- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 30, 2008 at 1:18 am #640751
bcollinsMember…and another thing. The crazy thought that you can divide the amount of the bailout by the number of people in the country is insane or just stupid. The FACT is that small business owners (those who provide MOST jobs in the country) have an above average net worth and require an above average level of credit needed. These people should have an above average net worth and would require an adjustment to the numbers quoted. You simply can’t give a flat number and equation. It’s just not appropriate for such a complex problem unless you want the jobs they create to go away.
Think of it this way…do you feel interest rates are lower or higher than they should be? I am perfectly comfortable with this question as being the test for how you should think of the bailout. It’s that simple.
September 30, 2008 at 2:32 am #640752
flipjackParticipantYeah, that’s a good way to look at it bcollins.
We’ll feel some pain I suppose either way. A bailout like this will grant no lesson learned to anyone and it’s only a band aid. The fact is, is that things are going to change and most people resist change. Bailout or no bailout the world will never be the same. And in my opinion that is a great thing.
September 30, 2008 at 2:36 am #640753
bcollinsMemberDamn…I was going to totally flame the next person in this thread. Give me something to work with flipjack.
September 30, 2008 at 3:13 am #640754
AnonymousInactiveFrom bcollins: “this bailout is to pay for the fact that money was too cheap and available for years”
Interest rates since 1971. Check out Oct. 1981, got all the way to 18.45%
September 30, 2008 at 3:22 am #640755
bcollinsMemberWe agree. I don’t think anyone was happy with the economy or fuel prices then. Check out the unemployment rates in Oct. 81…almost 8 percent. Pretty cool, huh?
BTW…the easy money was in the 90’s.
September 30, 2008 at 7:37 pm #640756
mellaw6565MemberBCollins – my suspicion was correct – the market is already coming back today and consumer confidence is up. It is a crisis, but not as “urgent” as the Bush administration and their cronies want us to believe so we’ll shell out $700 billion dollars to line their pockets even further.
September 30, 2008 at 8:07 pm #640757
charlabobParticipantConsumer confidence lags — the number is pre-crash by a week (Cutoff date was September 23.)
http://www.conference-board.org/economics/ConsumerConfidence.cfm
September 30, 2008 at 8:20 pm #640758
mellaw6565MemberActually Charla – my comment was based on daily tracking done after the markets just closed. I’ll try to find where I saw it and post it.
September 30, 2008 at 8:31 pm #640759
charlabobParticipantThanks, Mel — Gallop does a daily tracking but I couldn’t find (on their web site) their current number.
My mission is to look up EVERY metric and see what it’s based on. That should keep me busy for the next few weeks :-)
For instance, the DJ Industrial average is based on a very small number of stocks. Doesn’t make it less (or more) useful — just makes a slight difference. Most of my (tiny) portfolio isn’t invested in DJ stocks. That doesn’t mean they’re doing better.
September 30, 2008 at 8:34 pm #640760
mellaw6565MemberI agree – I always teach my kids to name the source and I try to do the same so if someone asks I can provide it.
October 1, 2008 at 2:30 am #640761
bcollinsMembermellaw6565…consumer confidence is a lagging indicator. Additionally, the market did not recover to the level of losses. Additionally, additionally, the market overall is in BEAR territory, which means down more than 20%. Additionally, additionally, additionally…the equity markets are not the credit markets. Additionally, additionally, additionally, additionally…even the evening news is talking about the credit squeeze and that small business is feeling the impacts as a result of the crisis.
I’m not offering opinion in this post. :)
October 1, 2008 at 4:15 am #640762
mellaw6565Memberbcollins – you keep missing the point of my post. I never said it wasn’t happening – what I said is that it’s not a $700 billion crisis like the Bush administration is screaming about. This bailout was a bad, rushed idea with no plan on how to pay for it, no consideration for the fact that it doesn’t help the people directly, and no curbs on the greed and improper practices that led to it.
It’s the same fearmongering that led to Bush’s ill-fated actions in Iraq post 9/11 instead of taking a slower, more measured approach. That was my point – let’s slow down and make sure that the fix is viable and doesn’t totally decimate the financial futures of our children and grandchildren.
As for me, I’ve learned to live without a lot of things and can survive even tougher times if I have too – I just want the sacrifice to be worth it and not lining the pockets of fat cat CEO’s and security trader/raiders.
That’s my opinion.
October 1, 2008 at 3:22 pm #640763
beachdrivegirlParticipantmellaw6565 I couldnt agree more with your last statement. I dont know if you noticed my post yesterday in the other bailout thread but I believe that most Americans are missing the issue at hand here.
It has little to do with “bad mortgages”. (Bad Mortgages have cost financial istitutions roughly $10 billion-when you consider that the mortage companies resell the asset (the house) at a loss of 40%.)However, due to the deregulation fo the financial institutions the very employees had made over double what the losses were off of these bad loans.
Personally, I dont think that we, the taxpayers, should have to pay more for these corrupt employeese.
October 1, 2008 at 4:19 pm #640764
bcollinsMemberMellaw…you are missing my point. Fear is emotion. I am not offering fear. I’m pointing out facts. I sense fear from you (I mean this respectfully) as well as suspicion. I also suspect motives, but I don’t doubt the directional correctness of the bailout. If you have information that helps explan what level of bailout is warranted, I would appreciate the help.
Beachgirl, your numbers are not correct.
October 1, 2008 at 4:21 pm #640765
beachdrivegirlParticipantAlthough I do not think we can place blame on the Republicans or Democrats for our current economic meltdown I do believe that only one of the two canidates running for office have the judgement needed to rescue the US from another Great Depression. And that canidate is not John McCain. For those of you who dont remember, or maybe just havent heard, lets look back to the 80’s and 90’s when McCain was nearly indited during the Keating Five Savings & Loan Scandal.
October 1, 2008 at 5:37 pm #640766
mellaw6565MemberBCollins – I think your posts 49 & 50 are fearmongering – just a little?
I’m not fearful as you suggest for myself – I am fearful for our children/grandchildren and the enormous cost to them if this massive bailout goes forward without any immediate taxpayer relief. This bill may free up credit for businesses to stimulate markets, but what the average person needs right now is real help, not the ability to take out more credit. Again, it’s just more trickle down voodoo economics if you ask me – IMO.
Suspicious – hell yes! Aren’t you? And that includes everyone – Bush and Congress. Are you ready just to give them carte blanche to dole out $700 billion dollars after only contemplating things for a week?
While Hoover was President, buying on margin/credit was rampant and no controls were present. But when FDR was elected in 1932 he didn’t fix everything in a week – and more importantly, what he did put in place were measured programs designed to put PEOPLE back on their feet, not reward the companies who engaged in bad behavior with inappropriate credit and banking practices.
So, until I see some reasoned, measured approach and an explanation on how we’re going to pay for it, I’ll continue to cheer when the bailouts are voted down.
October 1, 2008 at 5:56 pm #640767
beachdrivegirlParticipantBcollins,
I apologize, I was only mentioning numbers for sub-prime loans in two major financial institutions CITI & Merrill Lynch. If you look there actual losses are around $15 billion. Experts estimate that when they resell these houses that they have gained possession of they are roughly losing about 40% on average. That brings the total losses of these two financial institutions at roughly $10 billion. However, they have paid more than $20 billion in bonses etc to individuals for these sub prime mortgaegs
October 1, 2008 at 6:06 pm #640768
ZenguyParticipantLet’s not forget the huge portion the media has played this whole fiasco.
WaMu was working hard to increase its small business and retail operations to balance out the anticipated morgage losses and sought a seven billion dollar infusion of cash to shore up any additional losses. Once the media started speculating about the bank going under scared customers withdrew seventeen billion in deposits in two weeks, few banks could survive that.
October 1, 2008 at 6:09 pm #640769
beachdrivegirlParticipantZenguy that is the biggest reason why my fiance and i are honestly not trying to change our spending habits at all. Banks and the stock market crash b/c of “panic”.
October 1, 2008 at 6:10 pm #640770
ZenguyParticipantExactly right, my investments are staying right where they are at.
October 1, 2008 at 6:10 pm #640771
mellaw6565MemberZen – good point. I noticed that too. That’s why I’m suspicious about this whole bailout circus – I think there is a lot of misleading information being given to citizens as part of a “fearmongering” approach.
October 1, 2008 at 8:04 pm #640772
Tonya42MemberBush tried three seperate times to get both Fannie and Freddie under control. The dems blocked it. That is where the blame lies.
It’s all over Youtube, the Dems blatenely blocking the Reps attempts to examine in more detail.
It’s reactionary, yet customary here to blame Bush.
But you’d be wrong to do so. I think he tried to avert this many times and was blocked.
So now I hear people saying we need a social contract? We need to take care of people who bought houses they couldn’t afford? Let’s take care of the poor unfortunates who were duped by predatory lending practices? We need to bail out companies that loaned money to people with little or no chance to pay off the loans? We need to refinance loans of people who took loans they couldn’t afford, had slim chances of paying it back and became losers when the housing bubble burst?
Absolute blarney. This mess is caused by social engineering on a grand and insidious scale and groups like Greenlining(located in Berkely for those who are curious enough to research) and the government who forced these bad mortgages on the banks. And who do our dear leaders want to pay for this? Why those of us who obtained mortgages that we could afford only when we could afford them. Those of us who worked very hard to pay off those mortgages. The people who gambled forever increasing housing prices, took mortgages they couldn’t afford or developed absolutely junk financial instruments need to bear the brunt of absolutely bad decisions. I doubt very seriously if I elected to default on my mortgage that Pelosi, Franks, Reid or Obama would jump at the chance of paying off my mortgage. Let them pay for their own mortgages or suffer the consequences.
If they think they were hoodwinked, then look to the leftists who had some grand idea that went bust.
October 1, 2008 at 8:06 pm #640773
bcollinsMemberMellaw, I take your point on my posts you’ve referenced. I will also point out that Hoover did nothing during the crash (except for tightening credit) and that started the great depression.
October 1, 2008 at 8:09 pm #640774
WSratsinacageMemberi heart tonya42 :)
October 1, 2008 at 8:09 pm #640775
beachdrivegirlParticipantI dont think most of us get our news from youtube ..
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.