Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: rpm on September 23, 2008, 12:58:29 AM
-
The text (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=business&adxnnlx=1222125908-RcS7SyWw55B/5555yC1iqA&oref=slogin) of the $700 billion government bailout bill is relatively short, very clear, and absolutely jaw dropping. In essence, it gives Secretary of the Treasury the authority to buy whatever mortgage loans he wants from banks across the nation and, heck, maybe even get pretty creative.
Proof:
Sec. 2(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act,
And what if he does something absolutely stupid or wants to bail out banks with whom he has past personal or business relationships? Get ready for the shocker:
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
I've never seen anything like what our federal government is doing right now. They are giving our money away and telling us to our face that there is nothing we can do to challenge it. And it's a bi-partisan slap in the face with a Republican president and a Democratic congress.
-
The text (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21draftcnd.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=business&adxnnlx=1222125908-RcS7SyWw55B/5555yC1iqA&oref=slogin) of the $700 billion government bailout bill is relatively short, very clear, and absolutely jaw dropping. In essence, it gives Secretary of the Treasury the authority to buy whatever mortgage loans he wants from banks across the nation and, heck, maybe even get pretty creative.
Proof:
Sec. 2(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act,
And what if he does something absolutely stupid or wants to bail out banks with whom he has past personal or business relationships? Get ready for the shocker:
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
I've never seen anything like what our federal government is doing right now. They are giving our money away and telling us to our face that there is nothing we can do to challenge it. And it's a bi-partisan slap in the face with a Republican president and a Democratic congress.
I suppose the complete and utter failure of the global economic system was the better, more rational choice? :rolleyes:
I'll take the bad solution over the catastrophic one, alex, for 700 billion.
I don't have to like it... and I don't, but it is the best of the two options. Deregulation, pushed through for the past 25 years got us here. We now need transparency and certain amounts of real regulation of the system to be put back into place.... you know, like they did when this happened last time..... 80 years ago. People who do the same thing and expect a different outcome....purely stupid.
One thing I do agree with you on....
Non-elected and non-accountable (read: non-punishable) individuals should not have this authority. That is one thing I am truly on your side with.
-
I'm sure we'll hear about a new Savings and Loans scandal in the next few years.
Worse yet, one of the arsehats responsible for this, Christopher Dodd (Senate Banking Committee), received money from a mortage lender and received rates well and above favorable. So, I suppose it already happening...
No, not everyone from Connecticut likes Dodd, in fact some of us know he is nothing like his father.
-
I suppose the complete and utter failure of the global economic system was the better, more rational choice? :rolleyes:
I'll take the bad solution over the catastrophic one, alex, for 700 billion.
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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/us/politics/23campaign.html?ref=politics) 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.
-
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. You voting for Obama now Moray or you just jumping on the latest bandwagon?
Doesn't matter who i'm voting for. Sharing that information could fundamentally alter this debate. I don't jump on bandwagons, either. I've been for the same individual since the election began.
-
So you are all in favor of turning the treasury loose to an appointed official with zero accountability for any action he may take.
Because that's what this bill will do.
-
I suppose the complete and utter failure of the global economic system was the better, more rational choice? :rolleyes:
If your an ammo wholesaler, distributor or retailer... yes.
In fact, I'm thinking of expanding into sandbags and MRE's.
And, no; no ammo for you, turtle doc. You can stand in line with the peasants at K-Mart 'n pay retail.
While supplies last.
;)
-
So you are all in favor of turning the treasury loose to an appointed official with zero accountability for any action he may take.
Because that's what this bill will do.
what is your plan "B"?
it's my understanding that the issue is that if we procrastinate, it'll blow up in our face and that 700 billion figure multiplies, I'm sure it is already a trillion just being sold as "only" 700 billion.
The whole thing is retarded. We are rewarding poor performance without any penalties for getting us in this boat. I think whatever action we do now is but a stop gap measure putting off a collapse for the time being but not eliminating it.
How much pork, that is not in the total, do you think they'll stick on this one knowing it has to pass and pass soon?
-
Wow, this is scary. :O
"Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.
Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu there
of $11,315,000,000,000."
I wonder why no one in Congress is calling for an investigation or Special Prosecutor to look into the massive fraud that has taken place. It seems like this would be a slam dunk. After all is said and done this will make Enron seem like nothing.
-
I wonder why no one in Congress is calling for an investigation or Special Prosecutor to look into the massive fraud that has taken place
Alas, there was no criminal acts committed here, mortgage lenders were brow-beaten into loaning money to people who never had a prayer of paying it back (in mid-90's they were actually given QUOTAS on poor/minority lending numbers---failing to meet said quotas was detrimental to their fiscal future) , and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac backed up said loans, with OUR money---mortgage people made a mint off points, closing costs, etc.....people who ran Fannie/Freddie made a ton of money....now all these defaults are trickling down into the rest of the financial world. (Greenspan warned of this very hting in '95...Boosh people made a little noise ~ 5 years ago about putting Fannie/Freddie under a regulator, but nothing happened.) I think this mess is bi-partisan for the most part, but I find it quite galling that Barney Frank is trying to point fingers, as he specifically blocked efforts to reign in this mess while it was in a much more manageable state
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_qgVn-Op7Q
That's the only sensible thing left to do.
-
This thing happened in Finland too. Banks screwed up royally. Call in government. Banks get paid off by tax funds. People still lose their property, money and lives.
Banks never pay a dime back from the taxmoney. Bank owners continue to raise profit.
It pays to be in banking business. :mad:
-
Alas, there was no criminal acts committed here, mortgage lenders were brow-beaten into loaning money to people who never had a prayer of paying it back (in mid-90's they were actually given QUOTAS on poor/minority lending numbers---failing to meet said quotas was detrimental to their fiscal future) , and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac backed up said loans, with OUR money---mortgage people made a mint off points, closing costs, etc.....people who ran Fannie/Freddie made a ton of money....now all these defaults are trickling down into the rest of the financial world. (Greenspan warned of this very hting in '95...Boosh people made a little noise ~ 5 years ago about putting Fannie/Freddie under a regulator, but nothing happened.) I think this mess is bi-partisan for the most part, but I find it quite galling that Barney Frank is trying to point fingers, as he specifically blocked efforts to reign in this mess while it was in a much more manageable state
Man you are so full of it your Avatar is brown... :D
No one was "brow-beaten into loaning money to people who never had a prayer of paying it back".. The mortgage companies wanted to lend the money to these people because it's where their biggest profits are. The lending companies wrote the damn bill that you are complaining about, they wanted less govt regulation, just so they could lend to low income people.
Why do you think credit card companies sign up college students in droves that have no jobs? Why because they know they will end up making huge profits off them in late fees and high interest. The mortgage companies did the same thing, it just wasn't college students with no jobs, but rather low income people who could barely afford the payments.
Hell it wasn't even low income, most of the defaults are from middle class working people who took on more than they could handle. So claiming it was low income people's fault is very far from the truth.
-
Mortgage companies LOVED lending money to low income people to buy houses.
They were to make a KILLING when the inevitable happened, they'd repossess them and sell them at a very tidy profit.
That was the theory. Pity it went tits up eh?
-
Eagler brought up something which is probably as shocking or important, as the wholesale investment of power into one individual:
it's my understanding that the issue is that if we procrastinate, it'll blow up in our face and that 700 billion figure multiplies, I'm sure it is already a trillion just being sold as "only" 700 billion.
It might not be a matter of procrastination, but whether or not anything was done quickly enough. If it is Too little too late, then what are the ramifications' of any shortfall in monies? Only certain people get bailed out, and not others?
And I feel the same as RPM does on this. There's absolutely no diddlying way that whomever is doling out this money should not be held accountable. It's like gov't. sanctioning corruption.
-
I suppose the complete and utter failure of the global economic system was the better, more rational choice? :rolleyes:
Let it die. The sooner we take control of our own money supply instead of leaving it up to international financiers the better.
The dollar lost 2% against the Euro in a single day recently because of this bailout scheme. Guess what the fed would have to do to prevent inflation after this blank check is signed...
-
Seems like they could just give everyone in the US 1 million $ and be done with it, and save a whole lot of money.
-
700 billion is only about $6000 per household in the US. Suck it up patriots, we can all afford it. That doesn't even include businesses, small and large, who have to do their patriotic duty as well. Although it seems all the large businesses are receiving more patriotism these days and everyone else is having to chip in.
-
:lol the BIG businesses will pack up and run faster than you would believe.
I'm willing to bet they've got nice plush offices picked out in Beijing already.
-
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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/us/politics/23campaign.html?ref=politics) 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.
I agree with you RPM, in that the language in that bill is absolutely scary. Unfortunately I think the language was intended to keep this from becoming an argument and delaying time which is critical for this bail out to work. In the end, it is just going to be abused, and not just by the Secretary. When the rest of Congress realizes that their invest house is collapsing, you can bet the Secretary's phone will be ringing off the hook.
The only fair thing I can see happening out of all this would be for the US People to be issued stock in each company that gets any of this money. Only when that money that is given back to the people (+ reasonable interest and increase of value) should the stock holders get a flipping dime.
-
You guys know the best part, is part of this 700 billion will include foreign owned banks. So American tax payers will be bailing out foreign banks.
-
:lol the BIG businesses will pack up and run faster than you would believe.
I'm willing to bet they've got nice plush offices picked out in Beijing already.
Yea look at halliburton, they moved or are moving their headquarters to Dubai so they don't have to pay taxes in the US. That's what "great American" companies do these days, to show their appreciation to the US after the tax payers dollars were given to them via billions of dollars worth of no bid contracts.
Go Team America! :aok
-
Yea look at halliburton, they moved or are moving their headquarters to Dubai so they don't have to pay taxes in the US. That's what "great American" companies do these days, to show their appreciation to the US after the tax payers dollars were given to them via billions of dollars worth of no bid contracts.
Go Team America! :aok
Well, crockett, when democrat law makers continue to suggest that American Companies pay more and more taxes, sane CEO's realize that they can not continue to be cash cows for a Congress that has lost it's mind. But hey, you already knew that... :rolleyes:
-
Make the politicians pay for voting for it. If your congressperson/senator votes for it, vote for someone else, and tell them why.
-
Well, crockett, when democrat law makers continue to suggest that American Companies pay more and more taxes, sane CEO's realize that they can not continue to be cash cows for a Congress that has lost it's mind. But hey, you already knew that... :rolleyes:
These companies get tax cuts and breaks just like a normal individual does. Hell many of them even get subsidies from the federal govt, so they are only paying the full 39% if they have some pretty dumb book keepers or making insane amounts of profits.
-
wow sd.. I didn't know you lived here.
I know builders and realators.. The builders were forced to build so many low income homes with every project and the realators and loan companies were forced to make the loans. Cities and states forced so much low income housing for every bit of growth.
This opened the floodgates.. once you approve "creative lending" (read, make up loans for people who can't afford em) you allow everyone in.. everyone becomes low income as the cost of housing skyrockets due to demand.
when the bubble burst you are left with a segment of people who should never have bought a home and a bunch of bad investment types all defaulting.
It had nothing to do with deregulation unless you call making it easy to offer idiotic loans to people who can't afford em "deregulation"
Some of the most heavily regulated institutions are going broke.. some of the least are doing well. It is not regulation or lack of it.
Please explain what deregulation.. the removal of what regulation caused this and.. what was the reason for said removal of that regulation.
The institutions that made bad loans should fail.. the ones that didn't should prosper.. any money that was spent to meet federal and state regulations to get "low income and minority" people into homes should be repayed to the institutions by the government and those requirements removed in the future.
lazs
-
These companies get tax cuts and breaks just like a normal individual does. Hell many of them even get subsidies from the federal govt, so they are only paying the full 39% if they have some pretty dumb book keepers or making insane amounts of profits.
Wasn't it your girl Pelosi and the rest of her leftist scumbags in Congress screaming about the oil companies making huge profits (even though they pay their taxes) and needing to pay more? Wasn't they (scumbag leftist's like Pelosi) misleading the public into thinking that the oil company's huge profits far out weighed what they paid in taxes and that they (the oil companies) needed to pay more? Wasn't it your girl Pelosi and the rest of that left controlled scumbag congress that was omitting the fact that oil companies make on average 7 to 9 cents a gallon on gasoline, while the federal government makes 18.4 cents a gallon?
What you fail to realize every time you whine about another company moving offshore is that it's all because some liberal whiney knucklehead in Congress is screaming about taking more money, even after these Company's pay their fair share.
-
You know, it's conceivable that a plan could be worked out that might even show a profit after all the smoke clears. But only in a Harry Potter/Star Wars kind of way. The problem is and always has been the betrayal of trust committed by employees if the various agencies we task with regulating these programs.
From what I get from the text it's a ploy to spend an enormous sum of money without any strings attached. No procedural mandates, no financial qualifiers, no accountability. Looks like the Patriot Act writ large.
It's nothing but a blank check seemingly worded to specifically open the door for massive abuse. If congress lets this pass, it's time for another "million man march". Only this time everybody has to bring a baseball bat.
-
Well, crockett, when democrat law makers continue to suggest that American Companies pay more and more taxes, sane CEO's realize that they can not continue to be cash cows for a Congress that has lost it's mind. But hey, you already knew that... :rolleyes:
Yeah, especially when it might cut into their millions in salary and bonuses. Halliburton had already begun planning to bail before 2006 under a REPUBLICAN controlled congress and presidency. Read it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/business/12haliburton.html?ex=1331438400&en=4f12642ec49b486a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/12/business/12haliburton.html?ex=1331438400&en=4f12642ec49b486a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink)
The Dubai announcement, which Halliburton made at a regional energy conference in Bahrain, comes at a time when the company is being investigated by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations of improper dealings in Iraq, Kuwait and Nigeria. Halliburton has also agreed to pay billions of dollars in settlements in asbestos litigation.
The asbestos thing is because they bought a company that was in litigation and isn't really relevent.
Anyways, those no-bid contracts to KBR, a company owned by Halliburton, which Mr. Cheney was running until becoming VP, have always been high on my list of deplorable actions our government has ever engaged in. No-bid contracts for 30+ billion dollars?!?!?!?! That's lunacy!
But honestly we don't have just one party or another to thank for all this. I think we have both parties to blame. They all gave into the millionaire lobbyist's that pushed and pushed for deregulations. The neutering of the SEC.
This all went down years ago. But look where we are now, the overvalued housing market popped. Banks that were making mad cash on giving loans with low beginning rates but lots of nasty fine print to people they were happy to foreclose on suddenly are stuck with thousands and thousands of homes that aren't worth what they were valued at 5 years ago.
They have nowhere near the real capital they thought they had last year. Their stocks nosedive. Now everyone's investments are tanking. On and on the effects trickle through our system.
I've rambled too much and been interupted a couple times writing this, sorry if it's disjointed.
Giving an unelected official a blank check with no oversight and such broad power will only lead to further abuse and ruin. Disgusting.
-
Well, crockett, when democrat law makers continue to suggest that American Companies pay more and more taxes, sane CEO's realize that they can not continue to be cash cows for a Congress that has lost it's mind. But hey, you already knew that... :rolleyes:
So, you support Halliburton moving to Dubai then?
-
The only fair thing I can see happening out of all this would be for the US People to be issued stock in each company that gets any of this money. Only when that money that is given back to the people (+ reasonable interest and increase of value) should the stock holders get a flipping dime.
You know...that's probably the most sense I've seen in this discussion. If we're going to have to pay for it (depending on our tax bracket), then we should be made part owners.
-
Great idea. Just ask the existing stockholders how well that worked for them.
-
Great idea. Just ask the existing stockholders how well that worked for them.
Up until the last year and a half it has worked fairly well.
-
Great idea. Just ask the existing stockholders how well that worked for them.
No no no, you don't understand. We need to employ the Eddie Lampert model as used at Sears and Kmart.
You come in and blow out the current shareholders equity and reissue stock to the new owner, it worked very well for Eddie.
shamus
-
.308 just went up $1.21 per round.
... the new economic indicator.
-
No no no, you don't understand. We need to employ the Eddie Lampert model as used at Sears and Kmart.
You come in and blow out the current shareholders equity and reissue stock to the new owner, it worked very well for Eddie.
shamus
Well, technically we are the new owners...
-
.308 just went up $1.21 per round.
... the new economic indicator.
Get into reloading. It is by far the cheaper alternative.
-
Well, technically we are the new owners...
Well in order to be real "Lamperts" we have to broom the liabilities as well.
shamus
-
I'm curious to see what the numbers really are. And of course where they're coming from. The document I read seems to leave the door open for associated costs far higher than the sum that's mentioned. And I don't see anywhere hard data that suggests actual foreclosures or delinquencies are going to collapse the economy. It'll hurt, some more than others but the occasional redistribution of equity can be healthy.
I can't believe, ok maybe I can, but the point is I think what the proposal suggests is that the Gov't. is going to buy these outfits receivables unconditionally. I see no mention of discounts or qualifiers. It almost looks as if Washington is looking to become the world's largest mortgage servicer which could be a good thing if executed properly. MAJOR if.
Looks more like the administration's looking for one more blank check before the turnover. From what I see this fund will evaporate long before $700b worth of real relief is realized.
The only sane answer is to let the private sector absorb the fallout. Let the government do the job it's already mandated to do.
-
DEAR SIR TAXPAYER,
WE ARE TOP OFFICIAL OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF MY COUNTRY WHO ARE INTERESTED IN IMPORTATION OF GOODS WHICH ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN WALL STREET. IN ORDER TO COMMENCE THIS BUSINESS WE SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO TRANSFER LARGE FUNDS OF $800 BILLION INTO YOUR ACCOUNT IN AN URGENT MANNER.
I MUST FIRST SOLICIT YOUR STRICTEST CONFIDENCE. THIS IS BY VIRTUE OF ITS NATURE AS BEING UTTERLY CONFIDENTIAL SO WE ARE UNABLE TO DISTRIBUTE TO YOU ANY DETAILS. SUFFICE TO SAY WE ARE UTTERLY TRUSTWORTHY AND THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% SAFE.
IN VIEW OF THIS, IF YOU ARE TOUCHED TO WORK WITH US IN SINCERITY BY TRANSFERRING THE APPRORPIATE FUNDS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WE SHALL EMBRACE YOU AS OUR NEWFOUND FRIEND AND COMPENSATE YOU ACCORIDINGLY.
AS YOU INDICATE INTEREST, PLEASE BE FAST TO CONTACT ME (LEAVENOBANKERBEHIND@TRASURERY.GOV) TO ENABLE ME TO GIVE YOU FURTHER INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS.
DO NOT HESITATE TO INCLUDE YOUR TELEPHONE NUMBER, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, BANKING AND CREDIT CARD INFORMATION AS THIS WILL FACILITATE COMMUNICATION AND COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT.
YOURS SINCERELY TRULY
SIR HENRY PAULSON
-
don't worry , the democrats will not let this happen , they want the economy to get worse so obama can get elected and save the country.
-
Myelo -
I laughed at work...
-
Chris Dodd's proposed bailout includes congressional oversight, a 1 year time limit, and shares of the buisnesses bailed out. Oh, he's a democrat. Sorry John, try again somewhere else.
-
what is your plan "B"?
it's my understanding that the issue is that if we procrastinate, it'll blow up in our face and that 700 billion figure multiplies, I'm sure it is already a trillion just being sold as "only" 700 billion.
The whole thing is retarded. We are rewarding poor performance without any penalties for getting us in this boat. I think whatever action we do now is but a stop gap measure putting off a collapse for the time being but not eliminating it.
How much pork, that is not in the total, do you think they'll stick on this one knowing it has to pass and pass soon?
How about removing this line from the bill:
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Are you seriously saying you want to give a blank check to an unelected official with absolutely no accountability? Eagler, I thought you were a smarter man than that.
At least John McCain has put more thought into this than you and most of the others here have. You MUST have accountability.
-
How about removing this line from the bill:
Are you seriously saying you want to give a blank check to an unelected official with absolutely no accountability? Eagler, I thought you were a smarter man than that.
At least John McCain has put more thought into this than you and most of the others here have. You MUST have accountability.
An unelected official who's last day job was CEO of americas largest investment banking house.
Screw worrying about rocking the boat.. time to sink the damn thing. (thanks Toad)
-
.
-
Chris Dodd's proposed bailout includes congressional oversight, a 1 year time limit, and shares of the buisnesses bailed out. Oh, he's a democrat. Sorry John, try again somewhere else.
You are giving Dodd too much credit. While he does inject some good ideas, he does it while injecting Congress.
Read the summary here:
Among the major provisions Dodd is adding:
* Authority for bankruptcy judges to restructure mortgages for homeowners facing foreclosure. This was considered a poison pill in a housing bill that passed Congress earlier this summer, but it has gained much more currency now that Washington wants to bail out Wall Street.
* A provision that would require the Treasury to take a 65 percent portion of 20 percent any profits it makes from the newly purchased assets and put it into the federal government's HOPE program, an affordable housing program.
* An oversight board that not only includes the chairman of the Federal Reserve and the SEC, but congressionally appointed, non-governmental officials.
* Limits on executive compensation. This is a major stumbling point for Paulson in his negotiations with Congress, but cracking down on Wall Street executive salaries will be a major selling point for lawmakers. Dodd and Frank have put in place what's known as a "claw back" provision aimed at revoking compensation that executives received based on fraudulent claims.
* An independent inspector general to investigate the Treasury asset program, appointed by the president.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/0908/Dodd_bill_much_more_aggressive_than_Treasury_plan.html
The actual legislation is here:
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_ayo08b28.html
Point by point:
I don't want bankruptcy judges restructuring defaulted mortgages. They are not qualified. That is best left to financial experts (which could be part of the clause). Judges can barely follow and place judgement based on the law without trying to interpret it or legislate from the bench. Why would we want them becoming mortgage experts too?
I like the idea of taking profits to pay back the loan to the taxpayers, NOT establish some BS housing authority for those that contributed little to this bail out to begin with. This is just another form of welfare at the expense of the rest of us that got our mortgages the old fashioned way, by saving up a down payment and not overextending ourselves when we bought.
Anyone appointed by those tulips in Congress will be nothing more than partisan imbeciles that will argue and slow the system until it is unusable and defunct. Let SEC choose a small panel that can work together. That's the best way.
As for limits on executive compensation, hey, if they negotiated the salary, then kudos for them. But, starting the day they receive any tax payer monies, their compensation needs to be tied to performance, and not a set figure. If they want the big bucks, great, make the company turn around from losses. Thats not to say a person that moves widget works from a $1 billion quarterly loss to a $100 million loss deserves nothing. This area is just too ambiguous and will not get through the house or the senate.
-
Bodhi, you do realise that the banks will get the mortgages paid off AND keep the property. The homeowners will still lose their houses. It's a win/win for the banks. Restructuring would be a much more acceptable solution to me. I'm no fan of welfare, especially corporate welfare. The rich get richer off my taxes with this bill.
-
Well, crockett, when democrat law makers continue to suggest that American Companies pay more and more taxes, sane CEO's realize that they can not continue to be cash cows for a Congress that has lost it's mind. But hey, you already knew that... :rolleyes:
Haliburton did this under George Bush.. how can yet another thing such as this, be blamed on the Democrats?
-
Wasn't it your girl Pelosi and the rest of her leftist scumbags in Congress screaming about the oil companies making huge profits (even though they pay their taxes) and needing to pay more? Wasn't they (scumbag leftist's like Pelosi) misleading the public into thinking that the oil company's huge profits far out weighed what they paid in taxes and that they (the oil companies) needed to pay more? Wasn't it your girl Pelosi and the rest of that left controlled scumbag congress that was omitting the fact that oil companies make on average 7 to 9 cents a gallon on gasoline, while the federal government makes 18.4 cents a gallon?
What you fail to realize every time you whine about another company moving offshore is that it's all because some liberal whiney knucklehead in Congress is screaming about taking more money, even after these Company's pay their fair share.
Once again you are short on facts.. The oil companies were given huge tax breaks and govt subsidies while they were making in those huge profits. It's simple, if you make those kinds of profits, well then you don't belong in the lower tax bracket. The only thing the Democrats were saying is we shouldn't be giving them our tax dollars while they are making these windfall profits.
It's your money and my money.. You talk about paying less taxes.. Well tax money that both you and I pay is going to the oil companies in form of govt subsidies. You actually think it's whiny that they were trying to save tax dollars paid by the average American, by not giving them in form of subsidies to companies making the biggest profits in history?
Is that what you are saying? Did you actually think about it or did you just squeak because it was Democrats doing it?
-
Bodhi, you do realise that the banks will get the mortgages paid off AND keep the property. The homeowners will still lose their houses. It's a win/win for the banks. Restructuring would be a much more acceptable solution to me. I'm no fan of welfare, especially corporate welfare. The rich get richer off my taxes with this bill.
(http://www.hangtimes.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/rocktheboat2.jpg)
-
Holy cow! Common sense coming from The Hill!
"I understand speed is important, but I'm far more interested in whether or not we get this right," said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
Sen. Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the panel's senior Republican, was even more blunt. "I have long opposed government bailouts for individuals and corporate America alike," he said. "We have been given no credible assurances that this plan will work. We could very well send $700 billion, or a trillion, and not resolve the crisis."
"Just because God created the world in seven days doesn't mean we have to pass this bill in seven days," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas.
Added Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., "I am emphatically against it."
"This massive bailout is not a solution, It is financial socialism and it's un-American," said Sen. Jim Bunning, R-Ky.
"After reading this proposal, I can only conclude that it is not just our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution, as well," Sen. Chris Dodd said.
-
So you are all in favor of turning the treasury loose to an appointed official with zero accountability for any action he may take.
Because that's what this bill will do.
Nope. I told you I find article 8 in that proposal extremely scary. I feel that Dodd may have a better, more thought out, plan. The speed with which they want to ram this down our throats is really a signature of the administration, and I hope congress pushes pause here for a bit.
As far as my vote, it has always been for the individual that has stayed cool, calm and collected, throughout the entire 24 month process/ ordeal this has become. Even though I do not agree with everything he says or does, I still support the more logical choice.
I'm not supporting the crabby, panicked, extremely vapid deregulator old man, running from position to position just to get a poll bounce. The shear number of, "what i meant to says" involved in only the past month with him are staggering. McCain was finished, in my estimation when his spokesman stated, "Senator McCain does not speak for the campaign." I'm really starting to miss the old McCain, from the first go round, who seemed alot more like what he wishes he was now. I would have voted for the old McCain. Now, though, he's having some really bad "senior moments"....which aren't just mistakes, and even if they were, when you're in the big game or presentation and know what you are talking about, you don't make those mistakes. He's damaged goods, and I'd tell everyone to stay far away from him.
-
I'm glad at least someone in Congress isn't just going along with the plan as written by Paulson and the Fed Reserve.
"After reading this proposal, I can only conclude that it is not just our economy that is at risk, Mr. Secretary, but our Constitution, as well," Sen. Chris Dodd said.
-
dodd is just worried about his kick backs, ah i mean campaign contributions.
-
It's real ugly..
In all fairness I will say that there is plenty of blame to go around and it can be shared equally by both parties...
The democrats for their social meddling and the the repulicans for making the sleazes feel they could cash in on it.
The solution will be ugly and we will all suffer no matter what these boneheads from both parties come up with or even if they do nothing at all at this point.
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.
lazs
-
It has been said that this bail out will cost the tax payer $3000 a person.
thats means women and children. your have 5 people in your family, it will
cost your family $15000...once again the tax payers get the weenie.
-
dodd is just worried about his kick backs, ah i mean campaign contributions.
Ever going to back up your little quips with some evidence or research?
Perhaps appologize for insulting me?
...chirp chirp....
Didn't think so.
Dodd is one of the few saying "whoa now!" about the amazingly unprecendented powers we would be giving the Treasury Dept. I have no idea what else he votes for, but I'm proud he's fighting the bill as proposed by Paulson and Co.
-
If your an ammo wholesaler, distributor or retailer... yes.
In fact, I'm thinking of expanding into sandbags and MRE's.
And, no; no ammo for you, turtle doc. You can stand in line with the peasants at K-Mart 'n pay retail.
While supplies last.
;)
Hang, you assume to know anything about me.
I'm well versed in the use of many firearms. I don't need to flaunt this on a blog, unlike most of you feel is needed. I learned from an individual who didn't talk a whole lot about the places his government sent him, if you know what I'm saying. I don't need a rack of guns in my home to feel protected.... just three. One for concealed permit (9mm), one for home defense(12-gauge) and one for "if the sht really ever did hit the fan" (7.62 mm NATO ).
Also, I won't need to stand in line and pay retail for ammo, so, don't worry about me. Thanks for your concern though. :aok
-
It's real ugly..
In all fairness I will say that there is plenty of blame to go around and it can be shared equally by both parties...
The democrats for their social meddling and the the repulicans for making the sleazes feel they could cash in on it.
The solution will be ugly and we will all suffer no matter what these boneheads from both parties come up with or even if they do nothing at all at this point.
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.
lazs
This all started from Slick Willys years in office..Liberals and their give away programs.The Clinton
admistration pressured Banks and leading instutions to lend more money to the poor and minoritys.
These people accepted the loans, then could not pay them back.
The Bush adminstration did nothing to stop it either.
-
Hang, you assume to know anything about me.
I'm well versed in the use of many firearms. I don't need to flaunt this on a blog, unlike most of you feel is needed. I learned from an individual who didn't talk a whole lot about the places his government sent him, if you know what I'm saying. I don't need a rack of guns in my home to feel protected.... just three. One for concealed permit (9mm), one for home defense(12-gauge) and one for "if the sht really ever did hit the fan" (7.62 mm NATO ).
Also, I won't need to stand in line and pay retail for ammo, so, don't worry about me. Thanks for your concern though. :aok
Jezzus Freakin grapefruit, Turtle Doc, it's joke. Cheer the hell up, yah thin skinned liberal weenie. ;)
-
I just love how everybody sets and talks about its the Dems fault, NO its the Repubs Fault. Who cares!! Cant change the past. Can only change what you do now. Nothing we say here will affect what they do in washington about this POS they are trying to pass. Nothing anybody on this board thinks matters to those who will decide. This is a problem brought on by all of washington. Not just one party. My uncle told me once, be careful how hard you party tonight, you still have to work in the morning. Well, We had the party, now we gotta deal with the hangover and still go to work.
-
Hang,
We still love you.
I use a Forrester Co-Ax press here. Bedded my M1A1 in a McMillan heavy stock with a third generation scope mount. It places 5 rounds rapid fire after heating up the barrel with rapid fire in a 4 inch group at 200yds. With a cool barrel slow fire it will do one inch at 200yds shot by some one younger and steadier than I. The local rifle range only has 200yd for long distance.
Hang in there Mr. HangTime...... :t
-
It's not the Repubs fault or the Dems fault. It's the greedy bankers fault for making those big, fat, juicy subprime loans.
Just because you really, really want to live in a McMansion doesn't mean you can afford it, even if your banker says go for it.
-
You're right Lazs, I do not live there.
We had a similar thing back in the '80s and '90s when banks were handing out loans to people who really couldn't afford it. I worked in Real Estate for a short term while my ex and I were travelling, I got to see how the mortgage brokers thought at the time. A lot of those people lost those homes as the banks foreclosed. Heck even now some who could afford 5 years ago them lost their houses recently due to the interest rate rises.
It's uncanny to think that back when this all started in the early '80s interest rates were huge, something like 14% BUT housing prices were much more affordable since only about 10% of a families net income was required to pay an average home loan off.
Now interest rates are at around 8% but it takes around 50% of the net income to cover those repayments.
I saw something like this coming a long time ago, I started to prepare for it back in 1994, unfortunately fate stepped in and now I'm starting from scratch with a whole new life.
If Sarah and I succumbed to the temptation a few years ago and gone onto debt to but a house we might have been able to afford back then, we'd be in deep trouble now. We instead chose to keep ourselves debt free, and now we are thankful for it. Things are getting considerably tighter, but at least we do not have to worry about paying off the mortgage or any credit cards. If we did we would be screwed.
-
It's not the Repubs fault or the Dems fault. It's the greedy bankers fault for making those big, fat, juicy subprime loans.
Just because you really, really want to live in a McMansion doesn't mean you can afford it, even if your banker says go for it.
The goverment pressured the banks to do those loans....its the goverments fault all of them!!
-
Bodhi, you do realise that the banks will get the mortgages paid off AND keep the property. The homeowners will still lose their houses. It's a win/win for the banks. Restructuring would be a much more acceptable solution to me. I'm no fan of welfare, especially corporate welfare. The rich get richer off my taxes with this bill.
I am not saying that. I said don't allow the judge to restructure that. Judges are there to ensure the law is followed to the letter, not restructure mortgages. There needs to be an independent panel that looks at the possibility of Joe Blow keeping his house. From what I am seeing though, there are far too many Joe Blows that bought homes they can not afford. Why should we structure it even lower so that Joe Blow benefits by being a financial idiot to begin with.
If it were up to me, I'd take all the bad debt in the name of the US government through the proposed buy out, place majority share of interest and ownership (be it company, mortgages, or widgets) in the name of the people and until all that money is paid back. If they do not pay it back, we keep it and sell it ourselves.
Hell, I just do not understand why that is such a hard concept for people to realize. If ya take out a loan with collateral and don't pay it back, you don't get to keep the collateral.
-
I am not saying that. I said don't allow the judge to restructure that. Judges are there to ensure the law is followed to the letter, not restructure mortgages. There needs to be an independent panel that looks at the possibility of Joe Blow keeping his house. From what I am seeing though, there are far too many Joe Blows that bought homes they can not afford. Why should we structure it even lower so that Joe Blow benefits by being a financial idiot to begin with.
If it were up to me, I'd take all the bad debt in the name of the US government through the proposed buy out, place majority share of interest and ownership (be it company, mortgages, or widgets) in the name of the people and until all that money is paid back. If they do not pay it back, we keep it and sell it ourselves.
Hell, I just do not understand why that is such a hard concept for people to realize. If ya take out a loan with collateral and don't pay it back, you don't get to keep the collateral.
The problem is, if they do what Paulson is trying to push, the banks will actually make a profit on their bad loans at tax players expense. He doesn't want us to just pay the needed amount to cover the loan, he wants us to pay a premium mature price on the bad loans. So that means the average joe gets no help out of this deal, but the banks get a profit paid for by the same average joe that just lost his house.
Why should the tax payer have to flip the bill for big business and the 7 figure a year CEO's that ran their businesses into the ground? Why should we get stuck holding the bad loans? The tax payer should own the stocks not the bad investments, and should have a time frame on selling the stocks to recoup the money "loaned" to the banking industry. Not own the stock for a indefinite timeline keeping it from becoming a nationalisation of the banking banking system.
-
Jezzus Freakin grapefruit, Turtle Doc, it's joke. Cheer the hell up, yah thin skinned liberal weenie. ;)
LOL.
-
There yah go. :aok :salute
-
Man you are so full of it your Avatar is brown... :D
No one was "brow-beaten into loaning money to people who never had a prayer of paying it back".. The mortgage companies wanted to lend the money to these people because it's where their biggest profits are. The lending companies wrote the damn bill that you are complaining about, they wanted less govt regulation, just so they could lend to low income people.
Why do you think credit card companies sign up college students in droves that have no jobs? Why because they know they will end up making huge profits off them in late fees and high interest. The mortgage companies did the same thing, it just wasn't college students with no jobs, but rather low income people who could barely afford the payments.
Hell it wasn't even low income, most of the defaults are from middle class working people who took on more than they could handle. So claiming it was low income people's fault is very far from the truth.
Ok...mebbe it ISN'T the Daily Kos, mebbe you get all your news from Ariana Huffington...no matter
The Clinton Administration felt that the Community Reinvestment Act, an well-intentioned idea in 1977, wasn't doing enough, so they stuck some enforcement rules in it http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/cra.htm
(pardon wall of text)
AUTHORITY OF THE FEDERAL FINANCIAL SUPERVISORY
AGENCIES UNDER THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT
The federal financial supervisory agencies lack authority under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 to provide by regulation that financial institutions that do not meet the credit needs of their communities may be subject to administrative enforcement actions under 12 U.S.C. § 1818.
December 15, 1994
MEMORANDUM FOR EUGENE A. LUDWIG
COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY
This memorandum responds to your request for our opinion concerning whether the federal financial supervisory agencies ("the agencies")(1) have authority under the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 ("CRA"), 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq., to provide by regulation that financial institutions that do not meet the credit needs of their communities may be subject to administrative enforcement actions under 12 U.S.C. § 1818. We conclude that the agencies lack such authority.(2)
I.
The purpose of the CRA is "to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions." 12 U.S.C. § 2901(b). To further this end, the CRA requires the agencies to assess an "institution's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community," 12 U.S.C. § 2903(1), and to "take such record into account in its evaluation of an application for a deposit facility by such institution." 12 U.S.C. § 2903(2). "Application for a deposit facility" is defined to include applications for approval to open a branch, to relocate a main or branch office, or to merge with or acquire another institution. 12 U.S.C. § 2902(3). The agencies must prepare a written evaluation of each institution's performance under the CRA, assign a rating to that performance, and disclose that rating to the public. 12 U.S.C. § 2906. The CRA also authorizes the agencies to promulgate regulations to carry out the purposes of the Act. 12 U.S.C. § 2905.
What the bold means, is if the stats say a bank isn't creating enough mortgages for people who can't afford them, the govt's shoves a football bat up their arse and prevents them from expanding their business,(research the term "Redlining") so they came up with cute ideas like basing the qualifications of the borrower on 3% rate, then even 2% part of the ARM, then progressively dropping stuff like debt-to-income ratio, down payment....having a JOB...NOT having to verify income history....sure they knew these loans would have a high degree of failure, but they were given license to make TONS of money with no repercussions
http://investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=306544845091102
-
Remember, they are talking about buying "mortgage related securities" not actual mortgages themselves. Big difference. This bailout is focused on saving the Wall Street axeholes, not homebuyers. The mortgages underlying these securities are not getting any help and will likely continue to fail. The kewl part is that this time it'll be the good ole taxpayer losing even more money while the Wall Street crowd will still be sipping Manhattans on the stern of their 250' yatchs.
Mortgage-Backed Securities - MBS
A type of asset-backed security that is secured by a mortgage or collection of mortgages. These securities must also be grouped in one of the top two ratings as determined by a accredited credit rating agency, and usually pay periodic payments that are similar to coupon payments. Furthermore, the mortgage must have originated from a regulated and authorized financial institution.
Also known as a "mortgage-related security" or a "mortgage pass through".
When you invest in a mortgage-backed security you are essentially lending money to a home buyer or business. An MBS is a way for a smaller regional bank to lend mortgages to its customers without having to worry about whether the customers have the assets to cover the loan. Instead, the bank acts as a middleman between the home buyer and the investment markets.
This type of security is also commonly used to redirect the interest and principal payments from the pool of mortgages to shareholders. These payments can be further broken down into different classes of securities, depending on the riskiness of different mortgages as they are classified under the MBS.
This guy has a much better idea:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/09/19/how-to-bail-out-ordinary-mortgage-holders-and-not-just-banks/
The government is talking about setting up a Trust to buy distressed debt then sell it again. The problem is that the Trust company will simply bail out banks at taxpayer expense without helping mortgage holders much. The mortgages it sells will still be underwater, or too expensive for many people to service, especially as their houses lose value.
The other proposal, just giving money to people to pay for their mortgages, is bad also. Housing prices are actually dropping, most mortgages issues were bad mortgages with horrible penalty clauses, based on assumptions about housing values which are just wrong. House prices are going to keep dropping.
What the government should do instead is set up a Trust to buy mortgages at a discount, then reset them to 20, 30 or 50 year fixed mortgages with a reduced face amount. If the house is later sold, half of the increase goes to the government, so that taxpayers make a profit. The mortgage cannot be paid off before the end of its term so that financial scavengers cannot come around and, as they did over the last ten years, say "get rid of that mortgage, and take ours. It's better. Honest!", because we know that when they say better, they don't mean better for the mortgage holder. The mortgage is attached to the property and is transfered to any new buyer. And the mortgage cannot be removed from the property, and any new mortgages attached to the property are junior to the government mortgage.
End results:
a) a floor is set for mortgage prices. (Whatever discount the government is buying at. Probably 60% to 70%, but it should be based on what the long run price was in the area before the housing bubble.) This ends the confidence crisis in these securities, because there is now a market price—what the Trust will pay.
b) It helps homeowners stay in their homes.
c) It gets rid of overly complex mortgages and puts in their place a dead simple mortgage that anyone can understand.
d) It punishes lenders, which they deserve, for making loans they should never have made.
e) While it does keep homeowners in their homes, it doesn't let them off scot-free either. In exchange for a good mortgage they can service, they give up some of the future profits on sales in their houses.
f) The government will almost certainly make a long term profit on this. This is important, because it's not fair for people who aren't underwater on mortgages to spend hundreds of billions or trillions bailing out those who are without some expectation that in the end it won't be more than just a transfer of wealth to them and to investors and banks...
...If they do give the administration what it wants, then Wall Street and the Banks just got bailed out, no help goes to ordinary people and you get stuck with a trillion dollar bill. Taxpayers get all the toxic assets, but Wall Street, who paid themselves more in bonuses in 2007 then 80 million Americans got in raises, keeps the profits.
Thoughts?
-
My thoughts are simple.... Let the CEOs and corporate numbnuts responsible for running their companies into the ground suck eggs. No golden parachutes... Let them draw the same pension percentage as the rank and file.
As for those peawits who bought more house than they realistically can afford.... I'm not getting any assistance for my modest home. I had the good sense to live within my means.
Tell ya what, let the feds fork over to let you keep your house... However, I expect your fat backside at my house every Friday to mow, edge and trim my lawn. That's how you can pay me back my portion of wasted tax dollars. %$#&*%$@
My regards,
Widewing
-
Don't suppose we could get 100,000 citizens to detain, try and string up these wall street scumbags? When banks failed for uncommon reasons or communities were defrauded in the 1800's the citizens some times would have necktie parties.
After all "We the People" have been defrauded and we are ultimatly the law.
-
I'm given to understand 5-8% of ALL subprime mortgages are in default (prolly more to come, as ARMs reach max in 5th year?) and there is a trickle-down effect through all of financial sector, which is going to make getting credit next to impossible for years (unless your credit score is WAY high)--that will stop our country in its tracks...might be interesting to watch. Fortunately, aside from kid going to college, I don't need to borrow any money...hopefully, that won't change
-
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
-
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...
(http://www.hangtimes.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/rocktheboat2.jpg)
BAILING WON'T SAVE THE BOAT.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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."
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/us/politics/23campaign.html?ref=politics) 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.
-
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!
-
340 million dollars for 5 years. Lehman brothers CEO compensation. Paulson as CEO of Goldman Sacs. 30 million.
-
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?
-
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
-
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]
-
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.
-
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 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,247189.msg3031053.html#msg3031053)
-
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!
-
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354)
-
Nice internet! 2 different sites 2 different outcomes!
Emailed them. Let you know if I get a response. It wouldn't surprise me if McCain did not vote. It was a bill that was going to pass with or without his vote.
-
Most of the damage was done by Clinton, Janet Reno and Barny Frank in the 90's. Clinton ordered the Community Reinvestment Act inforced. Reno made examples of banks that questioned it and Barny Frank chaired the committee that controled Fanni and Freddi and would not allow any legislation to thighten over sight on the two institutions. He helped force them to more creatively underwrite bad loans to undeserving minorities right up to the present.
S.900 was bipartisan and Clinton got a strengthening of the Community Reinvestment act in 1999 which helped speed up the bad lending practices. The deregulation of the banking industry was not able to protect anyone from using the bad fanni and freddi mortgage fund and investment devices for business as usual. The deregulation was modeled on how the EU banking practices had been running for quit some time partly to help american banks to stop being mired in litigation for almost every transaction between themselves or EU banks. Everyone bought the investment devices in the US and abroad because they had always been sound reliable instraments to use as secure trading devices.
Bill Clinton, Janet Reno and Barny Frank screwed america. A philanderer, a lesbian and a Gay horndog bent the US over and used sand.
So grow up, actually read these bills in their entireity and see when the seed was sown and by whom.
-
This all started from Slick Willys years in office..Liberals and their give away programs.The Clinton
admistration pressured Banks and leading instutions to lend more money to the poor and minoritys.
wow, who didn't see that coming?
-
DEAR SIR TAXPAYER,
WE ARE TOP OFFICIAL OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF MY COUNTRY WHO ARE INTERESTED IN IMPORTATION OF GOODS WHICH ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN WALL STREET. IN ORDER TO COMMENCE THIS BUSINESS WE SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN ORDER TO TRANSFER LARGE FUNDS OF $800 BILLION INTO YOUR ACCOUNT IN AN URGENT MANNER.
I MUST FIRST SOLICIT YOUR STRICTEST CONFIDENCE. THIS IS BY VIRTUE OF ITS NATURE AS BEING UTTERLY CONFIDENTIAL SO WE ARE UNABLE TO DISTRIBUTE TO YOU ANY DETAILS. SUFFICE TO SAY WE ARE UTTERLY TRUSTWORTHY AND THIS TRANSACTION IS 100% SAFE.
IN VIEW OF THIS, IF YOU ARE TOUCHED TO WORK WITH US IN SINCERITY BY TRANSFERRING THE APPRORPIATE FUNDS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WE SHALL EMBRACE YOU AS OUR NEWFOUND FRIEND AND COMPENSATE YOU ACCORIDINGLY.
AS YOU INDICATE INTEREST, PLEASE BE FAST TO CONTACT ME (LEAVENOBANKERBEHIND@TRASURERY.GOV) TO ENABLE ME TO GIVE YOU FURTHER INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS.
DO NOT HESITATE TO INCLUDE YOUR TELEPHONE NUMBER, SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER, BANKING AND CREDIT CARD INFORMATION AS THIS WILL FACILITATE COMMUNICATION AND COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT.
YOURS SINCERELY TRULY
SIR HENRY PAULSON
Myelo, FTW!!
-
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.
I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears if you haven't picked it up by now, however I will try to explain once again. There was "More" govt regulation in the past. The bill that was passed in the 90's "deregulated" (ie deregulated means less regulation) the market so the banks "could" lend money to people that didn't fit the federal criteria in the past. Meaning in the past the Banks could loan money to any bum they wanted to, it just wasn't federally insured and backed by the govt.
The Banks wanted to be able to lend more money to people that weren't currently able to be federally insured. The banks pushed for that bill in fact they wrote the freaking thing and paid off three Republicans to sponsor it in the House & Senate. I really wish you would quit repeating BS lies claiming "they were "forced" to lend to these people.. No one forced anyone they pushed for the bill. They wanted to lend to people that were more risky, however they didn't want to do it unless it was federally insured to cover their asses.
In short they were more than willing to lend to anyone they could as long as the govt backed them, because then it's not much of a risk now is it? I know I'm likely wasting my time, but call me a sucker for trying to actually explain the truth to you..
-
I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears if you haven't picked it up by now, however I will try to explain once again. There was "More" govt regulation in the past. The bill that was passed in the 90's "deregulated" (ie deregulated means less regulation) the market so the banks "could" lend money to people that didn't fit the federal criteria in the past. Meaning in the past the Banks could loan money to any bum they wanted to, it just wasn't federally insured and backed by the govt.
The Banks wanted to be able to lend more money to people that weren't currently able to be federally insured. The banks pushed for that bill in fact they wrote the freaking thing and paid off three Republicans to sponsor it in the House & Senate. I really wish you would quit repeating BS lies claiming "they were "forced" to lend to these people.. No one forced anyone they pushed for the bill. They wanted to lend to people that were more risky, however they didn't want to do it unless it was federally insured to cover their asses.
In short they were more than willing to lend to anyone they could as long as the govt backed them, because then it's not much of a risk now is it? I know I'm likely wasting my time, but call me a sucker for trying to actually explain the truth to you..
Agreed. Step back and look at who was making the money. Always look to see who's making the money.
-
The Banks wanted to be able to lend more money to people that weren't currently able to be federally insured. The banks pushed for that bill in fact they wrote the freaking thing and paid off three Republicans to sponsor it in the House & Senate. I really wish you would quit repeating BS lies claiming "they were "forced" to lend to these people.. No one forced anyone they pushed for the bill. They wanted to lend to people that were more risky, however they didn't want to do it unless it was federally insured to cover their asses.
That's pure spin. Glass-Stegall would not have been repealed without the concurrence and complicity of the Democrats.
From Wiki but it is a matter of record. The Dems required "improvements" to the CRA in return for their support of Gramm-Leach-Bliley; they got their "improvements and the bill passed.
"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 "
Now to the CRA itself.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mzk3MzFiYWY3NjUyNzUyNzA4MzYzNTk2ZDVhMDFiMWE=
"Much more problematic than Gramm-Leach-Bliley is the Community Reinvestment Act, a bit of legislative arm-twisting much beloved by Sen. Obama and his fellow Democrats. One of the reasons so many bad mortgage loans were made in the first place is that Barack Obama’s celebrated community organizers make their careers out of forcing banks to do so. ACORN, for which Obama worked, is one of many left-wing organizations that spent decades pressuring banks and bank regulators to do more to make mortgages available to people without much in the way of income, assets, or credit. These campaigns often were couched in racially inflammatory terms. The result was the Community Reinvestment Act. The CRA empowers the FDIC and other banking regulators to punish those banks which do not lend to the poor and minorities at the level that Obama’s fellow community organizers would like. Among other things, mergers and acquisitions can be blocked if CRA inquisitors are not satisfied that their demands — which are political demands — have been met. There is a name for loans made to people who do not have the credit, assets, income, or down payment to qualify for a normal mortgage: subprime.
The bankers cannot blame CRA entirely; they made a lot of bad bets on rising home prices. But CRA did influence lending standards across the banking industry, even in those institutions that are not strictly liable to its jurisdiction. The subprime debacle is in no trivial part the result of lending decisions in which political extortion trumped businesses’ normal bottom-line concerns."
Sadly, the CRA did result in political demands which were met by lenders and led us to where we are right now.
At least be honest about this. It took both parties to screw this up and they did a magnificent job together on that.
-
Wow. That media source doesn't appear biased in the slightest, does it?
[/sarcasm]
The banks were making bank off it. Follow the money trail. Who lobbied so hard for the deregulations?
-
Any of you who did not notice the increased pressure to loan to minorities and low income and to "diversify" communities that has been happening over the last decade or so is either really dense or really dishonest.
Once you encourage bad loans to any group.. the floodgates are open. the sleazes use the loopholes.. once you allow enough people to get credit that should not have it.. the bubble will form and.. eventually.. bust.
Regulation or deregulation had little to do with it. some of the most regulated are in deep doo doo.. some of the least regulated are profitable.
You simply can't make bad loans no matter how much the government tries to bribe or coerce you into it.
The government needs to get out of it. Other than to prosecute predatory lenders and dishonest lending.
lazs
-
It's biased.
Let me give you a little clue though. If one is intelligent enough to see the underlying facts then one should be able to disregard the spin.
The FACT is that Gramm-Leach-Bliley would not have passed without Democrats supporting it.
The FACT is that the Democrats required big changes to the Community Reinvestment Act in return for their support.
The FACT is that the Community Reinvestment Act led to a huge number of previously impossible subprime loans.
Did the banks make money? Absolutely. Did the CRA create a huge number of now problematic and failing subprime loans? Absolutely.
The point is that a discerning researcher reaches the inescapable conclusion that both the Republicans and Democrats are responsible for this disaster. Yeah, they supported different parts of the disaster but together they have nearly thrown the world into a huge financial crisis and may still pull that off.
-
The point is that a discerning researcher reaches the inescapable conclusion that both the Republicans and Democrats are responsible for this disaster. Yeah, they supported different parts of the disaster but together they have nearly thrown the world into a huge financial crisis and may still pull that off.
Yup. They both went along with it for their own reasons. Either way we're up sh*t creek without a paddle.
-
yes.. they both went along with it for their own reasons.. the socialist democrats pandered to the dregs with their community act and the republicans pandered to their sleazy business loan companies.
As you say..we are screwed.
The point should be inescapable tho.. no matter what side you are on politically.. you have to admit that government involvement got us into the mess.
lazs
-
It's biased.
Let me give you a little clue though. If one is intelligent enough to see the underlying facts then one should be able to disregard the spin.
The FACT is that Gramm-Leach-Bliley would not have passed without Democrats supporting it.
The FACT is that the Democrats required big changes to the Community Reinvestment Act in return for their support.
The FACT is that the Community Reinvestment Act led to a huge number of previously impossible subprime loans.
Did the banks make money? Absolutely. Did the CRA create a huge number of now problematic and failing subprime loans? Absolutely.
The point is that a discerning researcher reaches the inescapable conclusion that both the Republicans and Democrats are responsible for this disaster. Yeah, they supported different parts of the disaster but together they have nearly thrown the world into a huge financial crisis and may still pull that off.
Humm the fact is the act was sponsored by Republicans. It's even named after the guys that sponsored it. It was a Republican Controlled Congress which passed it with out support of the Democrats. It was a Republican controlled Senate whom passed it in conjunction with the Democrats.
The simple fact is the Republicans didn't need the Democrats in the House, as there was nothing the Dem's could do to stop it because the Rep's had such a majority. The Senate they required the Dem's to be able to pass it. The Dems agreed to pass it if the Repubs agreed to compromise on the bill.
So you say it would have passed with out Democrat support. Well big news flash.. It wouldn't have passed with out Republican support either.. Hell it likely never would have made it to the House floor with out Republican support. So take your blame everything on the Democrats idealism and shove it. :D The FACT is both parties are responsible equally!
-
I don't think you read his whole post. The last line he wrote is about how both parties are to blame.
-
Its funny when the liberals in this forum can't even see, that most agree it was both partys
that got us into this mess.
-
Umm...I see it. I know other liberal posters have mentioned it. Your just seeing too much of the righty and lefties mouth pieces chasing each other in circles.
-
Yea look at halliburton, they moved or are moving their headquarters to Dubai so they don't have to pay taxes in the US. That's what "great American" companies do these days, to show their appreciation to the US after the tax payers dollars were given to them via billions of dollars worth of no bid contracts.
Go Team America! :aok
You are disconnected from the facts.
The CEO of Halliburton move along with a handful of staff. The definition of "headquarters" is where ever the CEO is located (similar to what plane is called "Air Force One"). Hence Dubai is now the "headquarters". It has nothing to do with taxes. The CEO moved because the US has closed off much of the new oil/gas business so the Halliburton CEO moved to be close to the growth area for his business. Good for him!
Hallibutron is registered as a Delaware corp, has express no interest in changing its registered location and continues to file US income taxes on 100% of its worldwide business. All US registered companies file US income taxes for 100% of their worldwide business regardless of where they conduct their business. They can only avoid filing US income taxes if they change their registration to a foreign country, which is (almost?) never done, and physically move 100% of their operations out of the US.
-
I don't think you read his whole post. The last line he wrote is about how both parties are to blame.
Yea, I saw it, but the entire post was basically blaming the Democrats for all the wrongs, then the last line he says it's both parties fault almost as a disclaimer to try to slide by un scaved. ;)
-
You are disconnected from the facts.
The CEO of Halliburton move along with a handful of staff. The definition of "headquarters" is where ever the CEO is located (similar to what plane is called "Air Force One"). Hence Dubai is now the "headquarters". It has nothing to do with taxes. The CEO moved because the US has closed off much of the new oil/gas business so the Halliburton CEO moved to be close to the growth area for his business. Good for him!
Hallibutron is registered as a Delaware corp, has express no interest in changing its registered location and continues to file US income taxes on 100% of its worldwide business. All US registered companies file US income taxes for 100% of their worldwide business regardless of where they conduct their business. They can only avoid filing US income taxes if they change their registration to a foreign country, which is (almost?) never done, and physically move 100% of their operations out of the US.
"Halliburton is opening its corporate headquarters in Dubai while maintaining a corporate office in Houston," spokeswoman Cathy Mann said. "The chairman, president and CEO will office from and be based in Dubai to run the company from the UAE."
They are keeping a corporate offices in the US, just like they have corporate offices in other parts of the world for some of their other companies. The company HQ is now run from Dubai, and will lead to them eventually incorporating out side the US so they won't have to pay taxes. Sure the original company might stay incorporated in the US, but they will and already have other companies incorporated outside the US. The contracts will eventually be pushed through these corporate offices out side the US.
Moving to Dubi was just a first step and they will slowly start pushing the business through these other smaller companies of theirs to get out of paying US taxes. They just have too much heat on them right now to make to the big jump.
Just like Halliburton Products and Services Ltd has a office in Tehran and is incorporated in the Cayman Islands so they don't have to pay US taxes.
-
The point should be inescapable tho.. no matter what side you are on politically.. you have to admit that government involvement got us into the mess.
lazs
Yep. The Republicans removed the sheepdog and opened the gates for the wolves and the Democrats pushed a herd of lambs out into the pasture. Then they congratulated each other on improving the farm.
-
The FACT is both parties are responsible equally!
Congratulations! You are the master of the obvious!If you'll look back at the post you'll find you agree with me. You should do that more often; it would improve the impression you make here.
-
Yea, I saw it, but the entire post was basically blaming the Democrats for all the wrongs, then the last line he says it's both parties fault almost as a disclaimer to try to slide by un scaved. ;)
You probably missed this as well but I don't think it matters as I don't think you are a discerning reader of current event topics. The article was biased, as most are. But the facts are there if you are perspicacious enough.
Toad:
It's biased.
Let me give you a little clue though. If one is intelligent enough to see the underlying facts then one should be able to disregard the spin.
The FACT is that Gramm-Leach-Bliley would not have passed without Democrats supporting it.
The FACT is that the Democrats required big changes to the Community Reinvestment Act in return for their support.
The FACT is that the Community Reinvestment Act led to a huge number of previously impossible subprime loans.
-
Yea, I saw it, but the entire post was basically blaming the Democrats for all the wrongs, then the last line he says it's both parties fault almost as a disclaimer to try to slide by un scaved. ;)
His post was to show the democrats hand in this disaster, not to lay all the blame on them. If he was trying to lay all the blame on the democrats he wouldn't have posted that last line saying both parties were responsible.
-
"Halliburton is opening its corporate headquarters in Dubai while maintaining a corporate office in Houston," spokeswoman Cathy Mann said. "The chairman, president and CEO will office from and be based in Dubai to run the company from the UAE."
...
OK, so you agree that moving the corp headquarters had no tax implications but your original post implied the opposite. What Halliburton does in the future remains to be seen.
The extremely high US corporate tax rates do have the effect of telling corporations that they are not wanted in the US. Maybe some day the US will realize that. It better be soon.
-
I like what this guy said.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
-
OK, so you agree that moving the corp headquarters had no tax implications but your original post implied the opposite. What Halliburton does in the future remains to be seen.
The extremely high US corporate tax rates do have the effect of telling corporations that they are not wanted in the US. Maybe some day the US will realize that. It better be soon.
Of course it has tax implications. They just wont be seen right away. As I posted they already have several businesses that are set up out side the US in tax havens..
In February 2004, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on government contractorsPDF (774 KiB) that use offshore tax havens. It ranks the contractors in terms of the size of the contractors and provides information about how many subsidiaries the companies have offshore. Using data of the end of 2001, Halliburton ranked 30, had 17 offshore companies in tax havens, and 131 foreign subsidiaries.
Moving their HQ off shore will undoubetly be used in conjunction with these other offshore operations. The fact they will keep the parent company as a registered US company means little to nothing with all the stuff they already have offshore. They likely have to keep at least one company here in the US other wise it would be hard to justify all these big US govt contracts now wouldn't?
-
Of course it has tax implications. They just wont be seen right away. As I posted they already have several businesses that are set up out side the US in tax havens..
The issue I'm commenting on is just your post where you talked about moving corp headquarters, which is an insignificant accounting event. You (and others) believe this move some how has US tax implications but I've never seen anyone justify that claim with reference to US corp tax code. The most important point is Halliburton remains registered as a US corp thus subject to US tax code. They could change their corp registration to Dubai (or anywhere) without moving a single employee there, it's just legal paperwork, and not spend any money on moving. If you have specific info on how simply moving corp headquarters lowers US taxes, I'd be interested in seeing it.
As I said, given the onerous US corp tax laws, moving registration and/or operation in/out of the US is a something that every multinational corp has/is considering, unless they're idiots. Halliburton has exercised its rights to locate some operations inside the US and some outside of the US and that is their right, and it might make good tax policy for them depending on where they go & how they structure it. The current game is played according to the current rules. Change the rules (tax system) and you'll get different results.
-
Heard a old common sense prof talking on newshour. he says only loans should be offered to be paid with interest. no bonuses nor dividends payable until loans repaid. he disbelieves the "we gotta fix it now or its the end of the world" sales pitch.
i'm with the crusty old professor.
-
Heard a old common sense prof talking on newshour. he says only loans should be offered to be paid with interest. no bonuses nor dividends payable until loans repaid. he disbelieves the "we gotta fix it now or its the end of the world" sales pitch.
i'm with the crusty old professor.
Sounds like Allan Meltzer's plan. I think if we're going do this thing, that's be best plan I've heard yet.
-
Wow. Allan Meltzer for head of Treasury! Get rid of Paulson.
Thanks for the intro Myelo.
ALLAN MELTZER: Yes. I don't want to join a debate about different ways of picking the public's pocket. I think, if they're going to do something -- and I don't think that we really need to do anything. I've heard these stories over and over for 40 years. You know, maybe there will be a crisis.
But despite all the talk, Main Street is not doing so badly. And the fact is that they've been predicting disaster since January. It hasn't happened.
And if they're going to do something, then what they ought to do is make loans, which the financial institutions have to repay with interest. And if you think -- that's an idea which the Chileans have used in a bigger crisis than this for them in 1982, and it worked for them.
People paid back the loans. They weren't allowed to pay dividends until they repaid the loans. They weren't allowed to take bonuses until they repaid the loans. I think that's the way -- if we're going to do this, then that's the way we should do it.
-
It's biased.
The FACT is that the Community Reinvestment Act led to a huge number of previously impossible subprime loans.
Did the banks make money? Absolutely. Did the CRA create a huge number of now problematic and failing subprime loans? Absolutely.
The point is that a discerning researcher reaches the inescapable conclusion that both the Republicans and Democrats are responsible for this disaster. Yeah, they supported different parts of the disaster but together they have nearly thrown the world into a huge financial crisis and may still pull that off.
You are incorrect. Everything you capitalize and say "FACT" to - is, in fact, not a fact. In short, you are full of it.
I understand this is a coordinated campaign. It started as a paper written by conservative econ pundit Howard Haddock in 2000. Here is the original paper:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
In the last few weeks, Rove pulled it from his play book and fed it to Limbaugh and Hannity. Now, they have wingnuts here in the OC chirping it loudly, stammering words like FACT - without any understanding of the truth.
I don't even hope in my wildest dreams, to reverse the bias of the morans who are being spoon fed this noise from their radio idols.
I do, however, wish to point out that facts, and some actual academic research for those so interested in knowing that Repubs blaming Clinton on this are, in fact, lying right through their teeth.
To wit, here are the Federal Reserve guidelines on the CRA:
Evaluation of CRA Performance
Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions. Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should accommodate an institution's individual circumstances. Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.
The FFIEC also says the same in the guidelines book. Basically, it's up to the banks, and no loan should be undertaken that is risky. There are no quotas, no stipulations, no pre-determined penalties for failure to not lend to, as the O'Club mob of wingnuts like to say "scumbags". What they really mean is: colored people.
Here is a study by two University of Chicago graduate students (the dumber wingnuts in here will cry liberal bias, but everyone knows the U of C business school is home of the 'Chicago School' of economics, and Friedman's cult is alive and well, and has produced many of the most conservative economists around). What the study shows is that legislation had almost NO role in forcing banks to do anything, that banks were driven by profits. They already had actuaries running tables on foreclosure rates. They made the calls.
Again - the FREE MARKET made the call to lend this money. The CRA had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
http://www.moodyskmv.com/conf08/papers/cons_morg_cred_exp.pdf
It's sad, and desperate, and ultimately criminal - but expected - that pushed against the wall - the Republicans have to cry and moan and say "but...um... Bill Clinton MADE us do it! Waaahhh!"
It's a lie.
-
It's sad, and desperate, and ultimately criminal - but expected - that pushed against the wall - the Republicans have to cry and moan and say "but...um... Bill Clinton MADE us do it! Waaahhh!"
Your post reveals a definite partisan bias. I am disappointed that you have not attained a higher level of consciousness.
-
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.
I say that having as a condition of this bill an encouragement to loan money to people that is based on race, not solely their ability to pay is a very poor business practice. And no, giving loans out to people that are minorities did not cause this but giving the loans to them because they were minorities and unqualified to but property that was 100% inflated, then to loan them 125% of loan cost was, in the very least FOOLISH. Loan criteria should not have been decreased for any reason. The requirements should have been the same for everyone... income, down payment, credit history, everything.
-
Here is another salient fact, perhaps of interest not to the wingnuts, but to the sane viewer of this thread who wants some supported facts in their evaluation of this crisis.
CRA only covered about 15% of the lenders who made sub-prime loans.
Source: The Comptroller of Currency:
http://www.occ.treas.gov/workingpaper.pdf
Here is the money quote:
There is little data suggesting that banks themselves are engaged in predatory lending to any significant degree. The majority of mortgage loans to LMI (low-to-moderate income) borrowers† and in LMI neighborhoods are originated by lenders covered under CRA. However, CRA-covered institutions are primarily prime lenders. Between 1993 and 1998, CRA-covered institutions accounted for eighty-three percent of the growth in prime loans to LMI borrowers. By contrast, CRA covered institutions were responsible for only fifteen percent of the increase in subprime loans during the same interval.20 ‡
According to HUD, there were 178 lenders that concentrated primarily on subprime mortgage lending in 2001. The majority, or 112 (63%), were independent mortgage companies. Of the remaining lenders, 30(17%) were non-bank affiliates and only 36 (20%) were depository institutions or their direct subsidiaries. These depository institutions represented only 0.6% of the 6,423 depository institutions that filed HMDA reports in 2001.21 Rather, an overwhelming proportion of subprime providers are non-bank mortgage lenders or finance companies.22 Some of those lenders are independent companies others are non-bank affiliates or subsidiaries of insured banks.23
So, what you had were a bunch of cheeseball mortgage brokers. Selling crap paper to poor people. No Democratic legislation MADE them do it - they all did it for a quick buck. It's a nice try to blame the CRA - but it's a smokescreen.
Then, they sold that paper into the system. Credit swaps churned it around.
Now, who got conned?
If you let Bernake and Paulson have their $700B, then you did.
It's Obama's poison pill, fed to him by BushCo. And we all know it. He'll be saddled with a Carter like economy. With no liquidity in the money market, no short term lending is going on. The economy is grinding to a halt.
During his administration, you'll see Carter like double digit inflation, because the dollar will go to hell. Especially when UBS and other foreign banks DON'T get a bailout.
Interest rates are about to skyrocket. If you are considering a home now, know this: the value of homes probably has another 15% to drop. But that will be offset, because rates are about as low as they are gonna get for awhile.
Please don't let the wingnuts confuse you with the CRA smokescreen. It's bull, and a short amount of time on Google will tell you so.
-
Your post reveals a definite partisan bias. I am disappointed that you have not attained a higher level of consciousness.
Really, that's all you got? I expected more. Not much more, but a little more.
-
we are still not saying anything different here...
In the end.. this whole mess just proves that government screws up everything it touches.
"your government" is no better than the other guys in this instance so don't squeeeel that if your guys had been in power or control it would have never happened...
This has happened over both parties watches... it is the government meddling and the greed that took advantage..
How do you think the government.. our government.. could run a health care program for instance?
They screw up everything.. why do we want them to do even more?
lazs
-
They screw up everything.. why do we want them to do even more?
lazs
Did Eisenhower screw up the interstate highway system?
Did NASA screw up the trip to the moon?
-
I say that having as a condition of this bill an encouragement to loan money to people that is based on race, not solely their ability to pay is a very poor business practice. And no, giving loans out to people that are minorities did not cause this but giving the loans to them because they were minorities and unqualified to but property that was 100% inflated, then to loan them 125% of loan cost was, in the very least FOOLISH. Loan criteria should not have been decreased for any reason. The requirements should have been the same for everyone... income, down payment, credit history, everything.
I agree on the principle that any business dealing simply race is foolish. Since that bill passed there were many other things that happened. Speculators, house flippers(with no experiance), loans to persons (all races) with marginal or bad credit, no money down(80/20 loans)
Some where along the line some politicians decided to trump up the idea that its every Americans right to own a home. It is the American dream but with out a sound financial foundation the dream quickly became a nightmare. There is also the problem of "bundling of loans". Very few local banks hold the mortgage note anymore. Instead they bundle them all up and sell them. Doing this reduced the initial bank/mortgage companies risk. It also removed a lot of scrutiny at the initial loan application. :(
-
Here is another salient fact, perhaps of interest not to the wingnuts, but to the sane viewer of this thread who wants some supported facts in their evaluation of this crisis.
CRA only covered about 15% of the lenders who made sub-prime loans.
Source: The Comptroller of Currency:
http://www.occ.treas.gov/workingpaper.pdf
Here is the money quote:
There is little data suggesting that banks themselves are engaged in predatory lending to any significant degree. The majority of mortgage loans to LMI (low-to-moderate income) borrowers† and in LMI neighborhoods are originated by lenders covered under CRA. However, CRA-covered institutions are primarily prime lenders. Between 1993 and 1998, CRA-covered institutions accounted for eighty-three percent of the growth in prime loans to LMI borrowers. By contrast, CRA covered institutions were responsible for only fifteen percent of the increase in subprime loans during the same interval.20 ‡
According to HUD, there were 178 lenders that concentrated primarily on subprime mortgage lending in 2001. The majority, or 112 (63%), were independent mortgage companies. Of the remaining lenders, 30(17%) were non-bank affiliates and only 36 (20%) were depository institutions or their direct subsidiaries. These depository institutions represented only 0.6% of the 6,423 depository institutions that filed HMDA reports in 2001.21 Rather, an overwhelming proportion of subprime providers are non-bank mortgage lenders or finance companies.22 Some of those lenders are independent companies others are non-bank affiliates or subsidiaries of insured banks.23
So, what you had were a bunch of cheeseball mortgage brokers. Selling crap paper to poor people. No Democratic legislation MADE them do it - they all did it for a quick buck. It's a nice try to blame the CRA - but it's a smokescreen.
Then, they sold that paper into the system. Credit swaps churned it around.
Now, who got conned?
If you let Bernake and Paulson have their $700B, then you did.
It's Obama's poison pill, fed to him by BushCo. And we all know it. He'll be saddled with a Carter like economy. With no liquidity in the money market, no short term lending is going on. The economy is grinding to a halt.
During his administration, you'll see Carter like double digit inflation, because the dollar will go to hell. Especially when UBS and other foreign banks DON'T get a bailout.
Interest rates are about to skyrocket. If you are considering a home now, know this: the value of homes probably has another 15% to drop. But that will be offset, because rates are about as low as they are gonna get for awhile.
Please don't let the wingnuts confuse you with the CRA smokescreen. It's bull, and a short amount of time on Google will tell you so.
Had to read that quickly. Just a comment on what a lot of banks were doing. Lot of people would be surprised who actually owns a lot of payday lenders. Lot of big banks (citibank?) got into the high interest rate loan business.
-
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 DID look it up...you're wrong! http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1999-354
-
You are incorrect. Everything you capitalize and say "FACT" to - is, in fact, not a fact. In short, you are full of it.
LOL!
OK, to recap, here's what I capitalized:
The FACT is that Gramm-Leach-Bliley would not have passed without Democrats supporting it.
The FACT is that the Democrats required big changes to the Community Reinvestment Act in return for their support.
The FACT is that the Community Reinvestment Act led to a huge number of previously impossible subprime loans.
Item 1: From http://banking.senate.gov/prel99/1105tme.htm (The Senate's own site)
"November 4, 1999 -- Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passes the Senate 90-8 and the House 362-57."
Breakdown of votes from: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1999-354
This bill required a simple majority of 98 votes (50) to pass. It received 46 votes from Senate Republicans and Indpendents. FACT: It would not have passed without at least 4 Democrats voting for it. As it was, 34 Democrats voted for it and only 6 Democrats voted against it.
So on this, YOU are obviously "full of it".
I will address the other two but it's late for me and my computer is running so slow I expect I need to scan it. I'll do that overnight and try again tomorrow.
-
For those interested in the other two Facts just google up
"Gramm-Leach-Bliley Community Reinvestment Act Amendment"
and
"Community Reinvestment Act subprime loans"
You'll be started on your way.
-
I DID look it up...you're wrong! http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s1999-354
There's two votes.. the original.. without the CRA changes (see Toads notes above) which passed narrowly, but the administration indicated that clinton would veto it without CRA empowered. Then the 'amended' version 3 months later with the CRA additions and enforcement was presented and voted on, and that the president signed into law.
-
Rather, an overwhelming proportion of subprime providers are non-bank mortgage lenders or finance companies.22 Some of those lenders are independent companies others are non-bank affiliates or subsidiaries of insured banks.23[/i]
Absolutely true. Guys who had been nothing a couple years before were selling mortgages to banks left and right. Applicants only had to state their income, no verification required. The banks were duped, and then the international investment firms were duped. Now, we're the ones who are supposed to be duped in full knowledge that it's happening.
-
Did Eisenhower screw up the interstate highway system?
Did NASA screw up the trip to the moon?
Can't come up with anything in the last 4 decades? :D
-
Absolutely true. Guys who had been nothing a couple years before were selling mortgages to banks left and right. Applicants only had to state their income, no verification required. The banks were duped, and then the international investment firms were duped. Now, we're the ones who are supposed to be duped in full knowledge that it's happening.
The banks were anything but duped. They ran the numbers. They stood to make money and went after it.
Don't make them out to be the victims.
-
Have you driven on the interstate highway system lately? it is broke and falling apart.. for exactly the reasons we need less government.. because they are spending the money on social programs that they should be spending.. that we are paying in road taxes.. on the frigging roads.
The trip to the moon.. lets face it.. that cost one whole buttload of money and.. private companies will do it better and cheaper.. what did we get out of it from the 60's until today?
The only waste that we should support is raising an army and protecting the country. It is a huge waste but good comes from it.. the real space program was defense.. the cell phones and internet and GPS and all were products of defense.. the sats... not a trip to the moon.
medical improvements were war in large parts..
I will admit to one lefty useless government program that my hypocracy will bear.. the national parks system.. the beauty of this country needs to be preserved for all and not fenced off by a private developer.
lazs
-
The trip to the moon.. lets face it.. that cost one whole buttload of money and.. private companies will do it better and cheaper.. what did we get out of it from the 60's until today?
The space race pushed many amazing products into the public domain. How about the cordless drill?
Smoke detectors, pacemakers, breathing devices for firemen, water filtration systems and advanced home insulation are just a few of the products that NASA and the companies it works with have perfected. Lots of other cool stuff too. Just do a google search.
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/space/9811/03/nasa.byproducts/index.html
Claiming it did us no good is just ignorance.
-
Can't come up with anything in the last 4 decades? :D
Ronald Reagan giving weapons to Contras.
:lol
-
Can't come up with anything in the last 4 decades? :D
How about the Alaska bridge to nowhere? It's probably really nice and smooth.
The one that Palin was for before she was against it. While still keeping the money. The one that Ted 'about to see prison' Stevens helped push through.
-
Ronald Reagan giving weapons to Contras.
:lol
I am damned glad and grateful he gave weapons to ANYONE fighting communists. I wish we had given them far far more!!!
-
I am damned glad and grateful he gave weapons to ANYONE fighting communists. I wish we had given them far far more!!!
It didn't result in the overthrow of that country's government, though-Hell, Daniel Ortega managed to get elected back into power.
Now, to get back into the subject of the bailout...Saw this that might indicate some action:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown)
I don't see how they can make this work by trying to make Wall Street bail itself out, though...from the article:
Key lawmakers in Washington said at midday that few difficulties actually remained, although no details of their accord were immediately available.
"There really isn't much of a deadlock to break," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
But there were fresh signs of trouble in the House Republican Caucus. A group of GOP lawmakers circulated an alternative designed to attract private capital back into the credit markets with less government intrusion.
Under the proposal, the government would provide insurance to companies that agree to buy frozen assets, rather than purchase them directly as envisioned under the administration's plan. The firms would have to pay insurance premiums to the Treasury Department for the coverage.
"The taxpayers haven't done anything wrong," said Rep Eric Cantor, R-Va., adding that rather than require them to bear the cost of the bailout, the alternative "pretty much puts the burden on Wall Street over time."
Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, the minority leader, was huddling with McCain on the rescue. Earlier, asked whether the GOP presidential nominee could corral restive Republicans to support the plan, Boehner said, "Who knows?"
And Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama, the only House Republican in the bargaining meeting, did not directly say he agreed with the other lawmakers who emerged describing an imminent deal.