| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
IVNORD 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
 Posted: October 04 2008 at 10:09 |
 Henry Plainview wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Silver Sable wrote:
So the darn thing passed. Sadly they are already saying that it won't keep us from a recession. So why the hell did we just pass it?
If you actually skimmed through the proposal you'd see that it is about 150 pages of real bailout relief and 300 pages of additional tacked on stuff that has nothing to do with wall street or mortgages. Kinda makes me think the economy isn't as bad as they say and/or nothing in that bill is gonna fix it so they just threw in a bunch of other crap.  |
It's a short term bandaid on a sucking chest wound. The blood will keep flowing and because we've only put a bandaid on the problem it will become infected. Makes me wonder if coming back to the states is such a good idea. Not that the rest of the world will be safe, but maybe a little less harder hit. With any luck. Guaranteed though that the rich fat cats who caused the problems to begin with will be sitting out any recession in the lap of luxury. Our esteemed Congress didn't pass this bill to save the economy or protect the middle class, they passed this bill so the wealthy can continue to buy Mercedes and BMWs. |
While there is the possibility for abuse, this money isn't going to the CEOs. People just hear "Wall Street Bailout" and scream.
Rupert Murdoch is losing 4,000 dollars per second, rich people are the ones most susceptible to tehse losses. |
And my heart is bleeding for Rupert Murdoch and all the other rich people who are losing so much money.  They will lose more money than most people will ever have. And where do you think this 700 billion is going? It's not going into my pocket. |
Did I say you should feel sorry for him? I'm just saying that you shouldn't be so blase about the immunity of evil rich people from suffering any harm. You do realize that this has ruined some people, right?
It's not going in your pocket (because that would be the worst idea ever), but it's not going in anyone's pocket. The government is buying bad loans, this isn't a handout. |
4,000 dollars per second for Murdoch could be an equivalent of your $4 per day. The rich will lose money too (banks for one) but I am sure they have well-diversified holdings to sit this one out. They made too much money during the last boom, now they will part with a portion of their fortune. In the end they will emerge even more wealthy and powerful.
|
 |
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: October 04 2008 at 10:16 |
BaldFriede wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Silver Sable wrote:
So the darn thing passed. Sadly they are already saying that it won't keep us from a recession. So why the hell did we just pass it?
If you actually skimmed through the proposal you'd see that it is about 150 pages of real bailout relief and 300 pages of additional tacked on stuff that has nothing to do with wall street or mortgages. Kinda makes me think the economy isn't as bad as they say and/or nothing in that bill is gonna fix it so they just threw in a bunch of other crap. |
It's a short term bandaid on a sucking chest wound. The blood will keep flowing and because we've only put a bandaid on the problem it will become infected. Makes me wonder if coming back to the states is such a good idea. Not that the rest of the world will be safe, but maybe a little less harder hit. With any luck. Guaranteed though that the rich fat cats who caused the problems to begin with will be sitting out any recession in the lap of luxury. Our esteemed Congress didn't pass this bill to save the economy or protect the middle class, they passed this bill so the wealthy can continue to buy Mercedes and BMWs. |
While there is the possibility for abuse, this money isn't going to the CEOs. People just hear "Wall Street Bailout" and scream.
Rupert Murdoch is losing 4,000 dollars per second, rich people are the ones most susceptible to tehse losses. |
And my heart is bleeding for Rupert Murdoch and all the other rich people who are losing so much money. They will lose more money than most people will ever have. And where do you think this 700 billion is going? It's not going into my pocket. |
Did I say you should feel sorry for him? I'm just saying that you shouldn't be so blase about the immunity of evil rich people from suffering any harm. You do realize that this has ruined some people, right?
It's not going in your pocket (because that would be the worst idea ever), but it's not going in anyone's pocket. The government is buying bad loans, this isn't a handout. |
Not true; it has to go somewhere. The circulation of money is a zero sum game.
|
Not necessarily so. Every penny should have gone somewhere if the money was real. Since it's an inflated credit, either electronic money or some knd of paper IOY's, some of it may be simply disappearing from the system, which is a good thing. We're deflating the credit bubble by withdrawing some phoney money out of circulation. But the bulk of it stays in. THe one who sold at the higher price keeps the profit. Re-allocation of capital occurs all the time.
|
|
BaldFriede
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 02 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 10261
|
Posted: October 04 2008 at 11:17 |
IVNORD wrote:
BaldFriede wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Silver Sable wrote:
So the darn thing passed. Sadly they are already saying that it won't keep us from a recession. So why the hell did we just pass it?
If you actually skimmed through the proposal you'd see that it is about 150 pages of real bailout relief and 300 pages of additional tacked on stuff that has nothing to do with wall street or mortgages. Kinda makes me think the economy isn't as bad as they say and/or nothing in that bill is gonna fix it so they just threw in a bunch of other crap. |
It's a short term bandaid on a sucking chest wound. The blood will keep flowing and because we've only put a bandaid on the problem it will become infected. Makes me wonder if coming back to the states is such a good idea. Not that the rest of the world will be safe, but maybe a little less harder hit. With any luck. Guaranteed though that the rich fat cats who caused the problems to begin with will be sitting out any recession in the lap of luxury. Our esteemed Congress didn't pass this bill to save the economy or protect the middle class, they passed this bill so the wealthy can continue to buy Mercedes and BMWs. |
While there is the possibility for abuse, this money isn't going to the CEOs. People just hear "Wall Street Bailout" and scream.
Rupert Murdoch is losing 4,000 dollars per second, rich people are the ones most susceptible to tehse losses. |
And my heart is bleeding for Rupert Murdoch and all the other rich people who are losing so much money. They will lose more money than most people will ever have. And where do you think this 700 billion is going? It's not going into my pocket. |
Did I say you should feel sorry for him? I'm just saying that you shouldn't be so blase about the immunity of evil rich people from suffering any harm. You do realize that this has ruined some people, right?
It's not going in your pocket (because that would be the worst idea ever), but it's not going in anyone's pocket. The government is buying bad loans, this isn't a handout. |
Not true; it has to go somewhere. The circulation of money is a zero sum game.
|
Not necessarily so. Every penny should have gone somewhere if the money was real. Since it's an inflated credit, either electronic money or some knd of paper IOY's, some of it may be simply disappearing from the system, which is a good thing. We're deflating the credit bubble by withdrawing some phoney money out of circulation. But the bulk of it stays in. THe one who sold at the higher price keeps the profit. Re-allocation of capital occurs all the time. |
Nope. Where there's a creditor there must be a debitor.and vice versa. You can't pull it out of a hat. The only way more money can get into the circulation is if the state issues some, in which case you get an inflation.
|
 BaldJean and I; I am the one in blue.
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: October 04 2008 at 11:25 |
The Real
Great Depression
Another panic like 1873 is what we should be afraid of
Link
Excerpt:
As continental banks tumbled, British banks held
back their capital, unsure of which institutions were
most involved in the mortgage crisis. The cost
to borrow money from another bank — the interbank
lending rate — reached impossibly high rates.
This banking crisis hit the United States in the fall of 1873.
Railroad companies tumbled first. They had crafted
complex financial instruments that promised a fixed
return, though few understood the underlying
object that was guaranteed to investors in case of default.
(Answer: nothing). The bonds had sold well at
first, but they had tumbled after 1871 as investors began
to doubt their value, prices weakened, and many
railroads took on short-term bank loans to continue
laying track. Then, as short-term lending rates
skyrocketed across the Atlantic in 1873, the railroads
were in trouble. When the railroad financier
Jay Cooke proved unable to pay off his debts, the stock
market crashed in September, closing hundreds
of banks over the next three years. The panic
continued for more than four years in the United
States and for nearly six years in Europe.
Edited by Slartibartfast - October 04 2008 at 11:28
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
crimhead
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
|
Posted: October 04 2008 at 13:35 |
|
I heard someone say that it would cost us 144B to save all the homes in foreclosure and pre-foreclosure. Wouldn't it make more sense to save all these people instead of Banks that caused this by giving out bad loans to people that couldn't pay them in the first place?
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: October 04 2008 at 15:22 |
|
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: October 04 2008 at 15:27 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
|
Here's a little excurse into history http://www.jibjab.com/view/253615
Ignore the second half, it's propaganda, but the first 3-4 minutes tell you who's fault it really was
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: October 04 2008 at 19:04 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
|
From what I understand, the Democrats weren't protesting subprimes or Fannie/Freddie, either.
But of course, everybody needs someone to blame.
|
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
BroSpence
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 05 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2614
|
Posted: October 05 2008 at 01:25 |
|
I hope I'm able to find some extra money laying around in the next few years so that I can pay China back the money I didn't want to borrow in the first place....OH That gives me an idea. I'll take out a mortgage.
|
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 30 2007
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 3596
|
Posted: October 05 2008 at 12:28 |
|
My prime minister little Stevie Harper, Bush's buddy, says that Canada won't be affect because our fundamentals are sound. Like the 80% of our trade that is with y'all won't be affected by your economy's recession. I think he got this positive thinking bug from Dubya's mantra that the U.S. economy is still strong. Begging the question of the need to throw $700 billion (for starters) at the bankers (not to mention the attached pork feed).
All bow to common sense and its' attendant economic logic that makes the free market capitalist the man to heed.
|
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
|
limeyrob
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: January 15 2005
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 1402
|
Posted: October 05 2008 at 15:17 |
crimhead wrote:
I heard someone say that it would cost us 144B to save all the homes in foreclosure and pre-foreclosure. Wouldn't it make more sense to save all these people instead of Banks that caused this by giving out bad loans to people that couldn't pay them in the first place? |
In which case, why did they take out the loan when they knew they couldn't pay for it in the first place? This sets a brilliant example to the next generation doesn't it? I have vivid memories of my Mum doing everything in her power to ensure that any debts were paid off - usually furniture on the HP. The sacrifices she made just to get a bit of furniture still are fresh in my mind. Which is why I don't owe anyone any money - apart from my CD purchases of course, which are paid off when the statement arrives.
If you can't afford it - don't buy it.
Thanks Mum.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: October 05 2008 at 19:52 |
protesting subprimes?!?! the Democrats ?!?! You must be kidding! THey are the ones who created the mess. Now these unethical pigs resort to finger pointing when it comes home to roost. That Pelosi speech was a real gem. Probably she remembered suddenly that she was a Democrat although she acts more and more like a republican. So she decided she had to do something. Or Barney Frank. What a nice, uncharacteristically friendly guy
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: October 05 2008 at 20:00 |
debrewguy wrote:
My prime minister little Stevie Harper, Bush's buddy, says that Canada won't be affect because our fundamentals are sound. Like the 80% of our trade that is with y'all won't be affected by your economy's recession. I think he got this positive thinking bug from Dubya's mantra that the U.S. economy is still strong. Begging the question of the need to throw $700 billion (for starters) at the bankers (not to mention the attached pork feed).
All bow to common sense and its' attendant economic logic that makes the free market capitalist the man to heed.
|
What do you expect him to say? That your economy is in a sh*thole? That it's commodity driven and 80%-dependent on our economy? Why scare the sh*t out of yoiu? I don't mean you per se but an average person may simply panic if they know how dire the situation is.
|
|
IVNORD
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 13 2006
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1191
|
Posted: October 05 2008 at 20:13 |
limeyrob wrote:
crimhead wrote:
I heard someone say that it would cost us 144B to save all the homes in foreclosure and pre-foreclosure. Wouldn't it make more sense to save all these people instead of Banks that caused this by giving out bad loans to people that couldn't pay them in the first place? |
In which case, why did they take out the loan when they knew they couldn't pay for it in the first place? This sets a brilliant example to the next generation doesn't it? I have vivid memories of my Mum doing everything in her power to ensure that any debts were paid off - usually furniture on the HP. The sacrifices she made just to get a bit of furniture still are fresh in my mind. Which is why I don't owe anyone any money - apart from my CD purchases of course, which are paid off when the statement arrives.
If you can't afford it - don't buy it.
Thanks Mum. |
Most people in this country live beyond their means. But as if it's not bad enough this life style is encouraged. THe last president who tried to rein it in was Jimmi Carter.
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: October 06 2008 at 03:59 |
I also posted this in another thread, but I find it more appropriate here:
I can't help but be amused by the argument in this and similar threads that put the blame of anything on the administration that went before.
I mean, there's been eight years to clean up the mess, blaming the forerunners after that time is grotesque.
If you really want to argue that way, you can rollback the blame to any point in recent years when the party you don't support was in power.
That's the whole point of elections (well, supposed to be, anyway): You vote a party in to clear up the mess, if they don't cut it after many, many years, they're incapable of doing their job.
As an aside: I don't believe any party is ever voted in, parties are always voted out, and you settle for whoever you think will hopefully f.ck up the least.
|
|
limeyrob
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: January 15 2005
Location: England
Status: Offline
Points: 1402
|
Posted: October 06 2008 at 14:17 |
IVNORD wrote:
limeyrob wrote:
crimhead wrote:
I heard someone say that it would cost us 144B to save all the homes in foreclosure and pre-foreclosure. Wouldn't it make more sense to save all these people instead of Banks that caused this by giving out bad loans to people that couldn't pay them in the first place? |
In which case, why did they take out the loan when they knew they couldn't pay for it in the first place? This sets a brilliant example to the next generation doesn't it? I have vivid memories of my Mum doing everything in her power to ensure that any debts were paid off - usually furniture on the HP. The sacrifices she made just to get a bit of furniture still are fresh in my mind. Which is why I don't owe anyone any money - apart from my CD purchases of course, which are paid off when the statement arrives.
If you can't afford it - don't buy it.
Thanks Mum. |
Most people in this country live beyond their means. But as if it's not bad enough this life style is encouraged. THe last president who tried to rein it in was Jimmi Carter. |
Many apologies but my knowledge of US politics is about as much as I can write on the back of a stamp. You imply that something happened to Jimmy Carter - presumably he was voted out of office by an electorate wanting the highlife on credit.
Presumably he was encouraging people to do something they didn't want to do. I say 'didn't' rather than 'couldn't' because the former required responsibility.
What a mess!
|
|
crimhead
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: October 10 2006
Location: Missouri
Status: Offline
Points: 19236
|
Posted: October 06 2008 at 14:35 |
IVNORD wrote:
limeyrob wrote:
crimhead wrote:
I heard someone say that it would cost us 144B to save all the homes in foreclosure and pre-foreclosure. Wouldn't it make more sense to save all these people instead of Banks that caused this by giving out bad loans to people that couldn't pay them in the first place? |
In which case, why did they take out the loan when they knew they couldn't pay for it in the first place? This sets a brilliant example to the next generation doesn't it? I have vivid memories of my Mum doing everything in her power to ensure that any debts were paid off - usually furniture on the HP. The sacrifices she made just to get a bit of furniture still are fresh in my mind. Which is why I don't owe anyone any money - apart from my CD purchases of course, which are paid off when the statement arrives.
If you can't afford it - don't buy it.
Thanks Mum. |
Most people in this country live beyond their means. But as if it's not bad enough this life style is encouraged. THe last president who tried to rein it in was Jimmi Carter. |
It should be noted that in many of the cases they gave the loans out to people that could not qualify. I was one of those people. They based my loan of my gross earnings. My loan was for 115K, my payments were for $1100 a month and I was taking home about $1600 a month. If you take in everything that it takes to live, food,water,electricity,gas,gasoline I had very little room for error. In the end I did not make it.
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: October 06 2008 at 14:48 |
crimhead wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
limeyrob wrote:
crimhead wrote:
I heard someone say that it would cost us 144B to save all the homes in foreclosure and pre-foreclosure. Wouldn't it make more sense to save all these people instead of Banks that caused this by giving out bad loans to people that couldn't pay them in the first place? |
In which case, why did they take out the loan when they knew they couldn't pay for it in the first place? This sets a brilliant example to the next generation doesn't it? I have vivid memories of my Mum doing everything in her power to ensure that any debts were paid off - usually furniture on the HP. The sacrifices she made just to get a bit of furniture still are fresh in my mind. Which is why I don't owe anyone any money - apart from my CD purchases of course, which are paid off when the statement arrives.
If you can't afford it - don't buy it.
Thanks Mum. |
Most people in this country live beyond their means. But as if it's not bad enough this life style is encouraged. THe last president who tried to rein it in was Jimmi Carter. |
It should be noted that in many of the cases they gave the loans out to people that could not qualify. I was one of those people. They based my loan of my gross earnings. My loan was for 115K, my payments were for $1100 a month and I was taking home about $1600 a month. If you take in everything that it takes to live, food,water,electricity,gas,gasoline I had very little room for error. In the end I did not make it.
|
Really sorry to hear about that crim. 
|
|
stonebeard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
|
Posted: October 06 2008 at 15:16 |
|
I can't imagine what family (parents, kid(s)) might feel or want, but I can't see myself living in even a modest house for many many years. My friends and I are getting an apartment next year, and at 300/mo for each (so I guess 1200/mo per apt.) it seems reasonable, especially when utilities except electricity are paid for. I can't agree with the American home we've all thought of for the past half-century; it's just too much, not spatially efficient, and usually in suburbs far from interesting happenings. Couple that with the rising cost of gas, and it's just not a good idea to live outside of or very far from a city whenever the choice arrives.
In general, I think and hope that Americans are in for a very rude awakening, hopefully bringing this country back down to reality, values (none of that religious blindness though), and humbleness.
|
|
|
|
Padraic
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
|
Posted: October 06 2008 at 15:25 |
stonebeard wrote:
I can't imagine what family (parents, kid(s)) might feel or want
|
Parents by and large want to buy something in a good school district. Your scenario hearkens back (or at least makes me think of) 19th century Europe, where only the wealthy/nobility could afford life in "the country" (suburbs), and the rest of the mass of humanity concentrated in the urban centers.
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
$700 billion from us to save the banks. Good?