yuo know all that money they want to use to bail out the shitty US economy...?

catefrances

... why cant they use it to pay off the mortgages of countless average joe americans? would that not stimulate the economy as previous money used to pay off the banks and other mortgage holders is freed up for mindless spending.


HAIL HAIL THE FREE MARKET.

pjalive21

why bail people out who went in over their heads getting mortgages they knew they couldnt afford, its just as much on the home owner as it is the lender who stupidly gave them the loan

i just bought a house and did it in a way where it was within my means, i dont get how other people couldnt use that common sense

mammasan

pjalive21 wrote:

why bail people out who went in over their heads getting mortgages they knew they couldnt afford, its just as much on the home owner as it is the lender who stupidly gave them the loan

i just bought a house and did it in a way where it was within my means, i dont get how other people couldnt use that common sense

Not all foreclosures where because people got in over their heads.

"Prime looks terrible." Those were the words of Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase (JPM) when he had his earnings call for Q2. And, indeed, prime is terrible.

New data out from Hope Now shows that there are now more prime mortgage delinquencies in the United States than there are subprime delinquencies. This is almost certain to mean some major losses on mortgage-related securities like CDOs and RMBSs.



If you enlarge the image above, you will clearly see that prime mortgage delinquencies of 60 days or more have been trending up so quickly that they now represent more than subprime with 1,009,000 prime delinquencies versus 901,000 subprime delinquencies.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/93341-prime-foreclosures-now-greater-than-subprime

DriftingByTheStorm

catefrances wrote:

... why cant they use it to pay off the mortgages of countless average joe americans? would that not stimulate the economy as previous money used to pay off the banks and other mortgage holders is freed up for mindless spending.


HAIL HAIL THE FREE MARKET.

They COULD do that, but it wouldn't really affect the immediate systemic issues the financial sector faces.

Also, it would be an even WORSE "investment" than buying junk paper.
At least in the proposed scenario the Federal Government has some bleak prospect of turning an eventual profit, and a slightly greater potential for breaking even or maybe even coming in at a sligh loss on all this.

Remember, the aim of this bill is to act a TEMPORARY purchaser of illiquid investments, and then HOPEFULLY at some future point RE-SELL that paper back to the markets at large.

Once you give some poor shmuck in a failed mortage $300,000 you can just kiss it good bye, though.

And what if they use it as a downpayment on a 3,000,000 dollar home instead?

They already screwed the pooch once.
Why give em another chance?

catefrances

pjalive21 wrote:

why bail people out who went in over their heads getting mortgages they knew they couldnt afford, its just as much on the home owner as it is the lender who stupidly gave them the loan

i just bought a house and did it in a way where it was within my means, i dont get how other people couldnt use that common sense

why bail out financial institutuions who knew the rules going in and recklessly gamble with peoples money as if it twas their own?

HAIL HAIL THE FREE MARKET.

catefrances

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

They COULD do that, but it wouldn't really affect the immediate systemic issues the financial sector faces.

Also, it would be an even WORSE "investment" than buying junk paper.
At least in the proposed scenario the Federal Government has some bleak prospect of turning an eventual profit, and a slightly greater potential for breaking even or maybe even coming in at a sligh loss on all this.

Remember, the aim of this bill is to act a TEMPORARY purchaser of illiquid investments, and then HOPEFULLY at some future point RE-SELL that paper back to the markets at large.

Once you give some poor shmuck in a failed mortage $300,000 you can just kiss it good bye, though.

And what if they use it as a downpayment on a 3,000,000 dollar home instead?

They already screwed the pooch once.
Why give em another chance?

you dont give some poor schmuck $300,000. you pay off their mortgage 'free and clear'. the home owner uses previous money earmarked to repay the banks for mindless economy stimulation and the lending institution gets the borrowed price to 'invest', reaping whatever rewards it can.

of course ,you could always give the financial sector billions of dollars and take your chances yet again that theyll do the responsible thing. :rolleyes:

Pacomc79

there are a lot of mortgage lenders that should be jailed for allowing people to sign mortgages they know they couldn't afford, and then sell that bad debt off as quickly as they took it on.

In fact, a french revolution style public execution of a few hundred might do the financial industry good.

catefrances

Pacomc79 wrote:

there are a lot of mortgage lenders that should be jailed for allowing people to sign mortgages they know they couldn't afford, and then sell that bad debt off as quickly as they took it on.

In fact, a french revolution style public execution of a few hundred might do the financial industry good.

hmm dont think the french revolution was an altruistic action on behalf of the french populace in pursuit of an egalitarian society. twas just another action in support of the best interests of the middle class.

decides2dream

we don't HAVe any of this 'money'...so i say forget it all. let the markets self-correct, let the chips fall where they may...and may it be a lesson learned for all. if any kind of money is going to be spent on anything.....it should be used to pay down the ridiculous debt we're in over this ridiculous war.....and let's move on from it!

g under p

Give a million dollars to each citizen and let them bail themselves out. Leave it at that but then again the bankers would be really pissed. :(

Peace

catefrances

decides2dream wrote:

we don't HAVe any of this 'money'...so i say forget it all. let the markets self-correct, let the chips fall where they may...and may it be a lesson learned for all. if any kind of money is going to be spent on anything.....it should be used to pay down the ridiculous debt we're in over this ridiculous war.....and let's move on from it!

and this is what amuses me most about this whole debacle. the talking heads speak of financial rescue knowing they must put the country into more debt in order that the debt already owed be... what...? the fact that a rescue plan is even being considered flies in the face of what capitalism and the free market stands for.

mammasan

decides2dream wrote:

we don't HAVe any of this 'money'...so i say forget it all. let the markets self-correct, let the chips fall where they may...and may it be a lesson learned for all. if any kind of money is going to be spent on anything.....it should be used to pay down the ridiculous debt we're in over this ridiculous war.....and let's move on from it!

I'm not saying I agree with the bail out but you do understand the ramifications of doing nothing. We haven't felt the impact of this mess yet but trust me it's coming. Inaction would cause a complete credit freeze in the market. We could possibly be looking at massive job lose, massive revenue lose for local, state and federal government while simultaneuosly increase the amount of people needing government assistance. More foreclosures which equal less revenue for towns/cities. Cuts in education and basic services such as garbage collection, fire and police, etc… It would not be a pretty sight and the end cost of such a disaster would far exceed $700 billion.

catefrances

mammasan wrote:

I'm not saying I agree with the bail out but you do understand the ramifications of doing nothing. We haven't felt the impact of this mess yet but trust me it's coming. Inaction would cause a complete credit freeze in the market. We could possibly be looking at massive job lose, massive revenue lose for local, state and federal government while simultaneuosly increase the amount of people needing government assistance. More foreclosures which equal less revenue for towns/cities. Cuts in education and basic services such as garbage collection, fire and police, etc… It would not be a pretty sight and the end cost of such a disaster would far exceed $700 billion.

too bad. thats the way the game is played. investment is basically gambling. you make the wrong decisions suck it up. this is what the free market and capitalism is all about. you live and learn. you play and gamble with what you dont have you have to take responsibilty for your actions. no oen bails out joe average when he declares bankruptcy, why should the fat cats be bailed out?

are you saying that profits are private whilst fuck ups such as this which average joe had no part of, should be public? youll have to forgive me if i think thats bullshit.

blackredyellow

catefrances wrote:

too bad. thats the way the game is played. investment is basically gambling. you make the wrong decisions suck it up. this is what the free market and capitalism is all about. you live and learn. you play and gamble with what you dont have you have to take responsibilty for your actions. no oen bails out joe average when he declares bankruptcy, why should the fat cats be bailed out?

are you saying that profits are private whilst fuck ups such as this which average joe had no part of, should be public? youll have to forgive me if i think thats bullshit.

But the negative effects will be felt more by innocent people, not people who made the wrong decision.

decides2dream

mammasan wrote:

I'm not saying I agree with the bail out but you do understand the ramifications of doing nothing. We haven't felt the impact of this mess yet but trust me it's coming. Inaction would cause a complete credit freeze in the market. We could possibly be looking at massive job lose, massive revenue lose for local, state and federal government while simultaneuosly increase the amount of people needing government assistance. More foreclosures which equal less revenue for towns/cities. Cuts in education and basic services such as garbage collection, fire and police, etc… It would not be a pretty sight and the end cost of such a disaster would far exceed $700 billion.

honestly, no..i don't.
it seems to me there is no great concensus amongst all economists of what the 'right' thing to do is. so i remain unconvinced. perhaps 'something' needs to be done, and maybe it does require some bailout.....but given the financial picture as of right now.....i really don't see how further borrowing from peter to pay paul, or bailout paul as it were ...will truly benefit the country, or the economy...long-term. however, this is just opinion on what i've been reading/seeing....which is filled with contradictory information...and sure, i am no economist.

g under p

John McCain's Fireside Chat she says it best I thnik.

Peace

mammasan

catefrances wrote:

too bad. thats the way the game is played. investment is basically gambling. you make the wrong decisions suck it up. this is what the free market and capitalism is all about. you live and learn. you play and gamble with what you dont have you have to take responsibilty for your actions. no oen bails out joe average when he declares bankruptcy, why should the fat cats be bailed out?

are you saying that profits are private whilst fuck ups such as this which average joe had no part of, should be public? youll have to forgive me if i think thats bullshit.

No I don't believe that profits should be private while losses public. I guess you missed my first line when I said that I wasn't saying that the bail out was a good idea. All I was stating was that inaction is an even worse idea. A total credit freeze will have little effect on the wealthy CEOs who had a hand in this mess. They have tons of money. It will however have a devastating effect on the middle and lower class. So innocent people who had no hand in this mess will be effected the most by a market collapse. Normally i would agree that we should let the market self correct but it is far too late for that. and even though you and the people you know may not be feeling it yet, trust me they will feel it if nothing is done.

mammasan

decides2dream wrote:

honestly, no..i don't.
it seems to me there is no great concensus amongst all economists of what the 'right' thing to do is. so i remain unconvinced. perhaps 'something' needs to be done, and maybe it does require some bailout.....but given the financial picture as of right now.....i really don't see how further borrowing from peter to pay paul, or bailout paul as it were ...will truly benefit the country, or the economy...long-term. however, this is just opinion on what i've been reading/seeing....which is filled with contradictory information...and sure, i am no economist.

I will say it again, I DID NOT SAY THAT THE BAIL OUT WAS A GOOD IDEA!!! I was responding to a post that stated that we should just let the shit hit the fan. That, in my opinion, is not an option because inaction is 100x worse than the bail out.

catefrances

blackredyellow wrote:

But the negative effects will be felt more by innocent people, not people who made the wrong decision.

well then you punish those fools who made the decisions instead of allowing them to get away with golden handshakes.

dont you understand? this is how capitalism and the free market works. tis not about picking and choosing who to bail out and when. tis about going for it and either fucking up or making it work.c learly at this point, tis not working. the economy must be allowed to fall and settle 'naturally', not allowing to to be propped up by the government(which is the people btw) for whatever bullshit reason. this is not about 'you' individually or the body politic, its about the middle class and the fat cats being able to maintain their privilege.

blackredyellow

catefrances wrote:

well then you punish those fools who made the decisions instead of allowing them to get away with golden handshakes.

Ok, then the million dollar question is how do we do that without screwing you, me and the rest of the responsible citizens?

mammasan

catefrances wrote:

well then you punish those fools who made the decisions instead of allowing them to get away with golden handshakes.

dont you understand? this is how capitalism and the free market works. tis not about picking and choosing who to bail out and when. tis about going for it and either fucking up or making it work.c learly at this point, tis not working. the economy must be allowed to fall and settle 'naturally', not allowing to to be propped up by the government(which is the people btw) for whatever bullshit reason. this is not about 'you' individually or the body politic, its about the middle class and the fat cats being able to maintain their privilege.

The market has been propped up by the government since the Federal Reserve started adjusting interest rates.

catefrances

blackredyellow wrote:

Ok, then the million dollar question is how do we do that without screwing you, me and the rest of the responsible citizens?

hmm you know what? if you choose(and have no doubt that it is YOUR choice) to take up a mortgage or invest in the stock amrket you must enter into such transactions with your eyes wide open in full acknowlegdement that what you are doing is basically gambling. when i go to the track theres no fallback for my lack of skill, knowledge or expertise. and when my horse comes in stone motherless last, then stiff shit, i lose. and hopefully i learn something. this is the price you pay for living in a capitalist society. you want to reap the rewards then you have to be prepared to suffer the consequences of bad decisions.

catefrances

mammasan wrote:

The market has been propped up by the government since the Federal Reserve started adjusting interest rates.

then who exactly is the government representing? is it you, joe citizen, or is it the private interests of multinationals and financial institutions in pursuit of the almighty dollar?

blackredyellow

catefrances wrote:

hmm you know what? if you choose(and have no doubt that it is YOUR choice) to take up a mortgage or invest in the stock amrket you must enter into such transactions with your eyes wide open in full acknowlegdement that what you are doing is basically gambling. when i go to the track theres no fallback for my lack of skill, knowledge or expertise. and when my horse comes in stone motherless last, then stiff shit, i lose. and hopefully i learn something. this is the price you pay for living in a capitalist society. you want to reap the rewards then you have to be prepared to suffer the consequences of bad decisions.

You're missing the point of my question... I'm not talking about people who got into mortgages that they can't afford, or people who made investments and got burned, etc. I'm talking about if we let this whole thing go with doing nothing, and credit freezes, innocent people won't be able to get car loans, school loans, business loans or basically any other form of credit.

I guess it's all moot anyway, the bill passed both the house and senate.

mammasan

catefrances wrote:

then who exactly is the government representing? is it you, joe citizen, or is it the private interests of multinationals and financial institutions in pursuit of the almighty dollar?

Government represents it's own interest.

decides2dream

mammasan wrote:

I will say it again, I DID NOT SAY THAT THE BAIL OUT WAS A GOOD IDEA!!! I was responding to a post that stated that we should just let the shit hit the fan. That, in my opinion, is not an option because inaction is 100x worse than the bail out.

i never suggested you did....and the post you quoted WAS MINE, thus my response. you asked me if i was aware of the ramifications of doing nothing....and i answered. no, i don't. and i then went on saying it does not seem to me that there is a concensus amongst economists on that question either.

so if you are against bailout and against doing nothing...what are you suggesting be done? that's my question....b/c while i am not saying either option is the absolute best choice, it just seems to me no one knows what is the 'best' idea.....so i just can't see throwing $700 billion dollars at a problem, $$$ we don't have....and don't even know if it's the best choice. so sure, i am totally open to hearing other options besides bailout or doing nothing.

catefrances

mammasan wrote:

Government represents it's own interest.

i repeat, YOU are the government. therefore its own interests should be yours.

mammasan

decides2dream wrote:

i never suggested you did....and the post you quoted WAS MINE, thus my response. you asked me if i was aware of the ramifications of doing nothing....and i answered. no, i don't. and i then went on saying it does not seem to me that there is a concensus amongst economists on that question either.

so if you are against bailout and against doing nothing...what are you suggesting be done? that's my question....b/c while i am not saying either option is the absolute best choice, it just seems to me no one knows what is the 'best' idea.....so i just can't see throwing $700 billion dollars at a problem, $$$ we don't have....and don't even know if it's the best choice. so sure, i am totally open to hearing other options besides bailout or doing nothing.

My suggestion would be to A) put a 2 year freeze on all foreeclosures and allow those individuals the opportunity to apply for government loans to pay off their current mortgage. these new government backed mortgages will be for the original amount of the loans but with lower monthly payments so the owners can retain their home and the banks can recoup any losses. I would infuse a large portion of that $700 billion dollars into the Small Business Administration. This way small to medium sized business can have a place to go to for the loans and credit they need to keep their companies running and people employed. This will also help spur true capitalism as smaller or medium sized companies will now have to opportunity to take over the void left by larger bankrupt corporations. C) and probably the most important would be to invest in a new economic infrastructure. Every since the US' manufactoring sector started to disappear our economy has been supported by debt. The American consumers ability to live beyond their means has been the saving grace for the US economy. As we have seen recently we cannot sustain a viable economy much longer this way. We need a new base to support our economy. I believe that a "green" industry, like the one mentioned by Obama, is a good idea. Not only will it help solve our dependency on foreign oil but it would create a whole new business sector to help support and grow our economy.

mammasan

catefrances wrote:

i repeat, YOU are the government. therefore its own interests should be yours.

The people haven't been the government for a great many decades in this country. You are greatly mistaken if you believe that the government still is for the people or even remotely a representative of the people. The only part of the people that our government wants is our cash.

catefrances

blackredyellow wrote:

You're missing the point of my question... I'm not talking about people who got into mortgages that they can't afford, or people who made investments and got burned, etc. I'm talking about if we let this whole thing go with doing nothing, and credit freezes, innocent people won't be able to get car loans, school loans, business loans or basically any other form of credit.

I guess it's all moot anyway, the bill passed both the house and senate.

no, im not missing the point of your question. youre missing the fact that i dont care for the capitalist system when this is the result.

you mean to tell me that people will have to live WITHIN their means? what a novel concept. tis the way i live my life, by choice, so whats the big deal?

there are no 'innocent' people when youre complicit with the system. you want the benefits then you have to deal with the negative consequences too.

blackredyellow

catefrances wrote:

no, im not missing the point of your question. youre missing the fact that i dont care for the capitalist system when this is the result.

you mean to tell me that people will have to live WITHIN their means? what a novel concept. tis the way i live my life, by choice, so whats the big deal?

there are no 'innocent' people when youre complicit with the system. you want the benefits then you have to deal with the negative consequences too.

What do you do for a living? What happens with then company you work for can't borrow any money to pay bills in slow times and they close down or lay you off? Then you have no job and can't pay your mortgage/rent or for healthcare, etc. Would you say that you deserve it just for living in a capitalist system even if you lived within your means your whole life?