Think again, if it were Pelosi and Reid would be investigating tehm with an eye to putting them in the slammer.


This is exactly the kind of talk that divides, not joins, America. 

To suggest that Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid or or even the Democratic Party as a whole are *THE ONLY ONES* responsible for the current economic mess is beyond absurd.

Not Buying The Suspension Of Disbelief Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Joe, buy it or not, you can look at the voting record from yesterday and see that there was a group of dems who joined the GOP in voting no. Those who voted no include 12 of Rep Barney Frank's comm. members and others who are heads of various comms. in the house. Why would they vote no and ignore the wishes of their majority leadership without permission, expressed or implied from that leadership? The speaker and her minions wanted the bailout to fail, they were counting votes to ensure its failure solely so they could blame Sen McCain and the GOP for this mell of a hess that is solely and only the fault of Clinton, Carter, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Waters and the dems who have consistently denied that there were any problems at Freddie and Fannie


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Bob
I do agree that Pelosi’s speech was a tactic aimed to help BHO in his election bid, however, you are taking what Rush says too seriously. There is plenty of blame to go around as there is on anything that is wrong. I know Rush disagrees and you can find a LOT of fault lies with the Dems, but regardless there is also some blame for us republicans as well. 
I think that those who voted against it did so because they knew this bill is BS and that the people don’t want it. The thing that sickens me the most about it though is the party politics on both sides. It is rumored that the POTUS is not getting support from HIS own republicans so they can distance themselves form him for the same reason may imply Pelosi made her little speech. Politicians may be dumb, but they are not stupid. They say what they say for a reason and that reason is ALWAYS to benefit themselves. 
Casting blame on either side right now does nothing to solve the problem. I am about tired of all of them because not one of them has my best interest in mind. Washington is broken, throw them all out


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

It wasn't Pelosi's speech, that was just a coverup. What she and the rest of her leadership did was to fail to twist enough arms to get her party into line to PASS the bill. They wanted it to tank so the majority whip and the rest did nothing to get the votes that were required for passage. They managed to ensure that just enough dems voted Nay to cause the bill to fail and now are trying to blame the GOP. Make no mistake about it the dems wanted the bill to fail, not only is it a calculated move to help BHO, its also another nail they can drive into W's legacy. If Pelosi really wanted the bill to have passed she could have gotten the votes. Its a beautiful play if they can get away with it and get votes for the 'messiah'. Our local RINO lame brained er lame duck congresscritter voted Aye


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Again I pretty much agree with you Bob, but as I said ALL of them are looking out for number 1


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> throw them all out


If only we could....


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Not a bad idea. We could toss every member of the House and 1/3 of the Senate in this election. That would surely throw a cat in with the canaries.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> It wasn't Pelosi's speech, that was just a coverup. What she and the rest of her leadership did was to fail to twist enough arms to get her party into line to PASS the bill. They wanted it to tank so the majority whip and the rest did nothing to get the votes that were required for passage. They managed to ensure that just enough dems voted Nay to cause the bill to fail and now are trying to blame the GOP. Make no mistake about it the dems wanted the bill to fail, not only is it a calculated move to help BHO, its also another nail they can drive into W's legacy. If Pelosi really wanted the bill to have passed she could have gotten the votes. Its a beautiful play if they can get away with it and get votes for the 'messiah'. Our local RINO lame brained er lame duck congresscritter voted Aye


So, your argument is that if 60% of Democrats and 1/3 of Republicans vote for the bill, it's the Democrats fault if it fails since *they*, not the Republicans, should have provided more support? Your logic escapes me. 

Hopefully Democrat and Republican leaders will manage to put together a different compromise or change some additional votes to pass this one. If they fail, I would expect to see the DOW to drop another 1000 points below yesterday's close. We will all suffer, but I suspect that those that benefited most from the excesses that brought us here will suffer the least.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

There were not enough GOP Nay votes to kill the bill. The 'defecting' dems caused the bill to fail. I'm glad that the bill failed, I don't think that those who got us in this mess should be allowed to get us out of it. The last thing this country needs now is for the problem that was created by the dems to cause another dem to win the White House.


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> This is exactly the kind of talk that divides, not joins, America.
> 
> Then, so be it, Joe.
> 
> ...


 
Start telling it like it is, Joe. Why are you so willing to cover up and excuse the dirty rotten scoundrels in this obvious snafu??? Keep this seperated from all the other bad tastes in your mouth about whatever you'd like to blame Republicans for; time to admit where the blame really lies, and stop asking everyone to focus on something else.

UB


----------



## labdoc (Apr 18, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> There were not enough GOP Nay votes to kill the bill. The 'defecting' dems caused the bill to fail. I'm glad that the bill failed, I don't think that those who got us in this mess should be allowed to get us out of it. The last thing this country needs now is for the problem that was created by the dems to cause another dem to win the White House.


Bob (trying to avoid a personal attack mode as prohibited by Chris), I kindly ask, "Do you ever think outside the Democrat/Republican box?" This problem was caused by greedy bankers and greedy home buyers trying to spend beyond their means. Donkeys and elephants are equally at fault for the financial situation. Why do you continue to believe all Democrats are evil and Republicans can do no wrong? 

Disgusted by the Rush Limbaugh diatribe regards


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

The bill failed because it was not worth the paper it was written on. Many of the reps did not even take or have the time to read it. They need a plan and they dont have one. They dont even know how much it is going to take. Im a republican and embarrassed to say so. This admin. and the demis before them caused this problem. Our kids should not suffer so that we can have more credit. WE BLEW IT now we, not our kids should pay the price. Give them 700 billion dollars and they will misuse it like they do everything else. In 10 years our banks will still be owned by the govt and we will be a true socialist country. I can't believe that they would ask for this money with no plan of how to use it. It will go right back to the same crooks that "legally blew it the first time


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

labdoc said:


> Bob (trying to avoid a personal attack mode as prohibited by Chris), I kindly ask, "Do you ever think outside the Democrat/Republican box?" This problem was caused by greedy bankers and greedy home buyers trying to spend beyond their means. *Donkeys and elephants are equally at fault for the financial situation*. Why do you continue to believe all Democrats are evil and Republicans can do no wrong?
> 
> Disgusted by the Rush Limbaugh diatribe regards


While I think there are at least some republicans to blame, after all it is Washington, I would not go as far as to say it is equal blame. Far more falls on the left....far more.
I don't believe dems are evil, but I can't say what I do think they are or Chris will lock the thread;-)


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

labdoc said:


> Bob (trying to avoid a personal attack mode as prohibited by Chris), I kindly ask, "Do you ever think outside the Democrat/Republican box?" This problem was caused by greedy bankers and greedy home buyers trying to spend beyond their means. Donkeys and elephants are equally at fault for the financial situation. Why do you continue to believe all Democrats are evil and Republicans can do no wrong?
> 
> Disgusted by the Rush Limbaugh diatribe regards


And what part of the bill originated by Clinton, and enforced by Janet Reno with threats, are you unaware of? What part of the praise bestowed on the corruption by the heads of Fanny May by all the Democrats every time a question about the viability of the program was raised?

There may be times when you can make the "equal faults" apply, but not this time. Be honest about it and admit where the fault lies, and stop covering up for them. One Democrat Congressman, Arthur Davis has admitted as much. When the facts hit you in the face like a warm bucket of spit, how can you not accept the facts?

UB


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

At what point can we cease pointing fingers and assigning blame and apply our energy to a solution? The PROBLEM exists, who caused it is no longer relevant, who chooses to solve it (rather than playing partisan politics as usual) is very relevant.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Greg E said:


> So I'm ignorant because I don't want to give the same crooks 700 billion more dollars. I wouldn't even consider it.


I'm going to go with Ed's reply on this one. If you think the bill that failed yesterday amounted to GIVING "crooks" $700 billion more dollars, then I'll let your words speak for themselves.



Greg E said:


> The bill failed because it was not worth the paper it was written on. Many of the reps did not even take or have the time to read it. They need a plan and they dont have one. They dont even know how much it is going to take. Im a republican and embarrassed to say so. This admin. and the demis before them caused this problem. Our kids should not suffer so that we can have more credit. WE BLEW IT now we, not our kids should pay the price. Give them 700 billion dollars and they will misuse it like they do everything else. In 10 years our banks will still be owned by the govt and we will be a true socialist country. I can't believe that they would ask for this money with no plan of how to use it. It will go right back to the same crooks that "legally blew it the first time


Greg, PLEASE get educated on what the language of the bill that will be proposed on Thursday and voted on Friday will say before you go any further. Did you call YOUR district's HoR representative and tell him/her how unhappy you were with a bill that YOU didn't read either? C'mon, man...unless you have a jones for going through another Great Depression (I sure don't, and I don't know any SANE person who wants to, either....), you need to realize that there IS a way out of this mess without destroying our economy.

If things go the way YOU want them to, the price of gas will at least go down to about $1.50/gallon because no one will be able to get credit to afford to buy a car or truck anymore. Rickshaws, anyone?

kg


----------



## labdoc (Apr 18, 2003)

UB, I support deregulation and a TRUE free market economy with minimal government intervention. By believing that, I place little blame on the government and great blame on the banks and borrowers who created the mess. I just prefer to place the blame where it is due rather than jump on the "blame the government" bandwagon. For the same reason a government bailout is a poor option IMO since it fails to address the root of the problem and leads toward more socialization.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Ed I think that naming the culprits is necessary, as it would seem that those who are culpable in this mess are the very ones who want to be permitted to 'fix' the problem. That would be a truly wrong thing to allow.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Be sure to read the "where they are now" at the end of the page!!





Here is a quick look into 3 former Fannie Mae executives who have brought down Wall Street.


Franklin Raines was a Chairman and Chief Executive Officer at Fannie Mae. Raines was forced to retire from his position with Fannie Mae when auditing discovered severe irregulaties in Fannie Mae's accounting activities.


At the time of his departure The Wall Street Journal noted, " Raines, who long defended the company's accounting despite mounting evidence that it wasn't proper, issued a statement late Tuesday conceding that "mistakes were made" and saying he would assume responsibility as he had earlier promised.

News reports indicate the company was under growing pressure from regulators to shake up its management in the wake of findings that the company's books ran afoul of generally accepted accounting principles for four years." Fannie Mae had to reduce its surplus by $9 billion. 


Raines left with a "golden parachute valued at $240 Million in benefits. The Government filed suit against Raines when the depth of the accounting scandal became clear.

http://housingdoom.com/2006/12/18/fannie-charges/ .

The Government noted, "The 101 charges reveal how the individuals improperly manipulated earnings to maximize their bonuses, while knowingly neglecting accounting systems and internal controls, misapplying over twenty accounting principles and misleading the regulator and the public.

The Notice explains how they submitted six years of misleading and inaccurate accounting statements and inaccurate capital reports that enabled them to grow Fannie Mae in an unsafe and unsound manner." These charges were made in 2006.

The Court ordered Raines to return $50 Million Dollars he received in bonuses based on the miss-stated Fannie Mae profits. 


Tim Howard - Was the Chief Financial Officer of Fannie Mae. Howard "was a strong internal proponent of using accounting strategies that would ensure a "stable pattern of earnings" at Fannie.

In everyday English - he was cooking the books.

The Government Investigation determined that, "Chief Financial Officer, Tim Howard, failed to provide adequate oversight to key control and reporting functions within Fannie Mae," 


On June 16, 2006, Rep. Richard Baker, R-La., asked the Justice Department to investigate his allegations that two former Fannie Mae executives lied to Congress in October 2004 when they denied manipulating the mortgage-finance giant's income statement to achieve management pay bonuses.

Investigations by federal regulators and the company's board of directors since concluded that management did manipulate 1998 earnings to trigger bonuses. Raines and Howard resigned under pressure in late 2004. 


Howard's Golden Parachute was estimated at $20 Million! 


Jim Johnson - A former executive at Lehman Brothers and who was later forced from his position as Fannie Mae CEO.

A look at the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's May 2006 report on mismanagement and corruption inside Fannie Mae, and you'll see some interesting things about Johnson.

Investigators found that Fannie Mae had hidden a substantial amount of Johnson's 1998 compensation from the public, reporting that it was between $6 million and $7 million when it fact it was $21 million." 

Johnson is currently under investigation for taking illegal loans from Countrywide while serving as CEO of Fannie Mae. 


Johnson's Golden Parachute was estimated at $28 Million.



WHERE ARE THEY NOW?


FRANKLIN RAINES? *Raines works for the Obama Campaign as Chief Economic Advisor*

TIM HOWARD? *Howard is also a Chief Economic Advisor to Obama*

JIM JOHNSON? *Johnson hired as a Senior Obama Finance Advisor and was selected to run Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee*


IF OBAMA PLANS ON CLEANING UP THE MESS - HIS ADVISORS HAVE THE EXPERTISE - THEY MADE THE MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Would you trust the men who tore Wall Street down to build the New Wall Street


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

labdoc said:


> UB, I support deregulation and a TRUE free market economy with minimal government intervention. By believing that, I place little blame on the government and great blame on the banks and borrowers who created the mess. I just prefer to place the blame where it is due rather than jump on the "blame the government" bandwagon. For the same reason a government bailout is a poor option IMO since it fails to address the root of the problem and leads toward more socialization.


The economic benefits of market competition do not necessarily result from a completely free market. Teddy Roosevelt understood this at the beginning of the 20th century and began initiating efforts to regulate the "robber barons" of his age -- capitalists who did much to grow this country but had no interest in competition (they preferred monopoly) and no interest in the rights of anyone other than themselves. Regulations were put in place to shorten the work week, eliminate child labor, and break up the great monopolies of the age. The effects of these regulations were largely positive and resulted in increased competition in the market place.

The truth is that unfettered greed produces not the magical human progress envisioned by Adam Smith. but monopolies that stop at nothing to further their profits. Clearly a government monopoly is even worse and government protected monopolies (such as Ma Bell) are little better. However, there is a lot of gray area in between where regulation is essential to preserve competition and to protect consumers from fraud and unbridled greed. 

Laissez faire deregulation led directly to the S&L failures of the 1980's and has played a clear role in the types of risk taking that have contributed to the current melt down. I believe that the role of government needs to be limited. However, I also believe that the power of our giant companies -- banks, energy, medical, insurance, etc. -- need to be limited as well. Harding and Hoover have already proven that muddling through and hoping everything will work out on its own is not a good way to prevent or get out of a depression.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Be sure to read the "where they are now" at the end of the page!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As noted by Snopes at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/fanniemae.asp, this is yet another smear message being circulated by email. There is nothing to suggest that any of these individuals is an advisor to Obama.


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

EdA said:


> At what point can we cease pointing fingers and assigning blame and apply our energy to a solution? The PROBLEM exists, who caused it is no longer relevant, who chooses to solve it (rather than playing partisan politics as usual) is very relevant.


Not necessarily, Ed. Are you comfortable having the fox protecting the hen house, after the skunks got in and ate a few? If you don't resolve the cause, how can you expect a solution?

This is no different than the immigration problem. You can't find a solution until we close the border that's a sieve. The cause of THIS problem IS relevant...and so is the one that is requiring the government to hand over a trillion bucks to an agency I for one have zero faith in. And believe me, when this handout is voted in, it won't be very long until more will be needed. Then what will the solution be?

This is just the beginning, far from the end of the problem. Kinda like bridging the creek so we can get across this valley, but over the hill is a chasm that can't be bridged. Time to look for another path, cause we can't get there from here via this route.

Why do you have no faith in the market solving this? Or...why not wait for those few canny jews that are celebrating a holiday to return with a solution?;-)

UB


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

UB,

I'm not sure how your last sentence adds to the discussion.


----------



## labdoc (Apr 18, 2003)

While the rants are flying, comments like this one from Bush don't help anything:

"The reality is that we're in an urgent situation," Mr. Bush said, "and consequences will grow worse each day if we do not act. If our nation continues on this course, the economic damage will be painful and lasting."

He makes a statement that NO ONE knows for sure as a fact. Bush has done little to nothing to encourage faith in America's financial markets and paints a picture of doom and gloom that is far from an inevitable fact. Watching his latest speech he looked like he was ready to commit suicide or cry. It really isn't the Great Depression yet, nor is it likely to be. If you are the leader of the country, you don't give up on the people and you don't create mass hysteria when unnecessary.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Uncle Bill said:


> Why do you have no faith in the market solving this?


What "market" might that be?


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

There is such a concept of knowing what you can actually afford. It is my understanding that people took out mortgages they both they and the lender knew that they could not afford or meet the monthly payments.

I am not a smart enough money manager to figure out just what the solution to the problem should be but I truly believe that those in charge of the institutions who made the risky deals, deceptive deals, and bundled the sound mortgages together with the known or anticipated failures on both sides of the deal should bear the brunt of the penalty. There should definitely be a penalty. 

1. Lose golden parachute!
2. Be stuck with the worthless stock that the investors in those companies hold.
3. Go to jail as they did at Enron.
4. Deceptive lenders should be barred from participating in future markets.

That said, Congress is the worst group of people to decide what should be done. They are without a conscience when it comes to spending tax dollars. 
The best thing Congress could do is just what they always do--close the barn door after the horse escapes! Pass laws to prevent lenders from lessening the rules about ability to repay loans.

When I bought my house, my ability to get a loan was predicated on the amount of my income, my debt load, my record of repaying my debt, my tenure at my employer....We know of loans in the Chicagoland area where people only had to show a valid Illinois drivers license to get a loan!


----------



## Goose (Oct 7, 2003)

It's been argued that the implicit guarantee of freddie and fannie is worth about 7 basis points. 7 freakin' basis points! My country is on her knees and my children's future is in peril for a lousy 7 bps. What a joke!

And if anybody thinks it was conservative Republicans running either of these GSE's I've got some credit default swaps to sell you.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Raines et al and their ties to BHO:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/how_close_are_raines_and_obama.html









http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109770752803244715.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5047811&page=1


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

YardleyLabs said:


> UB,
> 
> I'm not sure how your last sentence adds to the discussion.


Wednesday is a Jewish holiday, that is why discussions will resume on Thursday.


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

EdA said:


> What "market" might that be?


The one you don't seem to see resolving this. But there have been other 'downs' we came through. There was a time I sold plenty of stocks at losses that I carried over for several years on my taxes. 

But your situation might be different. I think you may have mentioned being concerned about cap gains taxes. But there are lots of ways to avoid those by transferring into a different portfolio. 

It's not easy being at the age you are when one of these fiascos hit the fan. I know, I went through the dot com era. Got so fed up with all the margin calls etc., I sold it all and bought hard assets. Lucky me eh? But believe me, I'd lost tons by that time. 

It's almost certain there will be some form of bail-out. But for now, I'm content that a better program will be brought forth that will shield the tax payer and provide some assurances other than the blank check that appeared to be the initial offer. For that failing, I thank those resolute conservatives, be they Republican or Democrat.

I'd like to also believe they did it because of their principles, but I actually give a FRA why they voted it down, just that they did. Because knowing there is a conflagration happening as we wring our hands about this fiasco, that $700 billion won't even begin to appease. That's far more worrisome to me than what we're currently experiencing. 

How long before we have to answer to the multi Trillions in derivatives hanging over these same financial institutions? Will then be the time for the complete nationalization of the system, so the Fed can really unleash the printing presses?

Don't quit your day job, Ed. Thankfully I still have mine....just on a cutback basis I can adjust to. And when your Sodak hunting becomes compromised, you can always hunt with me for only the cost of your license and transportation to get here. And since I seldom hunt CRP, those losses don't scare me either. 

UB


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

McCain said that foundation is sound. The market last week and this week seem to bear that out. Yes it is up and down, but trend is not as bad as everone would have you believe. Down 777 yesterday, up 485 today, not exactly a tank, there are still players out there, looks like quite a few.

I have a mortgate with WaMu and the transition to a "new" lender has been seamless from my end, still the same URL and payments still process the same. I drove by the house yesterday and it hasn't disappeared yet.

It almost looks like politicos, banks, markets are messing with our minds.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Joe, buy it or not, you can look at the voting record from yesterday and see that there was a group of dems who joined the GOP in voting no. Those who voted no include 12 of Rep Barney Frank's comm. members and others who are heads of various comms. in the house. Why would they vote no and ignore the wishes of their majority leadership without permission, expressed or implied from that leadership? The speaker and her minions wanted the bailout to fail, they were counting votes to ensure its failure solely so they could blame Sen McCain and the GOP for this mell of a hess that is solely and only the fault of Clinton, Carter, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Waters and the dems who have consistently denied that there were any problems at Freddie and Fannie


I find the illogic of your line of reasoning absurd. Both sides were wrong yesterday. Had The Speaker thought through all the possible ramifications of her actions, perhaps this could have been resolved. Had the Republicans not responded like petulant school children on the playground, perhaps this could have been resolved.

Again, this entire mess did not start yesterday or two years ago or even six or eight years ago. It started well prior to that.

Again, this entire mess was not the fault of one party or the other. It was the fault of both COUPLED with the greed on Wall Street and the "Gotta-have-it-now-'cause-I-deserve-it" mentality prevasive in America today. In short, we are, largely, "all" responsible in some manner or another.

Kind Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

A little email fun! A different economic plan...I suppose.

This actually checks out on snopes.com. As a matter of fact, they did their own study & found the % 's to be considerably WORSE . . . 

How they vote in the United Nations: 
Below are the actual voting records of various Arabic/Islamic States which are recorded in both the US State Department and United Nations records:

*Kuwait* votes against the United States 67% of the time 
*Qatar* votes against the United States 67% of the time 
*Morocco* votes against the United States 70% of the time 
*United Arab Emirates* votes against the U. S. 70% of the time. 
*Jordan* votes against the United States 71% of the time. 
*Tunisia* votes against the United States 71% of the time. 
*Saudi Arabia* votes against the United States 73% of the time.
*Yemen* votes against the United States 74% of the time. 
*Algeria* votes again st the United States 74% of the time. 
*Oman* votes against the United States 74% of the time. 
*Sudan* votes against the United States 75% of the time. 
*Pakistan* votes against the United States 75% of the time. 
*Libya* votes against the United States 76% of the time. 
*Egypt* votes against the United States 79% of the time. 
*Lebanon* votes against the United States 80% of the time. 
*India* votes against the United States 81% of the time. 
*Syria* votes against the United States 84% of the time. 
*Mauritania* votes against the United States 87% of the time.

U.S. Foreign Aid to those that hate us:
Egypt, for example, after voting 79% of the time against the United States, still receives $2 billion annually in US Foreign Aid.

Jordan votes 71% against the United States
And receives $192,814,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

Pakistan votes 75% against the United States
Receives $6,721,000 annually in US Foreign Aid.

India votes 81% against the United States
Receives $143,699,000 annually.

Someone please answer me why we are giving Egypt 6 Billion dollars, for what? And that's not even mentioning the 100's of millions of dollars for the rest of these countries that hate us. What is this money for? And all of this money leaving our country while our tax payers struggle to put gas in their cars and food on their tables because these jerks continue to raise the price of oil while burning our flag and protesting us on every issue. Lets get someone elected that will unload on them. 

Perhaps it is time to get out of the UN and give the tax savings back to the American workers who are having to skimp and sacrifice to pay the taxes (and gasoline). 
Pass this along to every taxpaying citizen you know.
Disgusting isn’t it? 

Verified by snopes 
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/unvote.asp ' target=_blank 

Stunning stuff, I know.

Evan


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Joe, I think that torpedoing the 'bailout' was the right thing to do, however I think that the speaker and her flunkies did it for the wrong reason. IF killing the bailout was such a bad thing, why did the market rebound to the tune of 500 plus points today? I think the street tried to play the taxpayers for suckers and we didn't bite.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Joe, I think that torpedoing the 'bailout' was the right thing to do, however I think that the speaker and her flunkies did it for the wrong reason. IF killing the bailout was such a bad thing, why did the market rebound to the tune of 500 plus points today? I think the street tried to play the taxpayers for suckers and we didn't bite.


I believe the market rebounded because the market is convinced that another package will be put together and passed quickly. If that doesn't happen we are likely to see a bigger decline.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Joe, I think that torpedoing the 'bailout' was the right thing to do, however I think that the speaker and her flunkies did it for the wrong reason. IF killing the bailout was such a bad thing, why did the market rebound to the tune of 500 plus points today? I think the street tried to play the taxpayers for suckers and we didn't bite.



Are you coming up with this conspiracy on your own, or are you hearing it on talk radio?

I am reading (and saw a press conference today) about a plan the the progressive democratic caucus in the house is coming up with another plan. And it appears that there is some common ground with the Republicans that voted against the plan. Seems they absolutely hated the plan being rammed down their throats by the misadministration and the house leadership. One of the things they are looking at is doing away with mark-market accounting. Another is, instead of buying up bad instruments, they are looking at restructuring bad loans. Apparently most of these sub-prime loans are being paid on time. Something like 25% are in default. Another thing they are looking at is requiring insurance for the loan instruments. I guess the dems and repubs agree in principle, but not on how the funds are raised.

They are very afraid that tomorrow night the senate is going to have a vote and try to ram the current plan down the house's throats. I hope we get to hear more about it before it's too late.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Evan said:


> Someone please answer me why we are giving Egypt 6 Billion dollars, for what?


Costs a lot of money to run secret CIA prisions. The Egyptians are pretty good at "extracting" information. 

When the CIA bagged that guy off the streets in Italy I think that is where he ended up.

Some of the money is designed to get us access and secure basing rights, I'd guess...but...I understand your point and largely agree with it.

Cut Them Off Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

It is not difficult to figure out the 'conspiracy'. If Pelosi wanted the bailout to succeed she would have twisted enough arms to get the job done. When the majority whip is told not to beat the bushes for votes in the affirmative, there arre only 2 people who can tell him that, the Majority leader or the Speaker. When I saw the numbers and names on the news last nite it wasn't too hard to figure out, especially when some of those dems who voted Nay owe their positions to her. Even Barney Frank who has been given Fannie and Freddie free passes for years in the effort to make politically correct loans had 12 members of his committee defect to the nay side.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

labdoc said:


> Watching his latest speech he looked like he was ready to commit suicide or cry.


perhaps because the reality of an unprecedented financial crisis has become apparent to him...


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> I find the illogic of your line of reasoning absurd. Both sides were wrong yesterday. Had The Speaker thought through all the possible ramifications of her actions, perhaps this could have been resolved. Had the Republicans not responded like petulant school children on the playground, perhaps this could have been resolved.
> 
> Again, this entire mess did not start yesterday or two years ago or even six or eight years ago. It started well prior to that.
> 
> ...



AMEN JOE JOE....it is amazing how much we agree on most issues…I bet that kind of scares you…doesn’t it ?

Actually it scared me…I peed a little.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

The biggest difference between the USA now and in 1929 is that today, folks by and large will not be willing to help out someone else in dirre straits. My grandfather's general stores went bust because he extended credit to his customers and not all of them were ever able to repay. Today some portions of the populace would knock you over the head to steal your last M&M if they were hungry, or if they needed a fix.

I'm not a big fan of W but he was the better alternative in 2000 and 2004. Even today, if he were able to run for re-election, I would vote for him over the 'messiah'.
.-


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> I'm not a big fan of W but he was the better alternative in 2000 and 2004. Even today, if he were able to run for re-election, I would vote for him over the 'messiah'.
> .-


I never voted for him, and I used to be a Republican. I wouldn't vote for him if I had a gun to my head. He has politicized and rendered ineffective every single nook and cranny of government agencies that report to the executive branch.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I've *NEVER *voted for a dem for POTUS and never missed an election at any level since I registered in 1972.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Buzz said:


> He has politicized and rendered ineffective every single nook and cranny of government agencies that report to the executive branch.


and waffled on his stance on abortion rights from the time he was Governor of Texas, he sold out big time to the religious right to get elected, can you spell chameleon?????


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> I've *NEVER *voted for a dem for POTUS and never missed an election at any level since I registered in 1972.


yeah, me neither since 1968, but never is not forever.....


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Fannie Mae:
Franklin Raines, CEO, 1999-2004
1. Previously was head of Clinton's budget office
2. Stepped down from FM after company cooked the books by $9 billion
3. Friend of Obama

James Johnson, CEO, 1991-1998
1. Former Chief of Staff to VP Walter Mondale
2. Company engaged in accounting fraud so executives earned extra bonuses, which allowed him to tack on an extra $1.9 million in 1998.
3. Initial Obama lead advisor for VP search
4. Left Obama group after being linked to $2 million in home loans under market rate from Countrywide Financial (FM partner)

*The Barney Frank files* - *Democrat*, MA
1. As Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Frank "sits at the center of power". *In 2003, Frank opposed Bush administration* *and Congressional Republican* *efforts for the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis.* *Under the plan a new agency would have been created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of **Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac*, the government-sponsored companies that were the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry. *"These two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said.* *He added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.*

2. As chairman, Frank steered the major housing relief bill of 2008 to passage, which aims to protect thousands of homeowners from foreclosure. Essentially he killed the Bush admins proposal 5 years previous and then acts like a savior by promoting protection after the fact. Add the other issues of Barney's tenure and you ask, HOW DOES A GUY LIKE THIS STAY ELECTED? Read for yourself some more of one of governments most powerful scumbags:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank#Reprimand

3. Freddie Mac was fined $3.8 million, by far the largest amount ever assessed by the *Federal Election Commission*, as a result of illegal campaign contributions to the same committee Frank chairs. And yes both parties benefited.


I find it interesting the ones asking not to get partisan about the housing issue are generally those that vote democrat. Sure both parties are guilty, but does anyone see a trend here besides me? Now it is team Pelosi and Reid, whom are orchestrating a circus for the bailout proposal, which is aimed largely at the presidential elections...disgusting!


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Ed unless the dems have a real awakening ala Saul of Tarsus, I doubt I will ever vote for their candidates for anything besides sheriff or county clerk. If there isn't a real AU H2O Conservative in the race I will vote for the least liberal and the dems haven't won that contest in my lifetime.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Has absolutely nothing to do with race, if JC Watts or Michael Steele among other Black Conservatives were running they would get my vote. The'messiah' is the most liberal member of the US Senate, no way he gets my vote.

The economy is still fundamentally strong. I will start to worry when Mexican illegals QUIT trying to get to America.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

*Saddest Thing About This Mess: Congress Had Chance To Stop It 
By TERRY JONES---Today's "Investors Business Daily"

Could the crisis at Fannie Mae (FNM) -Freddie Mac (FRE) and the subprime meltdown have been avoided?*

The answer is yes. 

As early as 1992, alarm bells were going off on the threat Fannie and Freddie posed to our financial system and our economy. Intervention at any point could have staved off today's crisis. But Democrats in Congress stood in the way.

As the president recently said, Democrats have been "resisting any efforts by Republicans in the Congress or by me . . . to put some standards and tighten up a little on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

No, it wasn't President Bush who said that; it was President Clinton, Democrat, speaking just last week.

Interesting, because it was his administration's relentless focus on multiculturalism that led to looser lending standards and regulatory pressure on banks to make mortgage loans to shaky borrowers.

Freddie and Fannie, backed by an "implicit" taxpayer guarantee, bought hundreds of billions of dollars of those subprime loans.

The mortgage giants, whose executive suites were top-heavy with former Democratic officials (and some Republicans), worked with Wall Street to repackage the bad loans and sell them to investors.

As the housing market continued to fall in 2007, subprime loan portfolios suffered major losses. The crisis was on — though it was 15 years in the making.

Democrats Blocked Reform

Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, WorldCom and other early-2000s scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton era, the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.

But Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to Fannie and Freddie. Democrats opposed them, especially Sen. Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank, who now run Congress' key banking panels.

History is utterly clear on this. 

After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 of the "systemic risk" posed by Fannie and Freddie, Congress held hearings the next year.

But nothing was done. Why? Fannie and Freddie had donated millions to key congressmen and radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.

"We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our credit and interest rate risks," Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to investors in 1999.

In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4 trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families." It made Fannie and Freddie take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid ever.

Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposed what the New York Times called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago."

The plan included a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie, one that could boost capital mandates and look at how they managed risk.

Even after regulators in 2003 uncovered a scheme by Fannie and Freddie executives to overstate earnings by $10.6 billion to boost bonuses, Democrats killed reform.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Rep. Frank, then-ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. 

North Carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of "weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing."

In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: "We are placing the total financial system of the future at substantial risk."

McCain Urged Changes

That year, Sen. John McCain, one of three sponsors of a Fannie-Freddie reform bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."

Sen. Harry Reid — now Majority Leader — accused the GOP of trying to "cripple the ability of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to carry out their mission of expanding homeownership." 

The bill went nowhere.

This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this being a "Republican" disaster. Well, McCain has repeatedly called for reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned Congress. This year alone, Bush urged reform 17 times.

Some GOP members are complicit. But Fannie and Freddie were created by Democrats, regulated by Democrats, largely run by Democrats and protected by Democrats.

That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

kjrice said:


> Fannie Mae:
> Franklin Raines, CEO, 1999-2004
> 1. Previously was head of Clinton's budget office
> 2. Stepped down from FM after company cooked the books by $9 billion
> ...


You got anything to say about this, Bruce? Steve Hester's post is pretty informative as well.

1000 points of BS regards,

kg


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

More from IBD on this mess and those folks at ACORN


*ACORN's Senator*

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:20 PM PT 
*Election '08:* Barack Obama wasn't just the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac political contributions. He was also the senator from ACORN, the activist leader for risky "affirmative action" loans.
Read More: *Economy*http://www.ibdeditorials.com/FeaturedCategories.aspx?sid=1805 

Despite efforts to blame the rescue bill's failure on the GOP, it should be remembered that 95 Democrats — some 40% of the Democratic Caucus — withheld support. Obama himself also deserves blame — not only for the bill's failure, but also for the crisis it was designed to solve.
As the New York Times reports, "Aides to Mr. Obama said he had not directly reached out to try to sway any House Democrats who opposed the measure." Is the reason the fact that the slush fund for ACORN in the original bill, siphoning off 20% of any future profits for such activist groups, was trimmed from the tree? 
Obama, who once represented ACORN in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois, was hired by the group to train its community organizers and staff in the methods and tactics of the late Saul Alinsky. ACORN would stage in-your-face protests in bank lobbies, drive-through lanes and even at bank managers' homes to get them to issue risky loans in the inner city or face charges of racism. 
In the early 1990s, reports Stanley Kurtz, senior fellow at the Ethics and Policy Center, Obama was personally recruited by Chicago's ACORN to run training sessions in "direct action." That's the euphemism for the techniques used under the cover of the federal Community Reinvestment Act to intimidate financial institutions into giving what have been called "Ninja" loans — no income, no job, no assets — to people who couldn't afford them.
CRA was designed to increase minority homeownership. Whenever a bank wanted to grow or expand, ACORN would file complaints that it was not sufficiently sensitive to the needs of minorities in providing home loans. Agitators would then be unleashed. 
Chicago's ACORN used Alinsky's tactics against institutions such as Bell Federal Savings and Loan and Avondale Federal Savings. In September 1992, the Chicago Tribune described the group's agenda as "affirmative action lending."
Obama also helped ACORN get funding. When he served on the board of the Woods Fund for Chicago with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, the Woods Fund frequently gave ACORN grants to fund its activist agenda. 
In 1995, Kurtz reports, Obama chaired the committee that increased funding of ACORN and other community organizers. The committee report boasted that the fund's "non-ideological" image "enabled the Trustees to make grants to organizations that use confrontational tactics against the business and governmental 'establishments' without undue risk of being accused of partisanship."
The CRA empowered regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority and distressed neighborhoods." It gave groups such as ACORN a license and a means to intimidate banks, claiming they were "redlining" poor and minority neighborhoods. ACORN employed its tactics in 1991 by taking over the House Banking Committee room for two days to protest efforts to scale back the CRA.
As a former White House staff economist writes in the American Thinker, Obama represented ACORN in a 1994 suit against redlining. ACORN was also a driving force behind a 1995 regulatory revision pushed through by the Clinton administration that greatly expanded the CRA and helped spawn the current financial crisis.
Obama was the attorney representing ACORN in this effort. Last November, he told the group, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career." Indeed he has. Obama was and is fully aware of what ACORN was doing with the money and expertise he provided. The voters should be aware on Nov. 4 of the roles of both in creating the current crisis.


----------



## Greg E (Jan 2, 2008)

KG Thanks for the advice. I called my rep district 25 L Doggett. Couldn't believe someone answered. Told him I was still against this bill. Let him know that even if we bailed these people out they probly couldn't pay their taxes and ins. So IMO still a losing cause. Wanted to let you know that although the banks in Cal, Fl, and New york were in trouble, the local banks in Texas are doing great and open for business, You got good credit, a job, they got money. No money for just a drivers license. May count some people out. The sky is not falling. We will be fine. Just need to get rid of the crooks.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> I'm not a big fan of W but he was the better alternative in 2000 and 2004. Even today, if he were able to run for re-election, I would vote for him over the 'messiah'.
> .-


This is, perhaps, the least surprising thing ever posted on RTF.

Anticipated Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

The question in my mind has been what are the "details" of this failed bill. The following was posted on the Re/Max International website. It may answer part of my question.

Comments by 6 Re/Max agents on the piece indicate that even though real estate professionals are very directly affected by this issue, there are differing opinions as to whether a government bailout is the answer to the problem.


As a starting point, here's an excerpt of what RE/MAX Greater Atlanta's Jim Crawford, a popular blogger and columnist, posted on his ActiveRain blog Sept. 26: 
Has anyone really explained the government bailout to you? Me neither! Let me see if I have this right. Let's say the $700 billion does not represent homes. It represents the bad home loans that have been securitized into paper instruments that are supposed to (look) like a good investment note. The problem is, the cat is now out of the bag, and everyone knows they are not a good investment; in fact they are at risk. Now enters the government with a rescue plan. 

Here is an overview. A 100% loan is made on a home that costs 250K. The home mortgage is sold to a new institution that turns it into a paper instrument. The note is packaged and sold off to a bank that can't get rid of it. Why? Six months before the home was sold at 250K, it was selling for 170K. There was a tremendous run up in appreciation due to the availability of 100% financing. 

The buyer then walked away from the home and stopped making payments because they were unaffordable. Now it is society's problem. He then mails his keys back to the bank because his neighborhood has declined in price to 190K - and the clock on the home value is still dropping. New buyers cannot obtain financing, and they cannot sell their smaller property to buy this one. Everyone is in the same boat. Other neighbors are in trouble also. So here is where the government plan kicks in. 

The government buys these bad notes off the institutions for, let's say 220K, and with the borrowed money ($700 billion) they exchange the bad debt from the bank to fresh new cash to infuse into the institutions. Now the government sits on this paper (and the homes that are represented by this bad paper) until the market comes back. Hell starts to freeze over. 

Neighborhoods sit with vacant homes for years and are stripped of copper, siding, system mechanics, windows etc. Now here is the thrust of the plan when the markets recover; the government plans to sell back to the banks the same assets sorted or graded to current market. Now the value of the home has dropped to 110K in a blighted, crime-ridden neighborhood that no one wants to live in. The homes are marked to current value and sold for 37K because they have been neglected for five years, and the crack parties have taken their toll on the property. 

So a profit could be made, but it is very unlikely due to the fact they were on 100%+ loans, and written on inflated assets that have not been adjusted for current market value. Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Paulson recommended that assets not be purchased at a rock-bottom, fire-sale price from the institutions. What they are recommending is discounted. I interpret this is the government paying retail for overinflated assets. Not too smart for a Harvard man, but then again it is taxpayer money. 

So let's fast-forward five years later. The assets will have continued a decline in value, and will slide in price precipitously because the properties will be unmaintained. Meanwhile the home that you are living in is worth 65K. You paid 265K for it, but since the government is dumping the shells of vacant homes for pennies on the dollar, you're screwed. It took you two years to save up your down payment with 20% down. You made cash improvements to the property, and upgraded it and maintained it. Your investment is lost. 
So for all who think a bailout is a good idea, it depends if you are buying or selling. 
============
Seems like a plan described above would alleviate/defer the present "pain", but eventually it will return and require more "meds".


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Further, a law has already been enacted to help those responsible homeowners who may reasonably be able to afford the homes they purchased during the housing boom:

The Consumer Bailout That Nobody Knows About
RIS MEDIA, Oct. 1, 2008-As congress considers various bailout proposals for the financial system, there is a little known ‘bailout’ for home owners that has already been enacted into law, according to Gibran Nicholas, Chairman of the CMPS Institute, an organization that certifies mortgage bankers and brokers. 

Section 1403 of the new housing bill that was signed into law on July 30, 2008 (HR 3221) requires mortgage servicers to modify loans for homeowners and help them avoid foreclosure as long as three requirements are met

*1.* Default on the mortgage either has already happened or is “reasonably foreseeable”
*2.* The home owner is living in the property as his or her primary residence
*3.* The lender is likely to recover more through the loan modification or workout than by forcing the home owner into foreclosure
“The fact is that this law is effective immediately, and most distressed home owners are simply not aware that they have this option,” Nicholas said. Borrowers make their monthly payments to mortgage servicers, and servicers keep a portion of the payment as their profit while sending the rest to the Wall Street investors who actually own the mortgage. “This law requires servicers to act in the best interest of all their investors and obligates them to modify your loan if you can afford the modified loan terms and if they are likely to recover more for their investors by working with you than by going all the way through the foreclosure process,” Nicholas said.
*When negotiating a loan modification with your mortgage lender, it is advisable to follow this four step process:*
*1.* Make sure you are dealing with your lender’s loss mitigation and/or work out department.
*2.* Write a hardship letter demonstrating job loss, serious medical condition, balloon payment coming due, adjustable rate reset or some other financial calamity that will make it impossible for you to continue making your mortgage payments as scheduled. Unless you are in imminent danger of default as required by this new law, lenders are not likely to work with you.
*3.* Send the lender your financial statements, employment records, tax returns and bank statements demonstrating how you would be able to afford the modified loan terms under your present financial circumstances
*4.* Send the lender a current appraisal of your home or some documentation on recent comparable sales in your neighborhood demonstrating the current value of your home. “The key is to demonstrate how the lender is likely to recover less money through foreclosure than they would by working with you in your proposed loan modification plan,” Nicholas said.
*Here is a sample letter that you can use during your renegotiation:*
[1] http://www.cmpsinstitute.org/pdf/SampleLoanModificationRequest.pdf
It may be advisable to consult with an attorney - especially if you qualify for a loan modification under the law and your lender still refuses to work with you.
For more information, visit [2] www.CMPSInstitute.org or call 888.608.9800.


So, it would appear that the loans covered by the "bailout" would truly be the very worst loans. Those that have some hope of repayment already have legislation to assist the homeowners.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Bruce Loeffelholz said:


> 1. *Suicide would be fine, only eight years too late.*
> 2. The reason it doesn't look like the Great depression and never will is because the pictures are not in black and white, and there are no soup lines. It could be the Greatest Depression faster than you think, unless we can get the foreign countries to buy our assets......but then we will gripe about that......
> 3. *The people gave up on Bush a long time ago.............and he never was for the people anyway......just invading Iraq.....9/11 was the perfect cover for him to do that.*
> 
> Bruce


 
Wow this from someone who yesterday wanted to keep politics out of it. You spout this crap and then call Bob a racist......NICE......


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Bruce Loeffelholz said:


> *Here is what I am for, against, and some general thoughts:*
> 
> 1. I have no sympathy for the institutions and management who created these unsound debt instruments/securities - they and their stockholders should lose everything if they are insolvent........if they are proven over time not to be insolvement they should pay a very high price (premium) for the government being the lender of last resort. Compensation and golden parachutes should be controlled as part of the penalty.
> 
> ...


Will lending to businesses and the "average" Joe tighten? Yeah, and it should.

This will cause some businesses to not get needed loans and some people not be able to buy homes but the reality is, those that have the credit and the need will in fact get their loans. The process may not be as easy, but there is still money to lend.

WRL


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> The economy is still fundamentally strong. _*I will start to worry when Mexican illegals QUIT trying to get to America*_.


Do a little research, Bob...and then start to worry.

Pretty Clear Cause For Concern Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

Someone just sent me the following and I thought I would post it here. Food for thought:



I really like this man's idea and his SANE way of thinking! I'm quite sure you will also!..........Pass it on!!

Subject: AIG bailout

Howdy

I'm against the $85,000,000,000 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a ''We Deserve It Dividend''.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billion that equals $425,000. My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a 'We Deserve It Dividend'.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free.

So let's assume a tax rate of 30%. Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes. That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to
Uncle Sam. But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.

What would you do with $297,500 to $595,000 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.
Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college - it'll be there
Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.
Buy a new car - create jobs
Invest in the market - capital drives growth
Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves
Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else


Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs at Lehman Brothers and every other company that is cutting back. And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny $1000.00 ('vote buy') economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG - liquidate it. Sell off its parts. Let American General go back to being American General. Sell off the real estate. Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can 'never work.'

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Troopers Mom
You are wayyyyyy behind the curve on this one. Math is wrong and has been since it started going around (including here on rtf) a week or so ago


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

badbullgator said:


> Troopers Mom
> You are wayyyyyy behind the curve on this one. Math is wrong and has been since it started going around (including here on rtf) a week or so ago


If you would have read more closely, I said someone sent me this email. I am just passing it on for what its worth in entertainment or whatever. Don't get your shorts in a knot with me.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

85 Billion divided by 200 million is $425


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

It's cool, Arleen....one of my co-workers forwarded that to me without doing the math, either....I posted it up here without doing the math, either....someone pointed that out to me very quickly, much like was done here.

I just deleted the post. No sense in getting the math majors in an uproar....;-)

Bigger fish to fry regards, 

kg


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Troopers Mom said:


> If you would have read more closely, I said someone sent me this email. I am just passing it on for what its worth in entertainment or whatever. Don't get your shorts in a knot with me.


Arleen rocks!


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

K G said:


> It's cool, Arleen....one of my co-workers forwarded that to me without doing the math, either....I posted it up here without doing the math, either....someone pointed that out to me very quickly, much like was done here.
> 
> I just deleted the post. No sense in getting the math majors in an uproar....;-)
> 
> ...


Keith,

I didn't see it or even read most of this thread because I was out of town at the GRCA Specialty (finally got to attend an event). Actually, I could care less about the numbers; it was the idea that was pretty creative. But yes, some of us on here have the need to correct the statements of others. I think, I too, have been guilty of that at some point. Sometimes it depends on if someone sh*t in your oatmeal that morning or not. :razz: Anyway, I used to be a very demure individual and kept most of my thoughts to myself in my younger years. All it did was cause frustration, so now, I think one of the nice things about being "older" is that you tend to say what is on your mind, get it off your chest, and if someone else chooses, they can chew and choke on it instead. 

Arleen


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Soooooo.......um......... do you spank bad boys?

Just curious ya know regards

Bubba


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

Apparently the senate version of the "emergency bailout bill" has some add-ons like tax relief for makers of children's wooden arrows and wool research. Who knew wooden arrows and wool could affect the credit markets so heavily. : (

Steve


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

WRL said:


> Will lending to businesses and the "average" Joe tighten? Yeah, and it should.
> WRL


You bet it will and the pendulum will swing WAY back the other direction in the process. But I will also note Good Quality banking institutes NEVER changed their lending practices. Both banks (locals) I bank turn down a lot of people for loans. Interest rate will be going up over the next year and if you are DUMB enough to have a variable rate mortgage you might want to consider fixing the rates now…if you qualify.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> AMEN JOE JOE....it is amazing how much we agree on most issues…I bet that kind of scares you…doesn’t it ?
> 
> Actually it scared me…I peed a little.


Patrick -

I agree with you that we agree on most issues so, there is agreement. Agreed?

Nope not scared but a little freaked out about the "peed" part...TMI, Dude, TMI. ;-)

Agreed On Most Issues But Always Brothers In Arms First Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

Bubba said:


> Soooooo.......um......... do you spank bad boys?
> 
> Just curious ya know regards
> 
> Bubba


Not sure if you were addressing this question to me since it came right after my post. I will answer though.

Bubba, not a particular interest of mine, but since I've seen you ask this on other threads, if it is a particular fetish of yours, I could probably find someone to put you in touch with.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Troopers Mom said:


> If you would have read more closely, I said someone sent me this email. I am just passing it on for what its worth in entertainment or whatever. Don't get your shorts in a knot with me.


 
My, my looks like a spanking for me...
not wearing shorts regards;-)


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Troopers Mom said:


> Not sure if you were addressing this question to me since it came right after my post. I will answer though.
> 
> Bubba, not a particular interest of mine, but since I've seen you ask this on other threads, if it is a particular fetish of yours, I could probably find someone to put you in touch with.


Arleen rocks!


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> You bet it will and the pendulum will swing WAY back the other direction in the process. But I will also note Good Quality banking institutes NEVER changed their lending practices. Both banks (locals) I bank turn down a lot of people for loans. Interest rate will be going up over the next year and if you are DUMB enough to have a variable rate mortgage you might want to consider fixing the rates now…if you qualify.


The problem I have is things were fine for those that built credit and followed a plan and rewarded with opportunities found in America. Then a historic scam that was billed as "allowing minorities and lower-income to afford housing" royally put the screws to everyone. Now everyone is screwed. Will people ever learn? We are not entitled to anything other than what you sow. If you do not change your path, you are probably going to get there!


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Part of the $150b of sweetner and other things added into the bill:
from: http://media.npr.org/documents/2008/sep/bailout/senate_bill.pdf

The laundry list: (almost makes it look like a mid year budget equest)

TITLE I—ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF
Sec. 101. Extension of alternative minimum tax relief for nonrefundable personal
credits.
Sec. 102. Extension of increased alternative minimum tax exemption amount.
Sec. 103. Increase of AMT refundable credit amount for individuals with longterm
unused credits for prior year minimum tax liability, etc.
TITLE II—EXTENSION OF INDIVIDUAL TAX PROVISIONS
Sec. 201. Deduction for State and local sales taxes.
Sec. 202. Deduction of qualified tuition and related expenses.​262​O:​​\AYO\AYO08C32.xml S.L.C.
Sec. 203. Deduction for certain expenses of elementary and secondary school
teachers.
Sec. 204. Additional standard deduction for real property taxes for nonitemizers.
Sec. 205. Tax-free distributions from individual retirement plans for charitable
purposes.
Sec. 206. Treatment of certain dividends of regulated investment companies.
Sec. 207. Stock in RIC for purposes of determining estates of nonresidents not
citizens.
Sec. 208. Qualified investment entities.
TITLE III—EXTENSION OF BUSINESS TAX PROVISIONS
Sec. 301. Extension and modification of research credit.
Sec. 302. New markets tax credit.
Sec. 303. Subpart F exception for active financing income.
Sec. 304. Extension of look-thru rule for related controlled foreign corporations.
Sec. 305. Extension of 15-year straight-line cost recovery for qualified leasehold
improvements and qualified restaurant improvements; 15-year
straight-line cost recovery for certain improvements to retail
space.
Sec. 306. Modification of tax treatment of certain payments to controlling exempt
organizations.
Sec. 307. Basis adjustment to stock of S corporations making charitable contributions
of property.
Sec. 308. Increase in limit on cover over of rum excise tax to Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands.
Sec. 309. Extension of economic development credit for American Samoa.
Sec. 310. Extension of mine rescue team training credit.
Sec. 311. Extension of election to expense advanced mine safety equipment.
Sec. 312. Deduction allowable with respect to income attributable to domestic
production activities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 313. Qualified zone academy bonds.
Sec. 314. Indian employment credit.
Sec. 315. Accelerated depreciation for business property on Indian reservations.
Sec. 316. Railroad track maintenance.
Sec. 317. Seven-year cost recovery period for motorsports racing track facility.
Sec. 318. Expensing of environmental remediation costs.
Sec. 319. Extension of work opportunity tax credit for Hurricane Katrina employees.
Sec. 320. Extension of increased rehabilitation credit for structures in the Gulf
Opportunity Zone.
Sec. 321. Enhanced deduction for qualified computer contributions.
Sec. 322. Tax incentives for investment in the District of Columbia.
Sec. 323. Enhanced charitable deductions for contributions of food inventory.
Sec. 324. Extension of enhanced charitable deduction for contributions of book
inventory.
Sec. 325. Extension and modification of duty suspension on wool products; wool
research fund; wool duty refunds.
TITLE IV—EXTENSION OF TAX ADMINISTRATION PROVISIONS
Sec. 401. Permanent authority for undercover operations.
Sec. 402. Permanent authority for disclosure of information relating to terrorist​
activities.
TITLE V—ADDITIONAL TAX RELIEF AND OTHER TAX
PROVISIONS
Subtitle A—General Provisions
Sec. 501. $8,500 income threshold used to calculate refundable portion of child
tax credit.
Sec. 502. Provisions related to film and television productions.
Sec. 503. Exemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for
use by children.
Sec. 504. Income averaging for amounts received in connection with the Exxon
Valdez litigation.
Sec. 505. Certain farming business machinery and equipment treated as 5-year
property.
Sec. 506. Modification of penalty on understatement of taxpayer’s liability by
tax return preparer.
Subtitle B—Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and
Addiction Equity Act of 2008
Sec. 511. Short title.
Sec. 512. Mental health parity.
TITLE VI—OTHER PROVISIONS
Sec. 601. Secure rural schools and community self-determination program.
Sec. 602. Transfer to abandoned mine reclamation fund.
TITLE VII—DISASTER RELIEF
Subtitle A—Heartland and Hurricane Ike Disaster Relief
Sec. 701. Short title.
Sec. 702. Temporary tax relief for areas damaged by 2008 Midwestern severe
storms, tornados, and flooding.
Sec. 703. Reporting requirements relating to disaster relief contributions.
Sec. 704. Temporary tax-exempt bond financing and low-income housing tax relief
for areas damaged by Hurricane Ike.
Subtitle B—National Disaster Relief
Sec. 706. Losses attributable to federally declared disasters.
Sec. 707. Expensing of Qualified Disaster Expenses.
Sec. 708. Net operating losses attributable to federally declared disasters.
Sec. 709. Waiver of certain mortgage revenue bond requirements following federally
declared disasters.
Sec. 710. Special depreciation allowance for qualified disaster property.
Sec. 711. Increased expensing for qualified disaster assistance property.
Sec. 712. Coordination with Heartland disaster relief.
TITLE VIII—SPENDING REDUCTIONS AND APPROPRIATE
REVENUE RAISERS FOR NEW TAX RELIEF POLICY​Sec. 801. Nonqualified deferred compensation from certain tax indifferent
 

And the language from a couple of these add ins:
SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN.
(a) In General- Paragraph (2) of section 4161(b) is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new subparagraph:
‘(B) EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROW SHAFTS- Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any shaft consisting of all natural wood with no laminations or artificial means of enhancing the spine of such shaft (whether sold separately or incorporated as part of a finished or unfinished product) of a type used in the manufacture of any arrow which after its assembly--
‘(i) measures 5/16 of an inch or less in diameter, and
‘(ii) is not suitable for use with a bow described in paragraph (1)(A).’.
(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to shafts first sold after the date of enactment of this Act.

*The estimated cost of the proposal is $2 million over ten years. *
and

SEC. 325. EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION OF DUTY SUSPENSION ON WOOL PRODUCTS; WOOL RESEARCH FUND; WOOL DUTY REFUNDS.
(a) Extension of Temporary Duty Reductions- Each of the following headings of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ‘12/31/2014’:
(1) Heading 9902.51.11 (relating to fabrics of worsted wool).
(2) Heading 9902.51.13 (relating to yarn of combed wool).
(3) Heading 9902.51.14 (relating to wool fiber, waste, garnetted stock, combed wool, or wool top).
(4) Heading 9902.51.15 (relating to fabrics of combed wool).
(5) Heading 9902.51.16 (relating to fabrics of combed wool).
(b) Extension of Duty Refunds and Wool Research Trust Fund-
(1) IN GENERAL- Section 4002(c) of the Wool Suit and Textile Trade Extension Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-429; 118 Stat. 2603) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (3)(C), by striking ‘2010’ and inserting ‘2015’; and
(B) in paragraph (6)(A), by striking ‘through 2009’ and inserting ‘through 2014’.
(2) SUNSET- Section 506(f) of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Public 106-200; 114 Stat. 303 (7 U.S.C. 7101 note)) is amended by striking ‘2010’ and inserting ‘2015’.


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

I would have preferred to have i pass with none of these additions. However, it didn't and now the effort is to find a package that will get the required Republican votes to join the two thirds of Democrats that favored the bill without the additions. I believe there is a strong feeling in Congress that the bill should be passed as a bi-partisan bill or not at all.


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

YardleyLabs said:


> I would have preferred to have i pass with none of these additions. However, it didn't and now the effort is to find a package that will get the required Republican votes to join the two thirds of Democrats that favored the bill without the additions. I believe there is a strong feeling in Congress that the bill should be passed as a bi-partisan bill or not at all.


 
Lets look at a few, tax incentives for D.C. investment, tax deductions for elementary school teachers, Farm Machinery deductions, hardly republican issues, the pork is bi-partisan as well. Any bum that votes for this or the first one should be thrown out.


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Bruce Loeffelholz said:


> "The fundamentals of the economy are strong" - John McCain _(about 48 hours before rushing to Washington to save the economy, which bill was voted down)_
> 
> Now that is being in touch and leadership we don't need


Please give me something more relevant than an ambiguous statement that can be twisted to suit your liberal stance. The *fundamentals *of our (America) economy are strong. It doesn't mean it has not been *compromised. *


1*fun·da·men·tal*
Pronunciation: \ˌfən-də-ˈmen-təl\ 
Function: _adjective_ Date: 15th century 

1 a*:* serving as an *original or generating source* *:* primary <a discovery _fundamental_ to modern computers> b*:* serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function *:* basic

2 a*:* of or relating to *essential structure, function, or facts* *:* radical <_fundamental_ change> ; _also_ *:* of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application <_fundamental_ science> b*:* adhering to fundamentalism

3*:* of, relating to, or produced by the *lowest component of a complex vibration*

4*:* of *central importance* *:* principal <_fundamental_ purpose>

5*:* belonging to one's *innate or ingrained characteristics* *:* deep-rooted <her _fundamental_ good humor>


----------



## Tatyana (Nov 6, 2007)

> TITLE I—ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF
> Sec. 101. Extension of alternative minimum tax relief for nonrefundable personal
> credits.
> Sec. 102. Extension of increased alternative minimum tax exemption amount.
> ...


Do you have details on this?


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Bruce Loeffelholz said:


> Amazing that John McSame would vote for this after saying he wouldn't vote for anything with attachments or earmarks......he just says anything I guess
> 
> 
> 
> Bruce


You know if I kept whizzing in a spinning fan eventually I would wear a raincoat.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Tatyana said:


> Do you have details on this?


The legal text is (hopefully you are an accountant or tax lawyer and can understand it):
*TITLE I—ALTERNATIVE
2 MINIMUM TAX RELIEF
3 SEC. 101. EXTENSION OF ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RE4
LIEF FOR NONREFUNDABLE PERSONAL
5 CREDITS.
6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 26(a)
7 (relating to special rule for taxable years 2000 through
8 2007) is amended—
9 (1) by striking ‘‘or 2007’’ and inserting ‘‘2007,
10 or 2008’’, and
11 (2) by striking ‘‘2007’’ in the heading thereof
12 and inserting ‘‘2008’’.
13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
14 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after
15 December 31, 2007.
16 SEC. 102. EXTENSION OF INCREASED ALTERNATIVE MIN17
IMUM TAX EXEMPTION AMOUNT.
18 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 55(d)
19 (relating to exemption amount) is amended—
20 (1) by striking ‘‘($66,250 in the case of taxable
21 years beginning in 2007)’’ in subparagraph (A) and
22 inserting ‘‘($69,950 in the case of taxable years be23
ginning in 2008)’’, and
24 (2) by striking ‘‘($44,350 in the case of taxable
25 years beginning in 2007)’’ in subparagraph (B) and
1 inserting ‘‘($46,200 in the case of taxable years be2
ginning in 2008)’’.
3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by
4 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after
5 December 31, 2007.
6 SEC. 103. INCREASE OF AMT REFUNDABLE CREDIT
7 AMOUNT FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH LONG8
TERM UNUSED CREDITS FOR PRIOR YEAR
9 MINIMUM TAX LIABILITY, ETC.
10 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 53(e) is
11 amended to read as follows:
12 ‘‘(2) AMT REFUNDABLE CREDIT AMOUNT.—
13 For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘AMT re14
fundable credit amount’ means, with respect to any
15 taxable year, the amount (not in excess of the long16
term unused minimum tax credit for such taxable
17 year) equal to the greater of—
18 ‘‘(A) 50 percent of the long-term unused
19 minimum tax credit for such taxable year, or
20 ‘‘(B) the amount (if any) of the AMT re21
fundable credit amount determined under this
22 paragraph for the taxpayer’s preceding taxable
23 year (determined without regard to subsection
24 (f)(2)).’’.
1 (b) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN UNDERPAYMENTS, IN2
TEREST, AND PENALTIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TREAT3
MENT OF INCENTIVE STOCK OPTIONS.—Section 53 is
4 amended by adding at the end the following new sub5
section:
6 ‘‘(f) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN UNDERPAYMENTS, IN7
TEREST, AND PENALTIES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE TREAT8
MENT OF INCENTIVE STOCK OPTIONS.—
9 ‘‘(1) ABATEMENT.—Any underpayment of tax
10 outstanding on the date of the enactment of this
11 subsection which is attributable to the application of
12 section 56(b)(3) for any taxable year ending before
13 January 1, 2008, and any interest or penalty with
14 respect to such underpayment which is outstanding
15 on such date of enactment, is hereby abated. The
16 amount determined under subsection (b)(1) shall not
17 include any tax abated under the preceding sentence.
18 ‘‘(2) INCREASE IN CREDIT FOR CERTAIN INTER19
EST AND PENALTIES ALREADY PAID.—The AMT re20
fundable credit amount, and the minimum tax credit
21 determined under subsection (b), for the taxpayer’s
22 first 2 taxable years beginning after December 31,
23 2007, shall each be increased by 50 percent of the
24 aggregate amount of the interest and penalties
25 which were paid by the taxpayer before the date of
1 the enactment of this subsection and which would
2 (but for such payment) have been abated under
3 paragraph (1).’’.
4 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—
5 (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para6
graph (2), the amendments made by this section
7 shall apply to taxable years beginning after Decem8
ber 31, 2007.
9 (2) ABATEMENT.—Section 53(f)(1), as added
10 by subsection (b), shall take effect on the date of the
11 enactment of this Act.
*


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

There is also some rider in the bill to give tax breaks to businesses that encourage bicycle use by employees. Another piece of pig manure that needs to be voted down. Keep congress in session until they get it right.


----------



## Tatyana (Nov 6, 2007)

T. Mac said:


> The legal text is (hopefully you are an accountant or *tax lawyer* and can understand it):


Bingo... and thanks.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

kjrice said:


> Will people ever learn?



History says no.


----------



## labdoc (Apr 18, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> ...Keep congress in session until they get it right.


ROFL, I would rather send them home before they get it wrong. Right is a long, long way off.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Good point Curt!


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

kjrice said:


> The problem I have is things were fine for those that built credit and followed a plan and rewarded with opportunities found in America. Then a historic scam that was billed as *"allowing minorities and lower-income to afford housing"* royally put the screws to everyone. Now everyone is screwed. Will people ever learn? We are not entitled to anything other than what you sow. If you do not change your path, you are probably going to get there!


Hummm...

Many people, perhaps some on this very board, we only able to afford to buy a house once that lending rules were relaxed to the point that could get the help they needed.

Double Edged Swords Always Cut Both Ways Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> Hummm...
> 
> Many people, perhaps some on this very board, we only able to afford to buy a house once that lending rules were relaxed to the point that could get the help they needed.
> 
> ...


So????

Are you saying that because they post on this board they should get special attention or "favors"??

We all make choices every day. If you made a choice to not pay your bills and you end up with bad credit, then you pay the consequences. 

As an adult, you reap the rewards or suffer the consequences for our decisions and actions every day.

If you found yourself in trouble years ago, it may take time but if you have the will, there is a way to improve your situation. Just isn't going to happen overnight.

WRL


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

WRL said:


> So????
> 
> Are you saying that because they post on this board they should get special attention or "favors"??
> 
> ...


Clearly, I am not suggesting that people who post on this board should get special favors, except for you, of course.

I'm suggesting that it wasn't only "minorities and lower-income" who were able to afford houses under the relaxed rules. The relaxed rules helped many who just needed that "little bump"...not everyone who needs, or gets, help is unworthy of it.

Joe S.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> Clearly, I am not suggesting that people who post on this board should get special favors, except for you, of course.
> 
> I'm suggesting that it wasn't only "minorities and lower-income" who were able to afford houses under the relaxed rules. The relaxed rules helped many who just needed that "little bump"...not everyone who needs, or gets, help is unworthy of it.
> 
> Joe S.


Its not about someone needing a "boost" or a little bit of help because they have a "blemished" credit report.

Its about a "oh well" attitude towards our own responsibilities.

The problem with our society is lack of responsibility and accountability.

This isn't really a "sub prime" problem. This is about bending the rules so far out of whack that including not even requiring proof of income. How can someone pay back money they owe if they don't have a job?

Its not the end of the world to not own a house. Its not the end of the world to have to actually wait and work towards a goal. 

Society has implicity said for years that risk is acceptable. And even great risk is ok.

WRL


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> Clearly, I am not suggesting that people who post on this board should get special favors, except for you, of course.
> 
> I'm suggesting that it wasn't only "minorities and lower-income" who were able to afford houses under the relaxed rules. The relaxed rules helped many who just needed that "little bump"...not everyone who needs, or gets, help is unworthy of it.
> 
> Joe S.


Once again twisting the words to suit your liberal stance. That was the *premise* of the sham. Whether it put someone in a house is irrelevant. If you have sufficient credit and verifiable income and assets, then someone is going to write you a mortgage regardless of race or gender. Now *everyone* pays dearly, for the "goodwill" package fueled,by consistent fraud, by those that ran the sham.  Since when was it a terrible thing to rent, or buy, within true means a bad thing? It is not about unworthy, but I understand your socialist caste buzzwords.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I remember when I was little and whining that we dont see Dad much anymore. Mom said that he had to take on 2 more jobs to be able to afford a house. I also remember Dad, Grandpa and my uncle bring home 2 55 Chevy's 1 had front end damage and 1 had rear damage and the ended up building 1 good car. BTW Dad worked at what turned out to be Boeing. Dad worked 1 Christmas day pumping gas. I dont remember Him complaining that it was demeaning. 

I hear all the time people complaining that they cant pay their bills. I am sorry you bought that flat screen TV and the leather recliner so you can watch 197 channels of crap on TV and talk on the cell phone and drive the new car. Its not MY fault that people have over extended themselves and dont want to sacrifice to make do. Why should I have to pay for it ? I dont care about the millions of loans that folks repay to banks that mistakenly gave them money. Nobody pays my company when some asshat doesn't pay me. I bet if the mafia had made these loans that we would not hear a peep about defaulting on them. Its to easy to run up tens maybe hundred of thousands in debt only to blow it off. 

In some utopian world it would be great if everyone owned a house and had medical care and did not have to earn it. Can someone show me in the Constitution where it says everyone has that right to everything they want without paying for it. I guess when Obama and like people can appoint the next SCUS than they will change it to include life liberty and all the free crap you want.


----------



## Sundown49 aka Otey B (Jan 3, 2003)

In some utopian world it would be great if everyone owned a house and had medical care and did not have to earn it. Can someone show me in the Constitution where it says everyone has that right to everything they want without paying for it. I guess when Obama and like people can appoint the next SCUS than they will change it to include life liberty and all the free crap you want.

Steve, you hit the nail right on the head. See my post about what our congress is doing...


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Bruce Loeffelholz said:


> _Quote:
> Originally Posted by Bob Gutermuth
> I'm not a big fan of W but he was the better alternative in 2000 and 2004. Even today, if he were able to run for re-election, I would vote for him over the 'messiah'.
> .-
> ...


While I am sure this is tongue in cheek....its falls under personal attack and name calling. It is what gets threads closed.

Bob is over the top....but then you seem to be over the top on the other side so I guess it all balances out.

WRL


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Some people just can't get their head out of their arse. Give me a Gutermuth in my foxhole anyday .(don't worry Bob , I'll do the digging.)


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

The DOW tanked on Moday cause a no vote or agreement!


The DOW was up 239 right at the conclusion of the vote today!

When the vote was finalised , you could sit and watch the DOW plummet.

Its currently down 2

WTF!!!!

Gooser


----------



## Goose (Oct 7, 2003)

From one Goose to another...our goose is cooked!


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Why do I feel like I just bought a testerosa,, and the payment book has arrived in the mail??

DOW down 150

Gooser


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> Please take this Perception Test....it is quick, fun......yet very, very hard
> 
> http://s294.photobucket.com/albums/m...perception.flv


Very interesting, indeed.

A reason for all of us to keep our minds open to others' perceptions. A reason to consider that some people are better at the details, and others at the larger picture.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

That was just as Hokey as those Sasquach films!!!

Wasnt REAL at all!!

Just a suit!

HO HUM!!

Gooser


----------



## IowaBayDog (May 17, 2006)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Very interesting, indeed.
> 
> A reason for all of us to keep our minds open to others' perceptions. A reason to consider that some people are better at the details, and others at the larger picture.


 
Interesting yes but your and Bruce's conclusions are not correct. I did hundreds if not thousands of these exercises in M.I. training. The task given by the moderator is to count the white passes, if you see the distraction and don't get the right count you FAIL the exercise. The speaker ignores the actual data of how many get the count right an how many that see the distraction get the count right.

If my memory serves most that don't see the distraction have the count correct or very close, less than 2% that see the distraction get the count right, 98% get it wrong. Those 2%'ers were the folks that went to "special" programs and didn't really hear from again.

The other 98% there were distracted does illustrate the Obamanation to a "T" though, they are supposed to be looking at his plan and substance and they get distracted by his delivery and totally miss the real message. They can't concentrate on what really matters they fall for the distraction of platitudes and the word "change". Which is shown by how many, especially young supporters of his can't tell you a reason why they support him beside "we need change", they saw the gorilla in the room.

Seeing or not seeing the gorilla has nothing to do with open or closed mindedness. It is an exercise in completing a task in the midst of distration and whether you can stay on task or not.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

IowaBayDog said:


> Interesting yes but your and Bruce's conclusions are not correct. I did hundreds if not thousands of these exercises in M.I. training. The task given by the moderator is to count the white passes, if you see the distraction and don't get the right count you FAIL the exercise. The speaker ignores the actual data of how many get the count right an how many that see the distraction get the count right.
> 
> [Gerry] I also did wonder how many people who noticed the ape were accurate on the # of passes.
> 
> ...


Keeping our minds open to other people's perceptions ... "perceptions" which could be valid or not ... can be useful. We may still have different opinons, but we will, perhaps, have a better understanding of the other's perceptions, & then be in a better position to debate those perceptions.


----------

