JLew! BAILOUT is here! SIGNED IN PRIVATE! We're SAVED! Right !?! Right ???
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Yup.
No media.
Closed doors.
No details on dollar cost to tax payers or specifics available.
7am this morning.
Markets rallied, of course.
BAIL OUT
"Bush signs housing bill in private"
I'd LOVE to know what specific "guarantees" were provided to Fannie\Freddie.
This has us (taxpayer) on the hook (meaning check ready if needed) to the potential tune of 1 to 4 trillion dollars.
$1,000,000,000,000 - $4,000,000,000,000
just for those with number-idiotis.
This is sleight of hand folks.
The hope here is that sending Wall Street the message that you and I will buy their bad investments if needed is supposed to get Wall Street to continue lending their own money to Fannie and Freddie without concern.
We'll see how long the charade holds up.
For today i guess we can smile.
Right?
Do you feel better knowing that potentialy trillions out of our pockets has some how "saved" us from a mess "we" didn't create?
No media.
Closed doors.
No details on dollar cost to tax payers or specifics available.
7am this morning.
Markets rallied, of course.
BAIL OUT
"Bush signs housing bill in private"
politico.com wrote:With none of the fanfare that usually attends a landmark bill becoming law, President Bush signed the huge housing rescue bill just after 7 a.m. Wednesday, shortly after he arrived in the Oval Office.
Only a few aides and administration officials were present, including Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Steve Preston and James B. Lockhart III, the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
The White House announced the signing by e-mail moments later.
The bill, the biggest overhaul of housing law in decades, provides a lifeline for an estimated 400,000 homeowners facing foreclosure, and provides assurances to the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose books are loaded with bad mortgages.
Usually such a bill signing is accompanied by a self-congratulatory ceremony, with souvenir pens for congressional leaders and for members, senators and chairmen who spearheaded the legislation.
But Bush initially vowed to veto the bill as being overly socialistic. He finally dropped his objection when he decided that it was better than nothing. In a rare split, House Republicans opposed the bill and business interests like home builders and bankers favored it.
The White House had said there would be no bill-signing event, with one administration official noting ruefully that they had no desire to trumpet the accomplishment of the committee chairmen, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
Tony Fratto, deputy assistant to the president and deputy press secretary, said in a statement: “We look forward to put in place new authorities to improve confidence and stability in markets and to provide better oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Federal Housing Administration will begin to implement new policies intended to keep more deserving American families in their homes.”
Also present were Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, Federal Housing Administration Director Brian Montgomery, National Economic Council Director Keith Hennessey and White House Domestic Policy Council Director Karl Zinsmeister.
I'd LOVE to know what specific "guarantees" were provided to Fannie\Freddie.
This has us (taxpayer) on the hook (meaning check ready if needed) to the potential tune of 1 to 4 trillion dollars.
$1,000,000,000,000 - $4,000,000,000,000
just for those with number-idiotis.
This is sleight of hand folks.
The hope here is that sending Wall Street the message that you and I will buy their bad investments if needed is supposed to get Wall Street to continue lending their own money to Fannie and Freddie without concern.
We'll see how long the charade holds up.
For today i guess we can smile.
Right?
Do you feel better knowing that potentialy trillions out of our pockets has some how "saved" us from a mess "we" didn't create?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
true.
thats one of the big arguments for getting rid of fannie and freddie to begin with.
because they are a giant market distortion that drives the real value of properties up by subsidizing loans to those who would otherwise be unable to afford homes.
not only does it add extra risk to the system,
but it penalizes those who could otherwise rightly afford a home.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Private gains and socialized losses.
Besides being government sponsored, Fannie and Freddie are also crooks.
was he banned?
Sad day when the tax payer has to bail out bad business.
sure we'll give you a life of financial servitude to us...er I mean a loan...er I mean a HOUSE!....yes look at that awesome house!....all you've ever dreamed of....all yours....and much much more (muhahaha)
just sign your life away right here....who knows maybe you'll win the lottery because that's what it's gonna take to get out from underneath our greedy feet!
but hey....most of all ENJOY YOUR NEW HOUSE!!!
now let's talk about your first payment....
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
There weren't suddenly a bunch of bad loans being made just because lenders decided to start taking advantage of stupid people.
It just adds to the seemingly neverending list of things that my taxes are paying for that I oppose.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
i'm not sure i necessarily agree with that, dmitry.
and so far i have agreed with pretty much everything i've seen you post.
however, you say it "looked good and made sense during the boom."
i have to disagree.
as far as i know,
the vast majority of loans issued in the past 10 years by the major institutions were all done using automated underwriting standards.
whose to say what "sense" ANY of those loans made,
they were literally decided by a computer.
i would still maintain that the criteria used to derive those decisions, as input in to those computers, was deliberately wratcheted DOWN to ensure that more loans would be generated, regardless of the long term viability of the financing.
And when you say "looked good", about the only thing that "looked good" was the TEASER rates ... and now all these peolple are getting fucked by "real" rates ... which are probably STILL way below what they should be and are probably soon to go SIGNIFICANTLY higher.
I hear sources i trust talking about 70's era interest rates predicated on major and potentialy catacalysmic shifts in the bond markets.
You think the market is fucked now at 6% rates.
Wait until they get to 12% and then 21%!
:(
If I opened it now would you not understand?
What I meant was that in an general business environment of easy money, if you snooze you lose.
Criteria may have been ratcheted down, but they only did it because there was easy money (because of Fed), right?
Interestingly I mentioned 20% interest rates to a friend at dinner last night. I remember reading that Volcker is supporting Obama.