Author Topic: The Bailout  (Read 2214 times)

Offline Shamus

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3582
Re: The Bailout
« Reply #75 on: September 23, 2008, 06:42:14 PM »


This guy has a much better idea:


http://firedoglake.com/2008/09/19/how-to-bail-out-ordinary-mortgage-holders-and-not-just-banks/
 
Thoughts?

This sound very similar to  the Home Owners' Loan Corp established in the 1930's

shamus
one of the cats

FSO Jagdgeschwader 11

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
Re: The Bailout
« Reply #76 on: September 23, 2008, 06:52:30 PM »
If the government bails out wall street, then every single person under debt load would be justified in and probably should declare bankruptcy.

If the holes bigger than the bucket...


BAILING WON'T SAVE THE BOAT.
The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.

Offline RedTop

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5921
Re: The Bailout
« Reply #77 on: September 23, 2008, 07:42:56 PM »
Didnt feel like googleing it....but I hear the bailout is now gonna include....

Credit card debt....Car loans...student loans....

I'm getting a credit card...50k limit..run it up and demand a bail out....yall in?
Original Member and Former C.O. 71 sqd. RAF Eagles

Offline Donzo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
      • http://www.bops.us
Re: The Bailout
« Reply #78 on: September 23, 2008, 08:11:43 PM »
The only regulation I would like to see come out of this is that no person be given a loan who can't afford to pay for it.    If a loan company does.. then they have to eat it if it goes bad.   

Screw any regulation!

Just go back to the way it was PRIOR to the gov getting involved in the first place.  Before the gov stepped in and basically told lenders to give loans to those that could not afford them, the lenders did not give loans to those who could not afford them.  I say just go back to letting the lenders do whatever they want and pay the price if they screw up...this time no gov backing or assurances. 

Same thing you are saying laz, just no gov regulation telling the lenders what they can or can't do.

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: The Bailout
« Reply #79 on: September 23, 2008, 08:46:58 PM »
The head of Freddie Mac admitted in 1999 pushing a Federal(Clinton) agenda to give out bad loans. Janet Reno had made examples of banks to get the point across not to buck the social engineering experiment. In 2003 when Bush tried to rein in the problem Barny Frank derailed it. Barny Frank told the Washington Times Freddi and Fanni were not facing a crisis. He happened to be the Head of the Senate Banking Committee.

From Worldnet Daily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75717


And though some have speculated that lenders in the '90s dove into sub-prime mortgages in an effort to gouge new markets, the president and chief operating officer of Freddie Mac in 1999, David Glenn, confessed his company was pushed by a federal agenda.

"The mortgage industry intends to pursue minorities with greater intensity as federal regulators turn up the heat to increase home ownership," Glenn said in his remarks at the annual convention of the Mortgage Banker Association of America.

"The federal government in the meantime has increased pressure on lenders to seek out minorities, as well as low-income groups and borrowers with poor credit histories," Glenn said. "Fannie Mae recently reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to commit half its business to low- and moderate-income borrowers. That means half the mortgages bought by Fannie Mae would be from those income brackets."

In that same year, Freddie Mac warned of the logical pitfalls of pursuing loans on the basis of skin color and not credit history.

The Washington Post reported that the company conducted a study in which it was found that far more black people have bad credit than white people, even when both have the same incomes. In fact, the study showed a higher percentage of African Americans with incomes of $65,000 to $75,000 had bad credit than white Americans with incomes of below $25,000.

Such data demonstrated that when federal regulators demanded parity between racial groups in lending, the only way to achieve a quota would be to begin making intentionally bad lending decisions.

The study, however, came under brutal attack in the U.S. Congress and was ridiculed with charges of racism.

A few years later, when Greg Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, voiced a warning about weakened underwriting standards, Congress rebuffed him as well.

The Wall Street Journal quoted Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., in 2003 as criticizing Greg Mankiw "because he is worried about the tiny little matter of safety and soundness rather than 'concern about housing.'"

Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, rejected a Bush administration and Congressional Republican plan for regulating the mortgage industry in 2003, saying, "These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis." According to a New York Times article, Frank added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."


bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline RedTop

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5921
Re: The Bailout
« Reply #80 on: September 23, 2008, 08:55:26 PM »
Ok....

How about the government give every AMERICAN CITIZEN over the age of 21 a check for 100,000.00. every AMERICAN CITIZEN 21 and under a check for 75,000.00.

Then all the current mortgages could be either paid off or at the LEAST caught up and refinanced. College money for the youngers could be put in savings for future. Debts could be paid by Moms and Dads.

ALOT of americans could be out of debt. Savings could be started. People could afford to get back to not worrying as much and all that money would be put right back in the economy.

Banks would get more business. Retail would pick back up.

In that time set up what ever needs to be put in place to NEVER let this happen again.

AND....if my math is right....it's less than the 700 BILLION dollar bail out that's probably closer to a trillion.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2008, 08:57:05 PM by RedTop »
Original Member and Former C.O. 71 sqd. RAF Eagles

Offline alskahawk

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
Re: The Bailout
« Reply #81 on: September 23, 2008, 09:31:05 PM »
There should be accountability. You don't give someone absolute power and expect them not to abuse it.

John McCain seems to think the same way I do. You voting for Obama now Moray or you just jumping in to oppose something because I posted it without doing any research?

I'll take stupid kneejerk reactions for $1000, Alex.

 Gram-Leach-Bliley Act; Deregulated Banking. McCain voted for it.

Offline alskahawk

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
Re: The Bailout
« Reply #82 on: September 23, 2008, 09:41:36 PM »
The head of Freddie Mac admitted in 1999 pushing a Federal(Clinton) agenda to give out bad loans. Janet Reno had made examples of banks to get the point across not to buck the social engineering experiment. In 2003 when Bush tried to rein in the problem Barny Frank derailed it. Barny Frank told the Washington Times Freddi and Fanni were not facing a crisis. He happened to be the Head of the Senate Banking Committee.

From Worldnet Daily
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=75717


And though some have speculated that lenders in the '90s dove into sub-prime mortgages in an effort to gouge new markets, the president and chief operating officer of Freddie Mac in 1999, David Glenn, confessed his company was pushed by a federal agenda.

"The mortgage industry intends to pursue minorities with greater intensity as federal regulators turn up the heat to increase home ownership," Glenn said in his remarks at the annual convention of the Mortgage Banker Association of America.

"The federal government in the meantime has increased pressure on lenders to seek out minorities, as well as low-income groups and borrowers with poor credit histories," Glenn said. "Fannie Mae recently reached an agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to commit half its business to low- and moderate-income borrowers. That means half the mortgages bought by Fannie Mae would be from those income brackets."

In that same year, Freddie Mac warned of the logical pitfalls of pursuing loans on the basis of skin color and not credit history.

The Washington Post reported that the company conducted a study in which it was found that far more black people have bad credit than white people, even when both have the same incomes. In fact, the study showed a higher percentage of African Americans with incomes of $65,000 to $75,000 had bad credit than white Americans with incomes of below $25,000.

Such data demonstrated that when federal regulators demanded parity between racial groups in lending, the only way to achieve a quota would be to begin making intentionally bad lending decisions.

The study, however, came under brutal attack in the U.S. Congress and was ridiculed with charges of racism.

A few years later, when Greg Mankiw, chairman of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, voiced a warning about weakened underwriting standards, Congress rebuffed him as well.

The Wall Street Journal quoted Congressman Barney Frank, D-Mass., in 2003 as criticizing Greg Mankiw "because he is worried about the tiny little matter of safety and soundness rather than 'concern about housing.'"

Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, rejected a Bush administration and Congressional Republican plan for regulating the mortgage industry in 2003, saying, "These two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis." According to a New York Times article, Frank added, "The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."




 Weak!

 Gram-Leach-Bliley act; Banking deregulation; Named for Phil Gram(graham?) (R-Tx) James Leach(R-Ia). Deregulated banking industry. Much of the problems today stem from this act. Look it up. McCain voted for it, Biden voted against it.
 This isn't a partisan issue. It's a failure of government. Both parties. Tar and Feather them all!

Offline alskahawk

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
Re: The Bailout
« Reply #83 on: September 23, 2008, 09:46:15 PM »
 340 million dollars for 5 years. Lehman brothers CEO compensation. Paulson as CEO of Goldman Sacs. 30 million.

Offline Donzo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
      • http://www.bops.us
Re: The Bailout
« Reply #84 on: September 23, 2008, 09:53:18 PM »
Weak!

 Gram-Leach-Bliley act; Banking deregulation; Named for Phil Gram(graham?) (R-Tx) James Leach(R-Ia). Deregulated banking industry. Much of the problems today stem from this act. Look it up. McCain voted for it, Biden voted against it.
 This isn't a partisan issue. It's a failure of government. Both parties. Tar and Feather them all!

Weak?  Did you read it? 

Can you explain how deregulation caused many of the problems today?

Offline Mr No Name

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1835
Re: The Bailout
« Reply #85 on: September 23, 2008, 10:32:15 PM »
Deregulation wasnt the problem, it was the gov'ts promise that if you make tons of cash available, especially to minorities, regardless of their ability to pay, we will stand behind you.  I wont repeat my diatribe from this: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247648.msg3040037.html#msg3040037 thread
Vote R.E. Lee '24

Offline alskahawk

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
Re: The Bailout
« Reply #86 on: September 23, 2008, 10:34:56 PM »
 Weak as in his answer was weak.

 Read the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Make up your own mind. It essentially leads to all the mess we have today, but thats my opinion.  
 It's more of a smoking gun than his answer. Republicans wanted it, they pushed it. Democrats wanted to make homes affordible for low income buyers. Clinton signed it.

Here's a little piece of it.

 "The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote largely along party lines with Republican support in the Senate[1] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[2]. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill only after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns.[3] The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1-1 (Sen. John McCain being the only U.S. Senator Not Voting on the largely bipartisan measure)[4] and in the House: 362-57-15. Without forcing a veto vote, this bipartisan, veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999. [5]

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[6]


Offline alskahawk

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
Re: The Bailout
« Reply #87 on: September 23, 2008, 10:51:42 PM »
Deregulation wasnt the problem, it was the gov'ts promise that if you make tons of cash available, especially to minorities, regardless of their ability to pay, we will stand behind you.  I wont repeat my diatribe from this: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247648.msg3040037.html#msg3040037 thread

 Ok so your contention is that there was a mass run on loans by minorities that caused this? Ok consider that the sub prime market is only about 3% of total loans made. Now how many of those were made to minorities? All of them? Your contention is more of a knee jerk reaction rather than a thought out analysis.

 
 
 

Offline Hangtime

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10148
Re: The Bailout
« Reply #88 on: September 23, 2008, 11:06:14 PM »
Weak!

 Gram-Leach-Bliley act; Banking deregulation; Named for Phil Gram(graham?) (R-Tx) James Leach(R-Ia). Deregulated banking industry. Much of the problems today stem from this act. Look it up. McCain voted for it, Biden voted against it.
 This isn't a partisan issue. It's a failure of government. Both parties. Tar and Feather them all!

I have looked it up.. was in fact the first to post about it, (on the 15th)  publishing the vote and the tally. And Biden Did vote for it and McCain did not... he didn't vote. I also pointed out, as you have; that the bill passed with what can be called overwhelming bi-partisan support, and I also pointed out the still-serving and significant senators that supported it should not be returned to congress.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247189.msg3031053.html#msg3031053
The price of Freedom is the willingness to do sudden battle, anywhere, any time and with utter recklessness...

...at home, or abroad.

Offline alskahawk

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
Re: The Bailout
« Reply #89 on: September 23, 2008, 11:36:12 PM »
 Don't know what you looked at. Here is where I looked at the vote.

 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1999-105&sort=vote


 I did like your take on it! Vote them all out!
« Last Edit: September 23, 2008, 11:39:00 PM by alskahawk »