700 billion Bail out

[IrishAidan07]

You mean so this mess can repeat itself all over again?

No, I was sorta thining that after the bailout, these *******s would realize that some people just shouldn't have home loans given to them.

Keep linking them, please, and I'll keep gladly pointing out how your articles you keep linking to me claim the same thing in practice- which is to get involved. Hey, that's sort of like what I've been saying this entire time? No way!

I think the opinion of a Harvard grad, now business teacher at Columbia, should have carried some weight with you. Apparently, you are content with your own flawed, Bushivik thought-process. Hey, guess what? Humans and fish can coexist peacefully! Like, no way right?

When you form a well-thought out response to how not bailing out AIG will have an impact on our energy, aviation, and housing markets, let me know. Otherwise, I'll forward any kindergarten comebacks you have to my nephew. I hear he can use a few simple one-liners.

Is that a euphemism for: Gee, guess I didn't think this out enough. Your responses and E's, all by Harvard and notable economists, are just too in depth and well-thought out for me to consider. So, instead, I'll just say how dumb you are and, uh, hope nobody realizes my own intellectual shortcomings.

Like, totally dude.

Mama, he being mean. He called me a doo-doo head.

Edited September 27, 2008 by IrishLexie

[Omnaka]

Well, I'll give it a try.

If this was just a case of a few banks making some mistakes, the Government wouldn't be offering to bail them out. Other banks would swoop in and buy them at firesale prices and the world would keep on merrily turning. That is the way that the free market is supposed to work, after all.

It's a lot deeper than that.

As MasterPo pointed out earlier - Government legislation was enacted which required banks by law to give mortgages to people that would normally be refused as they were bad credit risks. These mortgages are referred to as subprime.

In a market where house prices are rising - this works fine, as the banks foreclose and end up selling the property at an overall profit.

However.

In a falling house market, the banks take a heavy loss. Realising this, the banking industry en masse repackaged these mortgages into complex financial "investments", and resold them to banks throughout the world. Some banks were more aware of this, than others.

Today, banks are financially interwoven, lending each other money daily, in order to cover running costs. The truth is, that there are some banks whose collapse would create a domino effect, causing other banks to fail.

Right now, the American Banking system is on the verge of total and utter collapse. We're not talking about a few rogue investment companies. We're talking about every single bank in America, which will have a ripple effect that could quite possibly take out the vast majority of banks across the globe.

This would be a very bad thing.

In short - the American economy benefited from the government enforced sale of houses to people that couldn't actually afford to buy them. If you're in the construction industry, the odds are that you directly benefited from this.

The American economy is now on the verge of meltdown because of this decision. The government needs to fix this, and fast.

Offering to buy back the mortgages that they legally enforced the banks to make is the honourable (and economically best) thing it can probably do.

Arguing for and against bailing out the "fat cats on Wall street" is completely misdirecting the blame.

the loan I got on my second Mortgage was the hardes loan there is , No soft loan money here, I had nothing to do with it so why punish me.

So if I understand you corectly it is the fault of the poor who did this and this is why the poor should keep paying the fat cats salery, or severance Parachute?

What am I missing, Please summerise for me, Why Iam responsible for My mistake and His, Or Yours for that matter?

I do understand Life aint fair too.

Love Omnaka

[Omnaka]

Well, I'll give it a try.

If this was just a case of a few banks making some mistakes, the Government wouldn't be offering to bail them out. Other banks would swoop in and buy them at firesale prices and the world would keep on merrily turning. That is the way that the free market is supposed to work, after all.

It's a lot deeper than that.

As MasterPo pointed out earlier - Government legislation was enacted which required banks by law to give mortgages to people that would normally be refused as they were bad credit risks. These mortgages are referred to as subprime.

In a market where house prices are rising - this works fine, as the banks foreclose and end up selling the property at an overall profit.

However.

In a falling house market, the banks take a heavy loss. Realising this, the banking industry en masse repackaged these mortgages into complex financial "investments", and resold them to banks throughout the world. Some banks were more aware of this, than others.

Today, banks are financially interwoven, lending each other money daily, in order to cover running costs. The truth is, that there are some banks whose collapse would create a domino effect, causing other banks to fail.

Right now, the American Banking system is on the verge of total and utter collapse. We're not talking about a few rogue investment companies. We're talking about every single bank in America, which will have a ripple effect that could quite possibly take out the vast majority of banks across the globe.

This would be a very bad thing.

In short - the American economy benefited from the government enforced sale of houses to people that couldn't actually afford to buy them. If you're in the construction industry, the odds are that you directly benefited from this.

The American economy is now on the verge of meltdown because of this decision. The government needs to fix this, and fast.

Offering to buy back the mortgages that they legally enforced the banks to make is the honourable (and economically best) thing it can probably do.

Arguing for and against bailing out the "fat cats on Wall street" is completely misdirecting the blame.

Well please do point us in the right direction. Are you implying its the poor who did this and not the fat cats who have millions?

Love Omnaka

[Tiggs]

Well please do point us in the right direction. Are you implying its the poor who did this and not the fat cats who have millions?

Love Omnaka

No. I'm implying it's the Government.

[Roughneck]

No, I was sorta thining that after the bailout, these *******s would realize that some people just shouldn't have home loans given to them.

Wait a second. Do you even know why these banks are falling apart and why people are complaining of crooks?

I think the opinion of a Harvard grad, now business teacher at Columbia, should have carry some weight with you. Apparently, you are content with your own flawed, Bushivik thought-process. Hey, guess what? Humans and fish can coexist peacefully! Like, no way right?

If only there was an DUI-variant for using a computer while intoxicated. You really don't let much sense through those thick walls of yours, do you? Let me explain by responding to another redundant point you made below:

Is that a euphemism for: Gee, guess I didn't think this out enough. Your responses and E's, all by Harvard and notable economists, are just too in depth and well-thought out for me to consider. So, instead, I'll just say how dumb you are and, uh, hope nobody realizes my own intellectual shortcomings.

Like, totally dude.

I'm still waiting for you to actually provide a counter-argument other than "this guy I linked to says this, swallow and die!" when the guy you link to is saying the same damn thing I'm saying. The government controlling FMAE and FMAC can strongly influence how this will turn out. Oh wait, it's going to cost us money?

Don't drink and post, kids.

[IrishAidan07]

Wait a second. Do you even know why these banks are falling apart and why people are complaining of crooks?

Do you? What I'm talking about has little to do with the accounting flaws. 70% of something is something that someone has. Can you figure it out?

If only there was an DUI-variant for using a computer while intoxicated. You really don't let much sense through those thick walls of yours, do you? Let me explain by responding to another redundant point you made below:

O.K.

I'm still waiting for you to actually provide a counter-argument other than "this guy I linked to says this, swallow and die!" when the guy you link to is saying the same damn thing I'm saying. The government controlling FMAE and FMAC can strongly influence how this will turn out. Oh wait, it's going to cost us money?

Don't drink and post, kids.

Aren't you the feller showing empathy for the big companies? Sorta thought that's the glow you been letting off.

Edited September 27, 2008 by IrishLexie

[Omnaka]

No. I'm implying it's the Government.

Thanks I agree.

Love Omnaka

[Roughneck]

Do you?

It\'s been stated already, and not just by me. I\'ll repeat some of what I said earlier.

Bank gives loans to people both recklessly, but also as required for some prospects.

Bank sees it is tanking.

Bank decides to take what money it has, and start giving it to employees and investors.

Bank goes under.

What happens when all you do is simply pay off the debts?

Rinse and repeat, is what happens. - which is what economists are saying - don\'t simply just throw money at the problem!

Aren\'t you the feller showing empathy for the big companies? Sorta thought that\'s the glow you been letting off.

I\'m the guy saying we can\'t just sit by and watch the fireworks.

Edit:

What I\'m talking about has little to do with the accounting flaws. 70% of something is something that someone has. Can you figure it out?

Funny, they also employ the 99% of the country that isn\'t so wealthy. Or are you saying we should live in a socialist country?

Edit 2:

Dammit! The '\' bug strikes again!

Edited September 27, 2008 by Roughneck

[IrishAidan07]

It's been stated already, and not just by me. I'll repeat some of what I said earlier.

Bank gives loans to people both recklessly, but also as required for some prospects.

Bank sees it is tanking.

Bank decides to take what money it has, and start giving it to employees and investors.

Bank goes under.

What happens when all you do is simply pay off the debts?

Rinse and repeat, is what happens. - which is what economists are saying - don't simply just throw money at the problem!

Correct. There must be what? Reform. But before reform, you need what? Money! Yay! And consider that 70% of the nations mortages are held by Fannie and Freddy, if those mortgages are paid to a coin where the owner can resume payment, what happens? Yay! Fannie and Freddie get the money they need, and the guy on - to borrow a line - Main Street is helped! Yippy!

Directly handing these companies money isn't going to do it - is what I am saying. Let's indirectly give them some loot, which is what these economists and Billy boy have been saying, and help the collective wallet.

I'm the guy saying we can't just sit by and watch the fireworks.

During the firework festival in my town, I prefer to look at the younger ladies slinking by. Definitely a much better show.

Edited September 27, 2008 by IrishLexie

[Karlis]

I have no clue. They seem to cough up cash out of no where. *pst* (I think they stole it)

No, they did not steal it, they created it. That's the beauty of a fiat money economy.

Karlis

[BlindMessiah]

No, they did not steal it, they created it. That's the beauty of a fiat money economy.

Karlis

That's stealing from us. Printing money out of thin air results in inflation giving we the people, less money.

[Omnaka]

It\'s been stated already, and not just by me. I\'ll repeat some of what I said earlier.

Bank gives loans to people both recklessly, but also as required for some prospects.

Bank sees it is tanking.

Bank decides to take what money it has, and start giving it to employees and investors.

Bank goes under.

What happens when all you do is simply pay off the debts?

Rinse and repeat, is what happens. - which is what economists are saying - don\'t simply just throw money at the problem!

I\'m the guy saying we can\'t just sit by and watch the fireworks.

Edit:

Funny, they also employ the 99% of the country that isn\'t so wealthy. Or are you saying we should live in a socialist country?

Edit 2:

Dammit! The '\' bug strikes again!

Maybe that 99% should get off ther *** and stop selling the money I make by producing a product (Building)

Sick ness

And your figures are flawed to the max

[Roughneck]

Correct. There must be what? Reform. But before reform, you need what? Money! Yay!

So finally, we agree on something.

And consider that 70% of the nations mortages are held by Fannie and Freddy, if those mortgages are paid to a coin where the owner can resume payment, what happens? Yay! Fannie and Freddie get the money they need, and the guy on - to borrow a line - Main Street is helped! Yippy!

I'd rather not just pay my taxes to simply have MAE and MAC's losses cut. I want to see them undergo government takeover (as is happening) and the setting of rules and regulations, and the use of that takeover to control rates and finances. I also want to see the other major companies they have investments with, such as AIG to be financially independent of MAE and MAC while being financially secure. Do I think all these good wishes will happen?

Sadly no. I don't fully trust a government that has had many warning signs on our financial and housing sector in the past and have something like this happen.

Directly handing these companies money isn't going to do it - is what I am saying. Let's indirectly give them some loot, which is what these economists and Billy boy have been saying, and help the collective wallet.

I'm more hostile in my intentions, I guess. Unless by 'indirectly' you mean "take those suckers over and set them straight".

During the firework festival in my town, I prefer to look at the younger ladies slinking by. Definitely a much better show.

So the market equivalent of that would be... a drive-by stock-market update?

[Karlis]

That's stealing from us. Printing money out of thin air results in inflation giving we the people, less money.

True -- and if the average American citizen understood that, Ron Paul would have been a shoe-in as the next President of the USA.

How many people do you know who voted for Ron Paul?

Karlis

[Roughneck]

Maybe that 99% should get off ther *** and stop selling the money I make by producing a product (Building)

Sick ness

And your figures are flawed to the max

They're not flawed, they're just in the wrong context. I thought Irish was going to say something about how 1% of our country control the majority of our country's wealth. I made a boo-boo.

[IrishAidan07]

I think the reform can happen along with the home owner, the Main Street folk, being helped. I don't know.

So the market equivalent of that would be... a drive-by stock-market update?

The equivalent is some market, a personal one, rising!

[Roughneck]

rising!

This is starting to sound like a soft-core economic dirty movie.

How much for one copy?

[IrishAidan07]

LOL.

[Omnaka]

This is starting to sound like a soft-core economic dirty movie.

How much for one copy?

700 billion, A cashiers check would be Fine.

Love Omnaka

[Roughneck]

700 billion, A cashiers check would be Fine.

Love Omnaka

Only if you promise to bail me out once I file for bankrupcy.

[Omnaka]

Only if you promise to bail me out once I file for bankrupcy.

I would but someone already beat you to it, Sorry.

Love Omnaka

[jesspy]

Although im not American i say dont bail them out i dont what will happen but they screwed it up they fix it

[questionmark]

Only if you promise to bail me out once I file for bankrupcy.

With 700 billion? I'll bail you and your dad and mom, your grandparents and your cousins... but only once.

[nickoli]

Well, I'll give it a try.

If this was just a case of a few banks making some mistakes, the Government wouldn't be offering to bail them out. Other banks would swoop in and buy them at firesale prices and the world would keep on merrily turning. That is the way that the free market is supposed to work, after all.

It's a lot deeper than that.

As MasterPo pointed out earlier - Government legislation was enacted which required banks by law to give mortgages to people that would normally be refused as they were bad credit risks. These mortgages are referred to as subprime.

In a market where house prices are rising - this works fine, as the banks foreclose and end up selling the property at an overall profit.

However.

In a falling house market, the banks take a heavy loss. Realising this, the banking industry en masse repackaged these mortgages into complex financial "investments", and resold them to banks throughout the world. Some banks were more aware of this, than others.

Today, banks are financially interwoven, lending each other money daily, in order to cover running costs. The truth is, that there are some banks whose collapse would create a domino effect, causing other banks to fail.

Right now, the American Banking system is on the verge of total and utter collapse. We're not talking about a few rogue investment companies. We're talking about every single bank in America, which will have a ripple effect that could quite possibly take out the vast majority of banks across the globe.

This would be a very bad thing.

In short - the American economy benefited from the government enforced sale of houses to people that couldn't actually afford to buy them. If you're in the construction industry, the odds are that you directly benefited from this.

The American economy is now on the verge of meltdown because of this decision. The government needs to fix this, and fast.

Offering to buy back the mortgages that they legally enforced the banks to make is the honourable (and economically best) thing it can probably do.

Arguing for and against bailing out the "fat cats on Wall street" is completely misdirecting the blame.

Ok Tiggs good point,and while I dont know the facts about exactly what the government did to force banks to make bad loans can you provide a link to such a law? I wouldn't mind a bailout so bad if I got a considerable return on MY investment as long as those responsible were put in leg irons and made to work minimum wage for 10yrs. If this can be boiled down to bad goverment then I'm thinking they better get their act together quickly or its tea party time.

[Tiggs]

Ok Tiggs good point,and while I dont know the facts about exactly what the government did to force banks to make bad loans can you provide a link to such a law? I wouldn't mind a bailout so bad if I got a considerable return on MY investment as long as those responsible were put in leg irons and made to work minimum wage for 10yrs. If this can be boiled down to bad goverment then I'm thinking they better get their act together quickly or its tea party time.

From Wikipedia's Community Reinvestment Act:

The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law that requires banks and thrifts to offer credit throughout their entire market area and prohibits them from targeting only wealthier neighborhoods with their services, a practice known as "redlining." The purpose of the CRA is to provide credit, including home ownership opportunities to underserved populations and commercial loans to small businesses.