30 Sep 08
Originally posted by smw6869Yep. Here's an article along the same lines.
Dems said more Regs were not needed...ooops!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
GRANNY.
Deregulation Not to Blame for Financial Woes
by Peter J. Wallison
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_wallison&sid=a6M1QA55PB9Y
30 Sep 08
1 edit
Originally posted by SleepyguyThis is more BS. These GSE's managed to exist for 70 years without a financial crisis. In that time, they helped ownership of housing rise from below 45% to about 65%. http://www.hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/26963064.html
The explicit letter of the law did not curb belief in the implicit govt guarantee of the GSE's. The anti-capitalist notion that the GSE's could take greater risks because they would be bailed out by the taxpayer if they got in trouble, PLUS the mindset evident in the CRA (and I'm not excluding Bush from this), that ever riskier loans should be extended to een created and mortgages had been left to the free market, we would not be where we are.
The fault behind this crisis lies with those that created these mortgage based securities and their massive trading, two events that happened only in the last few years. This market went totally unregulated and produced massive profits in the short term. But these profits were based on sand.
Right wingers just refuse to accept that private behavior is the cause for this crisis; you're just too brainwashed to accept reality. Your unquestioning almost religious belief that the free market can never cause a financial crisis is ludicrous given the history of the American economic system. But keep giving us the comedy.
30 Sep 08
Actually the banks would have instaneously paid back the $700 billion dollars. Were not giving them 700 billion dollars that and getting nothing...that would be stupid its why the term "bail out" is so misleading. What the goverment is doing is there going to buy all the hard assets of the banks, like the realestate properties that can be sold without major losses and further damage to the realestate market. The goverment is gonna cover the losses in exchange for the properties. But wait! there is more. After the purchasing of the assets the goverment would then start selling bonds based off the houses. And then with the purchasing of those bonds and the DEFLATION (I know like you have probably never heard that word in like ages) as well as the selling of the property wouldn't lead to the taxpayers breaking even. They wouldn't pay a dime, quite honestly we could come ahead.
Personally I think it could have been handled better. Personally I think we should allow people who have loans with these banks that are going belly up to buy back their loans for 50 cents on the dollar just like the big banks get to do when they buy em up with the help of the FDIC.
Or the goverment could allow anyone not just the banks to sell their houses so that those who are soon facing forclosure can get out as well. Then the goverment would again sell bonds based off the property. Then as a bonus people will have the oppurtunity to get a new loan for something that they can "actually" afford and get a fixed rate, and perhaps learn the lesson. With the new boom in the real estate and the profits to the people that come from that like DEFLATION (such a lovely word) we would thus be prosperous again...until somebody else screws it up.
Honestly I think we are screwed because politicians and journalists dont understand how to run a business, and how to keep the consumers happy, (not misreable with a dim bleak future)
30 Sep 08
Originally posted by Griswald SplicerYou don't know what you are talking about. What the government was going to buy was securities that the banks can't sell to anybody else. That makes them essentially worthless or to use the term of art "illiquid". The idea that the US government is going to make money by buying crap that nobody else wants is amusing.
Actually the banks would have instaneously paid back the $700 billion dollars. Were not giving them 700 billion dollars that and getting nothing...that would be stupid its why the term "bail out" is so misleading. What the goverment is doing is there going to buy all the hard assets of the banks, like the realestate properties that can be sold wi ...[text shortened]... n a business, and how to keep the consumers happy, (not misreable with a dim bleak future)
01 Oct 08
Originally posted by howardgeeWell, the 700 billion isn't for those companies, so your question is wrong, but very well meaning. And if you had asked the proper question, it would have been a good one.
My question is simple:
Assuming that Brian Mae, Freddie Mercury and AIG had continued paying Tax at the same rate as their returns for 2006-2007, then how many years would it have taken them combined to "repay" the $700 billion stolen from the taxpayers?
I have searched in vain for their tax contributions.
Can anyone indicate how much corporation tax they have paid recently?
01 Oct 08
Originally posted by MerkNo. Those companies have already been nationalized to the tune of...
Well, the 700 billion isn't for those companies, so your question is wrong, but very well meaning. And if you had asked the proper question, it would have been a good one.
200 billion!!!
That's besides the other 700 billion promised to the "other" companies.
Dear oh dear oh dear.
01 Oct 08
Originally posted by shavixmirI would have thought that nationalizing private business would be music to your ears. 😉
No. Those companies have already been nationalized to the tune of...
200 billion!!!
That's besides the other 700 billion promised to the "other" companies.
Dear oh dear oh dear.
The U.S. has about 115 trillion in assets, 700 billion is a drop in the bucket. Nothing to worry about.
01 Oct 08
Originally posted by MerkNationalizing would be music to my ears if it was the average Joe on the street who was going to profit from it. But, you know as well as I do, it's not.
I would have thought that nationalizing private business would be music to your ears. 😉
The U.S. has about 115 trillion in assets, 700 billion is a drop in the bucket. Nothing to worry about.
As for the 115 trillion in assets, how do you reckon that?
I know of the 10 trillion debt... never heard of these assets though... or are you going to start selling warships to Iran?
01 Oct 08
Originally posted by shavixmirThe government got 79.9 percent of AIG. It's likely the government will get a major portion of that 85 billion back, or they could even make a profit. Which won't help Joe Sixpack because the government will spend it before Joe Sixpack even knows there was a profit.
Nationalizing would be music to my ears if it was the average Joe on the street who was going to profit from it. But, you know as well as I do, it's not.
As for the 115 trillion in assets, how do you reckon that?
I know of the 10 trillion debt... never heard of these assets though... or are you going to start selling warships to Iran?
Current assets in the US is what I'm talking about. Buildings, land, cars, boats etc. There isn't any government number on that, so it's hard to peg (government numbers suck anyway - theres just too much to do it accurately), so the actual number is likely trillions upon trillions plus or minus.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by no1marauder1 is right about the GSEs. They've been a a fantistic wealth builder for the middle class. Their business model worked extremely well for decades.
This is more BS. These GSE's managed to exist for 70 years without a financial crisis. In that time, they helped ownership of housing rise from below 45% to about 65%. http://www.hoover.org/research/factsonpolicy/facts/26963064.html
The fault behind this crisis lies with those that created these mortgage based securities and their massiv ...[text shortened]... is ludicrous given the history of the American economic system. But keep giving us the comedy.
What he's wrong about is what brought about their fall.
It wasn't the derivatives, it was that they changed their requirements.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
03 Oct 08
Originally posted by howardgeeBrian May is a British citizen, therefore, he is not required to pay any U.S. taxes. Freddie Mercury, a notorious homosexual, won't have to pay any taxes either because he died of AIDs.
My question is simple:
Assuming that Brian Mae, Freddie Mercury and AIG had continued paying Tax at the same rate as their returns for 2006-2007, then how many years would it have taken them combined to "repay" the $700 billion stolen from the taxpayers?
I have searched in vain for their tax contributions.
Can anyone indicate how much corporation tax they have paid recently?