Does Anyone feel like Bailing

[classicman]

Well tw, given a blank canvas to work with you found virtually no fault with any of the democratic leadership. None whatsoever, in fact. If that is all you have to say, it says a great deal about how firmly entrenched in the left you are. I asked a specific question and you seem to have done nothing but turned it around again onto the right.

Its very telling that you said not one thing about congress.

[Undertoad]

Agreed glatt, McCain has been feckless all last week.

Deregulation is excellent when done correctly, even other bank deregulation. The problem is that doing it correctly is difficult, especially when every little special interest is trying to get paid or to preserve their phoney baloney jobs.

[glatt]

Sure, I understand the theory that a free market is best. And I agree with it in theory. It just seems like in practice, the end result is always that a couple of huge and powerful entities end up screwing everyone else. I don't like being screwed. I think a middle ground is needed.

[classicman]

[on rant] Bush lost all the debates to Kerry - They only take the main point from the typically BS question and go off on their own pre-prepared tangent stock answer anyway.

My type of "debate" would start with about 50 YES or NO only questions followed by, based upon their answers - HOW?, specifically!
It seems that we are way too accepting of this farce of an election process. It's simply all a bunch of crap. They all lie and typically the better liar wins. Non of these people truly give a shit about you, me or anyone else other than those who can get them elected. The are only interested in getting more power, position and money.

Another thought - maybe these guys could donate some of their campaign money towards the bailout. That would mean a hell of a lot more to me and show some real character and leadership than anything else they've been doing so far. [off rant]

[kerosene]

I've read a lot of rants on this board. Rarely to I find one that so adequately sums up the feelings I have. Thanks for posting that, Classic.

[Pico and ME]

Supposedly the FBI is now investigating for fraud. I would like to see just once people get their just desserts for what happened. That would be a really long list.

[classicman]

...and an interesting one too, I'm sure.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hi All,
I’m against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG. I'm also against the $700,000,000,000++ bailout being proposed in Congress right now! Instead, I’m in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let’s assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+. Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000 might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up.. So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon -- that equals $425,000.00. My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free. So let’s assume a tax rate of 30%. Every 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 $297,500.00 in their pocket. A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?
Pay off your mortgage – housing crisis solved.
Pay off credit card debt.
Repay college loans – what a great boost to new grads
Put away money for college – It’ll be there for Junior.
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, clean it up.

Here’s my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn’t. Sure it’s a crazy idea that can “never work.” But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party! How do you spell Economic Boom?
I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC. And remember, The Birk plan only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.
Kindest personal regards,
Birk
T. J. Birkenmeier, A Creative Guy & Citizen of the Republic

[glatt]

That's a funny e-mail, and it's probably a mistake to look at it seriously, but if you do, the major flaw is that the proposed banking bailout isn't so much a gift of free money as it is buying up a bunch of risky loans that actually have a fair chance of being paid off. Much of the $800 Billion (or whatever the figure is) stands a chance of coming back down the road. There's even a small chance that the government would eventually make money on the deal.

[Yznhymr]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I love that email. I got it yesterday. Almost moved me to tears. Sad no one in power (or soon to be in power) have the brains, audacity, or balls to do something like this. Honestly, I'd be hesitant too. I don't trust the public to make the right choice. Hence, part of the mortgage problems we have. When >25% of homes in my neighborhood are empty because of foreclosures, I believe individuals and banks made a big mistake.

A friend of mine in an investment firm informed me most mortgages given were done because they were "forced" into it because they could not discriminate. That shaffs my ass. Whay can't a bank say no? It's a sad state of affairs when the liberals force businesses to do their bidding by threatening discrimination, then turn and blame the conservatives running the businesses who honestly do want to make a dollar for their effort. Now everyone is suffering. Thanks for nothing. Now where's my $297,500? :p

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Yznhymr

I love that email. I got it yesterday. Almost moved me to tears. Sad no one in power (or soon to be in power) have the brains, audacity, or balls to do something like this.

Read it again but this time do the math yourself.

A friend of mine in an investment firm informed me most mortgages given were done because they were "forced" into it because they could not discriminate.

I don't believe that. Either a person is qualified for a mortgage or not. I see the problem as;
1- greedy people trying to make money by turning houses in the bubble, and
2- Greedy lenders talking people into predatory mortgages they didn't understand.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

2- Greedy lenders talking people into predatory mortgages they didn't understand.

When we bought our house 11 years ago, our lender kept telling us (maybe 2-3 times) that with our credit, we really could borrow more money than we were asking for and that we could have more house. My wife and I both worked at the time. We were DINKs. But we knew that kids would probably be in the future and we wanted to be able to afford a house on just one income. So we politely declined the extra money on the table each time it was offered. Looking back, I realize the guy writing up the loan probably got a fee based on the size of the loan and he wanted to make the largest fee possible. He was supposedly working for us, but probably got paid more if he could talk us into a bigger loan. Stupid system.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Yznhymr

A friend of mine in an investment firm informed me most mortgages given were done because they were "forced" into it because they could not discriminate. That shaffs my ass. Whay can't a bank say no? It's a sad state of affairs when the liberals force businesses to do their bidding by threatening discrimination, then turn and blame the conservatives running the businesses who honestly do want to make a dollar for their effort.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't believe that. Either a person is qualified for a mortgage or not. I see the problem as;
1- greedy people trying to make money by turning houses in the bubble, and
2- Greedy lenders talking people into predatory mortgages they didn't understand.

But isn't a lot of this the result of Bush's (not a liberal) plan to increase minority home ownership? I mean, ARM's have been around forever, why is it that suddenly no one understands them and they are predatory? What changed?

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Either a person is qualified for a mortgage or not. I see the problem as;
1- greedy people trying to make money by turning houses in the bubble, and
2- Greedy lenders talking people into predatory mortgages they didn't understand.

Numbers from Frannie and Freddie demonstrate the problem. Whereas most mortgages qualified for the traditional agreements, in the past seven years, even these applicants were rechanneled for ARMs. Whereas sub-prime loans were issued to a single digit percent of applicants, suddenly these mortgages were being pushed to so many who did not need them. Something like 21% of those who qualified for traditional mortgages were instead only offered sub-prime mortgages. Why? From the highest levels, the economy *must* be fixed by pushing more mortgages; sell more homes; stimulate the economy.

Stimulating the economy rather than addressing its problems was promoted by the George Jr administration. Create a robust economy by throwing money at it. Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter". Fannie and Freddie were only doing what their 'bosses' wanted. As a result, home priced were inflated by 20% to 40%.

Need to promote sub-prime loans was so encouraged that NINJA became a new and acceptable standard. Nobody cared whether the applicant qualified. From the highest levels of government, we wanted more people buying homes.

Yes, each sub-prime homeowner who could not afford his mortgage only has himself to blame. That does not, for one minute, exonerate anyone else of guilt. Irrelevant how dumb the mortgage applicants were. Those who were promoting mortgages to people who could not qualify are now seeking to blame anyone else. Those who pushed mortgages without first qualifying those applicants are also just as guilty of creating this national problem.

Again, sub-prime mortgages were encouraged at the highest levels of the Federal government mostly in the past seven years. Sub-prime was even pushed on people who qualified for traditional mortgages. That is where this problem originated.

[classicman]

..and an even smaller chance that the American public would know about it.