PDA

View Full Version : Banking Crisis



cotts135
02-15-2009, 08:20 AM
This past week the House Banking committee had some of the CEO's from the major banks take a day off and have a chat with them. Watching this I saw the same old tired rhetoric I see from all these people in charge, whether that be the oil industry, Health care, Tobacco etc and that is " I am not responsible". For me it is time for these people to step up and admit the problems that occurred were due to some of the actions they took, and for them now to step down and hand in their resignations. These are individuals rich beyond are imagination. To continue to let them run these company's is to ask for the same problems we have now. These guys are looking out for there best interests............ not the interests of the people who now are on the hook for their failures. They will find loopholes in the laws that will enable them to continue to receive these exorbitant salaries and they will also make sure there companys will flourish with taxpayers money.
Having said that I saw a piece on Bill Moyers journal that I thought was particularly educational. I would recommend that any of you that are concerned about this crisis take 15 minutes and watch it.
I would be interested in your viewpoints and look forward to your comments.

Here is the link: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02132009/watch.html

subroc
02-15-2009, 08:47 AM
I doubt I will watch anything by Bill Moyers.

That said, is it always the fault of the CEOs? Do market conditions ever fluctuate and cause or exacerbate these conditions? If these companies are so inept, why is the democrat president and congress in such a hurry to bail them out? Should we just let capitalism work and let those that are destined to fail, fail? Is the government responsible in any way with their lack of oversight and inept regulation? If the government is responsible should those that made the regulation be held responsible? Lets bring Barney Frank and Chris Dodd out of congrss in handcuffs for thier inept regulations and obstructionist actions during the Bush Administration..

Another thing, is there suppose to be a steady state in financial markets?

It appears that some believe in a steady state for both financial markets and global climate?

Patrick Johndrow
02-15-2009, 09:15 AM
Maybe the democrats should talk about their manipulation of banks with “Fair Housing Accessibility” legislation and how “home ownership is an American right”

Sad truth is banks were making the loans the Gooberment required them to make by law.


Now how did that affect the banking business? Oh yeah...pretty much caused the failure...now why do the Dems get a free pass on this one? I forget.....

Jim Person
02-15-2009, 09:50 AM
Right on Joe, Frank and Dodd being escorted out of the capital in handcuffs and thrown in prison is long overdue. They are a big factor in the meltdown. Jim

Goose
02-15-2009, 09:56 AM
A chat? I beg to differ. What I saw was nothing more than political grandstanding by a bunch of scum-bag politicians...especially the democrats.

If these dirt-bag democrats were really interested in getting to the bottom of this mess they'd bring in some of their own to 'chat' with. Namely, Frank and Dodd and Gorelic and Raines and any other of the top executives at Fred and Fan who fraudulently ran these companies (and the taxpayer) into the dirt. And maybe they could ask Chris Dodd about his sweatheart deal with Countrywide Mortgage. He's never answered those questions. Does he get a pass because he's a democrat?

Or maybe they could bring in Speaker Comrade Pelosi and ask her to raise her hand if she ever takes trips on a private jet. Seems like the democrats hate it when important people with busy schedules fly into Washington on a private jet. Let's see Comrade Pelosi's ride. Oh, I forget...she's a democrat doing the people's work.

There's plenty of blame to go around in the private sector from fraudulent mortgage originators to the rating agencies and on up the scale to wall street executives. They're all dirt-bags too, but structured finance would never have worked like it did without politicians like Frank, Dodd, Gorelic and Raines pushing homeownership on people who should be living in apartments. They're the real culprits and should be in jail.

zeus3925
02-15-2009, 10:04 AM
That said, is it always the fault of the CEOs? Do market conditions ever fluctuate and cause or exacerbate these conditions? If these companies are so inept, why is the democrat president and congress in such a hurry to bail them out? Should we just let capitalism work and let those that are destined to fail, fail? Is the government responsible in any way with their lack of oversight and inept regulation? If the government is responsible should those that made the regulation be held responsible? Lets bring Barney Frank and Chris Dodd out of congrss in handcuffs for thier inept regulations and obstructionist actions during the Bush Administration..[/FONT]

Subroc--

Let me jog your memory a bit. The first big bail out of the banking industry was postulated and consummated in the Bush White House. Bush was conspicuously adverse to government oversight. Remember those billions that disappeared in Iraq? Those huge no bid, no paper work contracts to his corporate buddies to reconstruct Iraq?

I was also enraged at Congress over the bail out of Wall Street. I voted third party in protest.

The banking industry is has become invested with shysters. They have shown a remarkable talent for developing fictitious financial instruments. They have shown only an interest in enormous salaries -- so large that most of us couldn't spend one year of their salaries in a life time. They want you and me to pay for their corporate jets and high rolling parties. The problem is they are skimming your and my capital that we have entrusted with them.

Is government responsible? The conservative dogma has been to starve government till it is small enough to drown in a bath tub, so that it can barely function. We'll shrink government by withdrawing the inspectors and regulators. Look what that has given us. A banking system run amok, E. Coli burgers, undocumented labor, and peanut butter that kills.

Subroc, you have been most vocal in your condemnation of the passage of the stimulus bill and Democrats in general. Where were you when "W" and the Republican minions added $5 trillion to the national debt? I doubt that you uttered a peep. I suspect your conservative outrage is so new its eyes have not opened yet. If you were as vocal then as you are now, then my apologies.

Jim Person
02-15-2009, 10:31 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1

subroc
02-15-2009, 11:33 AM
Not hardly Sarge

At no time and in no place did I agree with the stimulus (stimulus 1) as proposed and enacted by the Bush administration. I didn’t agree with his passage of prescription drugs. I didn’t agree with his border policy. I loved his hard line with the UN and his appointment of John Bolton. I was completely on board with his invasion of Iraq. I was completely on board with his invasion of Afghanistan. I am completely on board with the debt that is needed when the nation engages in and wages war. As far as no bid contracts go, I believe all administrations have used them. I believe the current administration will use them as well. I have no problem with them.

Now as to banking rules for home ownership, if you ask me, derivative type products like interest only shouldn’t be allowed, even balloon payments shouldn’t be allowed. Home mortgages should be conventional loans only. But anyone that reads this that knows anything about finance will say rules like that limit the average homeowner/buyer to an onerous set of restrictions that are not fair to them and limit their options. In addition a strict set of criteria should be applied to the ability to pay the mortgage back. If Frank and Dodd were doing their job those rules and restrictions would be in place.

Now on to war: I was adamantly against installing that dictator Aristide in Haiti by Clinton. I was and am ambivalent to Clinton’s actions in Serbia/Kosovo. As an action to show and demonstrate solidarity with our allies it had a place. But in all honesty, I didn’t really care very much about what was happening there. I chuckled at the bombing of the aspirin factory. I was on board with Clinton bombing Iraq although if Bush one had finished the job, none of this would have been necessary.

An overview of a few things I believe as a citizen of the United States, how our nation should be run and how we should use our power.

Feel free to peruse the last couple month’s posts on the subject of stimulus 1.

Joe




Subroc--

Let me jog your memory a bit. The first big bail out of the banking industry was postulated and consummated in the Bush White House. Bush was conspicuously adverse to government oversight. Remember those billions that disappeared in Iraq? Those huge no bid, no paper work contracts to his corporate buddies to reconstruct Iraq?

I was also enraged at Congress over the bail out of Wall Street. I voted third party in protest.

The banking industry is has become invested with shysters. They have shown a remarkable talent for developing fictitious financial instruments. They have shown only an interest in enormous salaries -- so large that most of us couldn't spend one year of their salaries in a life time. They want you and me to pay for their corporate jets and high rolling parties. The problem is they are skimming your and my capital that we have entrusted with them.

Is government responsible? The conservative dogma has been to starve government till it is small enough to drown in a bath tub, so that it can barely function. We'll shrink government by withdrawing the inspectors and regulators. Look what that has given us. A banking system run amok, E. Coli burgers, undocumented labor, and peanut butter that kills.

Subroc, you have been most vocal in your condemnation of the passage of the stimulus bill and Democrats in general. Where were you when "W" and the Republican minions added $5 trillion to the national debt? I doubt that you uttered a peep. I suspect your conservative outrage is so new its eyes have not opened yet. If you were as vocal then as you are now, then my apologies.

cotts135
02-15-2009, 12:58 PM
No one has commented on the piece. It was about responsibility the CEO's of these companys failed to take and the peril we face if they remain in charge. Placing blame on one party or another is futile at this point. There is plenty of culpability for both parties. We need now to move on and fix the problem instead of pointing fingers. Here is the link:http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02132009/watch.html

zeus3925
02-15-2009, 01:01 PM
Joe:

Thanks for explaining your viewpoint. I think we are in synch with the banking system. However, there isn't much we can do about Frank or Dodd other than than open our wallets. Must be their constituents love them.

I am in synch with Afghanistan, but to take on Iraq at the same time was not bright. Bush got into two wars while cutting taxes for big shots. Maybe, he didn't figure that wars cost money.

subroc
02-15-2009, 01:09 PM
cotts135

Feel free to offer some viable options for us lay people to comment on. I expect you are waiting for someone to vilify and blame the bankers because they wouldn't say it was their fault. Maybe they don't believe it is their fault. Maybe they believe it is Dodd and Franks fault and were being polite by not pointing the responsibility at them.

cotts135
02-15-2009, 02:24 PM
cotts135

Feel free to offer some viable options for us lay people to comment on. I expect you are waiting for someone to vilify and blame the bankers because they wouldn't say it was their fault. Maybe they don't believe it is their fault. Maybe they believe it is Dodd and Franks fault and were being polite by not pointing the responsibility at them.


Have you watched the video??????????

Just don't think people should be rewarded for failure. These guys are tasked with making a profit. If they run there business into the ground they need to go. I am not here to argue what congress did, we can take that up in another thread if you like.
I would also like to know what rules Dodd and Frank violated.

subroc
02-15-2009, 02:41 PM
I think I was clear in the above post

I doubt I will watch anything by Bill Moyers.
His left wing bias oozes of him like pond slime. He likes to feature himself as an unbiased reporter. In my view he is the embodiment of everything that would be considered an example of extreme left wing bias in media trying to portray itself as unbiased and fair.

Mike Noel
02-15-2009, 04:40 PM
No one has commented on the piece. It was about responsibility the CEO's of these companys failed to take and the peril we face if they remain in charge. Placing blame on one party or another is futile at this point. There is plenty of culpability for both parties. We need now to move on and fix the problem instead of pointing fingers. Here is the link:http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02132009/watch.html

I did watch that and it is true that both the BHO administration and the banking industry are very snug in bed together. 80% of the Econ/Treasury team are "Rubinistas"....you know Robert Rubin, ex Treas secretary under Clinton, one of the original proponents of DE-REGULATION and one of the leaders of CITIBANK during the meltdown, and got paid $17MM in 2008. For those of you who keep blaming de-regulation of the banking industry on the Bush admin you should get your history straight....it started under Clinton.

Look at the trail of campaign $$ and it runs directly from Freddie/Fannie/Lehman/Goldman/Citi et al to BHO's war chest.

One misleading piece of info is the part where they play the Morgan Stanley conference call tape. That money they are talking about is not going to investment bankers but to retail brokers that work strictly on commission. The Citi/Morgan Stanley joint venture will not work if all of the brokers leave in mass.....and if they dont pay them a retention bonus then they will leave and get an up front deal from another brokerage firm.

Are we supposed to ask those who took govt/taxpayer funds to not compete and thus fail???? I want them to succeed.

subroc
02-15-2009, 07:19 PM
...Bush got into two wars while cutting taxes for big shots...

Didn't he cut taxes for everyone else that paid taxes too?

cotts135
02-15-2009, 08:35 PM
I did watch that and it is true that both the BHO administration and the banking industry are very snug in bed together. 80% of the Econ/Treasury team are "Rubinistas"....you know Robert Rubin, ex Treas secretary under Clinton, one of the original proponents of DE-REGULATION and one of the leaders of CITIBANK during the meltdown, and got paid $17MM in 2008. For those of you who keep blaming de-regulation of the banking industry on the Bush admin you should get your history straight....it started under Clinton.

Agree almost totally. Robert Rubin is just one of the few who is benefiting financially from running a Banking company into the ground. Get rid of him. Although Deregulation started under Clinton your implication that the fault lay with him alone is not warranted. Bush chose to keep the regulations in place so some fault lays with him.


Look at the trail of campaign $$ and it runs directly from Freddie/Fannie/Lehman/Goldman/Citi et al to BHO's war chest.

Can you back up this claim?


One misleading piece of info is the part where they play the Morgan Stanley conference call tape. That money they are talking about is not going to investment bankers but to retail brokers that work strictly on commission. The Citi/Morgan Stanley joint venture will not work if all of the brokers leave in mass.....and if they dont pay them a retention bonus then they will leave and get an up front deal from another brokerage firm.

This smacks of a entitlement mentality The culture at these firms and on Wall street is that if I work hard I deserve all these perks. Is working long hard hours limited to just these guys? Not hardly. Alot of us have worked hard and barely get by. These guys run companies into the dirt and get rewarded. I have a hard time accepting that.


Are we supposed to ask those who took govt/taxpayer funds to not compete and thus fail???? I want them to succeed.

I want them to succeed also.

Keith Farmer
02-15-2009, 09:05 PM
I suggest anyone interested in the "bailout" procedure read this and the book The Creature From Jekyll Island:

http://philologos.org/bpr/files/Misc_Studies/ms060.htm

KF

Mike Noel
02-16-2009, 07:39 AM
Agree almost totally. Robert Rubin is just one of the few who is benefiting financially from running a Banking company into the ground. Get rid of him. Although Deregulation started under Clinton your implication that the fault lay with him alone is not warranted. Bush chose to keep the regulations in place so some fault lays with him.



Can you back up this claim?



This smacks of a entitlement mentality The culture at these firms and on Wall street is that if I work hard I deserve all these perks. Is working long hard hours limited to just these guys? Not hardly. Alot of us have worked hard and barely get by. These guys run companies into the dirt and get rewarded. I have a hard time accepting that.



I want them to succeed also.

I was not trying to imply that Rubin was alone...he had help from cohorts and the administration that followed continued much of the same.

Just look at lists of top campaign donors that were/are public. I cant put my finger on one now but the financial services industry gave BHO and Dems a lot more money than the Republicans....perhaps they were betting the come on the election....perhaps not.

The guys that ran these banks into insolvency were not the brokers that are going to get these retentions awards. The brokers make REAL money for these companies, ie. they are all profitable. If they produce $X they get paid a percentage of $X, if they produce nothing they get paid nothing, compared to the investment bankers whos departments lost $100s of millions and they still get paid $5-$10MM.

I know a little about that as I employ about 20 of them. There is a real difference between the commission pay structure that these brokers are under and the salary-bonus pay structure that is in the headlines and drawing the most ire from the public.

cotts135
02-16-2009, 03:05 PM
I was not trying to imply that Rubin was alone...he had help from cohorts and the administration that followed continued much of the same.

Just look at lists of top campaign donors that were/are public. I cant put my finger on one now but the financial services industry gave BHO and Dems a lot more money than the Republicans....perhaps they were betting the come on the election....perhaps not.

The guys that ran these banks into insolvency were not the brokers that are going to get these retentions awards. The brokers make REAL money for these companies, ie. they are all profitable. If they produce $X they get paid a percentage of $X, if they produce nothing they get paid nothing, compared to the investment bankers whos departments lost $100s of millions and they still get paid $5-$10MM.

I know a little about that as I employ about 20 of them. There is a real difference between the commission pay structure that these brokers are under and the salary-bonus pay structure that is in the headlines and drawing the most ire from the public.

If your experience is what you say it is, and I have no reason to believe it is not, I will defer to your knowledge of what is really going on. It is my understanding thought and correct me if I am wrong, that in general the standards for Homeowners loans were drastically lowered. With that in mind it seems to me that those selling these loans or turning them over time and time again collecting commissions for their firm had no reason to stop even if they knew it wasn't right. They knew the risk and I am sure Senior Management also knew. It was all good when housing prices continued to rise and these firms raked in money hand over fist. When the market tanked and they were holding these loans that were worth more than what they could sell the house for they sought the help of the taxpayer.
As I see it they wanted to take advantage of all the upside but not take accountability for the downside. I believe alot of these firms violated the law and should be investigated.

Mike Noel
02-16-2009, 03:40 PM
If your experience is what you say it is, and I have no reason to believe it is not, I will defer to your knowledge of what is really going on. It is my understanding thought and correct me if I am wrong, that in general the standards for Homeowners loans were drastically lowered. With that in mind it seems to me that those selling these loans or turning them over time and time again collecting commissions for their firm had no reason to stop even if they knew it wasn't right. They knew the risk and I am sure Senior Management also knew. It was all good when housing prices continued to rise and these firms raked in money hand over fist. When the market tanked and they were holding these loans that were worth more than what they could sell the house for they sought the help of the taxpayer.
As I see it they wanted to take advantage of all the upside but not take accountability for the downside. I believe alot of these firms violated the law and should be investigated.

They should be investigated. My point is the investment brokers who are the subject of that phonecall about the retention awards that was played on Moyers show had little, or really nothing to do with the low standard home loans that got put into any of a myriad of mortgage backed bonds or any other securities. That was a whole other "division" of Wall Street that participated in that practice.

Dont confuse those investment brokers with the mortgage brokers who perpetuated the fraud that took place in putting people in inappropriate mortages....two distinctly different animals.

Uncle Bill
02-16-2009, 04:56 PM
No one has commented on the piece. It was about responsibility the CEO's of these companys failed to take and the peril we face if they remain in charge. Placing blame on one party or another is futile at this point. There is plenty of culpability for both parties. We need now to move on and fix the problem instead of pointing fingers. Here is the link:http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02132009/watch.html

You just don't get it do you COTTS...or whatever your name is. No sane person is going to G-A-S what Bill Moyers or any of those communist sympathizers have to say on Public TV. Same goes for your other idols in the socialist camp. So take your link and stick it where someone might care, and all your toadies can commisurate with each other.

Man O man, this bashing is fun. Just think, only 3+ years left. Gotta admit, DOING the arse kicking is lots more fun than being on the other end the past 8 years.

UB...just PO'd because Obama only gave Sodak 30 pieces of the pie, and Henry in the Peoples Republic of Minnesooooota got 335. Does that even us up now Henry????

DarrinGreene
02-16-2009, 07:09 PM
Maybe the democrats should talk about their manipulation of banks with “Fair Housing Accessibility” legislation and how “home ownership is an American right”

Sad truth is banks were making the loans the Gooberment required them to make by law.


Now how did that affect the banking business? Oh yeah...pretty much caused the failure...now why do the Dems get a free pass on this one? I forget.....

Simple, sandwich a Republican President in the middle for two terms and now one remembers the actions of the previous Democraps who started the landslide in the first place.

There are far more factors than the Community Reinvestment Act and the Financial Streamling legislation (Clinton) to consdier though, not the least of which is 911. Shame of it is that 911 could have been prevented by a Democrat too...

And now we're going to close Gitmo and let the terrorists go free...

Franco
02-16-2009, 10:44 PM
Good or bad, that is why we have the Sarbaines-Oxley Act. If corporate CEO's, Brokerage Houses or any corporate officers of publicly trade companies are falsifying the books, that law is there to protect consumers/investors. Their saleries and bonuses are set by the board of directors and that infomation is available to investors. Don't like the upside of their potential salery, then don't buy any stock in it.

What we have is the destructive policy of those in DC with nothing constructive to do other than to buy votes. Our Congressmen buy votes via handling out entitlements. Point being, our financial mess is due to the idoits running our county and not the smart, creative and schrewed CEO's with vision.

The former CEO of Freddie/Fannie did steal, lie and basically hid under the sheets with Barney Frank. They both should be prosecuted!

Marvin S
02-16-2009, 10:47 PM
At no time and in no place did I agree with the stimulus (stimulus 1) as proposed and enacted by the Bush administration. I didn’t agree with his passage of prescription drugs. I didn’t agree with his border policy.

Like you, I did not agree with prescription drugs, but you have to join or be hung out to dry when you have no insurance. The stimulus & mexicanization are just Bush's moderate side showing, & is is no better than his Dad. Rockefeller Republicans are somewhat elitist just a little less so than Roosevelt Democrats.


I loved his hard line with the UN and his appointment of John Bolton. I was completely on board with his invasion of Iraq. I was completely on board with his invasion of Afghanistan. I am completely on board with the debt that is needed when the nation engages in and wages war.

I believe that to be an investment for the future of our offspring. Notice that with Iraq working well there is no longer any mention in the mainstream media. Just criticism for the corruption in Afghanistan.


As far as no bid contracts go, I believe all administrations have used them. I believe the current administration will use them as well. I have no problem with them.

I would like to hear from someone who has a workable idea. These large companies that have the skills in place to do any job are not a dime a dozen & if you check their public records, they are not exactly waxing fat.


Now as to banking rules for home ownership, if you ask me, derivative type products like interest only shouldn’t be allowed, even balloon payments shouldn’t be allowed. Home mortgages should be conventional loans only. But anyone that reads this that knows anything about finance will say rules like that limit the average homeowner/buyer to an onerous set of restrictions that are not fair to them and limit their options. In addition a strict set of criteria should be applied to the ability to pay the mortgage back. If Frank and Dodd were doing their job those rules and restrictions would be in place.

It was a failure of the parties in power, mainly the D's, who failed to have policies in place to deal with the problem. Fairy Tale Financing!!!


Now on to war: I was adamantly against installing that dictator Aristide in Haiti by Clinton. I was and am ambivalent to Clinton’s actions in Serbia/Kosovo. As an action to show and demonstrate solidarity with our allies it had a place. But in all honesty, I didn’t really care very much about what was happening there. I chuckled at the bombing of the aspirin factory. I was on board with Clinton bombing Iraq although if Bush one had finished the job, none of this would have been necessary.

Clinton says - if he had been in charge we wouldn't be facing the issues we are today. :( :confused: :rolleyes: :eek: ;-) Like Carter, he just can't shut up. They had their chance & muffed it.



An overview of a few things I believe as a citizen of the United States, how our nation should be run and how we should use our power.

I think you will find many like yourself, we just need a party that will articulate that message.

Vicki Worthington
02-18-2009, 05:03 PM
Throwing $500, $600, $1000 at each and every taxpayer (or not) in the US didn't fix the problem. Keeping $8 each month more of your paycheck won't either. Ditto throwing several billion/trillion at the banking industry under the auspices of TARP didn't put liquidity back into the banking system.

Bottom line, Americans are overspent, overtaxed, and overwhelmed! Continuing to live beyond our means is what got us into this mess! It starts with the "little guy" who overuses his charge card, transfers outstanding balances to a new card, runs up the first card again, and the treadmill continues. It goes all the way to Wall Street and the whiz kids who thought the bad stuff would never rise to the surface.

It starts with the expectation that you "deserve" to "own" a house even though you don't have the wherewithall to make the payments. Sure some folks lost jobs unexpectedly which threw them into a tailspin, but even those people were overextended.

Whatever happened to having to have 20% down--that's 20% of the price of the house--to qualify for a home loan? Whatever happened to minimum incomes to qualify even for a Federally subsidized home loan? What happened to maintaining safe ratios of debt to income? Nothing changed except the desire of builders to keep building in an over-saturated market; bankers belief that credit is easy and should let the money flow; and activists beliefs that poor people should be given what they can't afford because other people who can afford it have things they want--entitlement.

You are entitled to the right to pursue your dreams. You, me or anyone else is not entitled to have them conferred just because we want them!

More spending? I think that will put a bandaid on an arterial bleed! We need to shore up our resolve, work through the hard times--not spend through them--and return to the values that set this country apart from all others--personal ingenuity and a work ethic! We need to maintain 6 months expenses in the bank or other source as readily available cash in the event of adversity. We need to live within our means. We need to work for a living, not expect it to be handed to us.

Uncle Bill
02-18-2009, 05:21 PM
Comes now the truly sad news, Vicki. Even if you DID do all you say, keeping your own house in order, as many RTFers did I'm sure....we are still gonna get clobbered. The printing of all the $$$$$$ needed to pay for those that didn't give a damn about where it all was leading, and I place the politicians at the head of that list, the money you have saved is soon to become as devalued as your real estate.

That's the part that chaps my rear so badly. I considered myself rather frugal, but my losses via my investments will be minimal compared to what my money will be able to buy shortly. Just look at what is happening:


(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDEe0Ai6lTM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDEe0Ai6lTM))

God help us all. I recall my Dad telling me about his folks going through the Germany devaluation...incredulous stories of wheelborrows full of money to buy basic groceries. We are just into the beginning of the real hurt of what our government is doing to kill this democracy. The sheeple of the nation have brought it to it's knees, and I don't think it will be returning to anything like it's prior self in my lifetime.

UB

Franco
02-18-2009, 05:27 PM
UB, not only is that video compelling, watch the one under it by Peter Schiff!

Obomonomics is financial suicide.

Bob Gutermuth
02-18-2009, 05:30 PM
UB I have some of the German inflation money from after WWI. Its scary to see notes for 1 Billion Reichmarks and think that a wheelbarrow full of them wouldn't buy a loaf of bread.

Vicki Worthington
02-18-2009, 05:35 PM
UB, I couldn't agree more.

I guess my rather lengthy point is that since fiscally responsible people didn't get us into this mess, perhaps the non-fiscally responsible should get us out--absent any taxpayer dollars!

My investments are a scarry sight. I hate to contemplate how old I will now have to be to retire. It may be safe to say they will simply cart me from my office on a gurney as retirement is now impossible.

Goose
02-18-2009, 06:30 PM
Eventually the government will take your IRA, SEP, 401, 403 or whatever retirement plan you have. They'll replace your money with an IOU similar to social security and promise you an income stream when you retire. You won't have a choice.

Extreme leftist-progressives don't think it's fair that you have money saved for retirement when the less fortunate among us don't. It's only fair you give up some of yours for them. Obama says we need to spread the wealth around. That includes your retirement plan.

YardleyLabs
02-18-2009, 06:49 PM
Eventually the government will take your IRA, SEP, 401, 403 or whatever retirement plan you have. They'll replace your money with an IOU similar to social security and promise you an income stream when you retire. You won't have a choice.

Extreme leftist-progressives don't think it's fair that you have money saved for retirement when the less fortunate among us don't. It's only fair you give up some of yours for them. Obama says we need to spread the wealth around. That includes your retirement plan.

Just out of interest, do you have any citations from other than extreme right wing sources for you assertions, or do you just make this stuff up for fun?

Steve
02-18-2009, 07:08 PM
Joe:
I am in synch with Afghanistan, but to take on Iraq at the same time was not bright. Bush got into two wars while cutting taxes for big shots. Maybe, he didn't figure that wars cost money.

Bush cut taxes for everyone, well at least those who actually paid taxes. Somewhere around 40% of the American people don't even pay income taxes. These people have no right to complain, but they are the ones who will bitch about tax breaks for the rich. People who pay no taxes can even get earned income credit, i.e. welfare.

I am sick of all the petty envy and jealousy of so many Americans. When it comes down to it, how much money someone earns is nobodies damn business.

Mike Noel
02-18-2009, 09:43 PM
Now as to banking rules for home ownership, if you ask me, derivative type products like interest only shouldn’t be allowed, even balloon payments shouldn’t be allowed. Home mortgages should be conventional loans only. But anyone that reads this that knows anything about finance will say rules like that limit the average homeowner/buyer to an onerous set of restrictions that are not fair to them and limit their options. In addition a strict set of criteria should be applied to the ability to pay the mortgage back. If Frank and Dodd were doing their job those rules and restrictions would be in place.
]

Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater. When I bought my first house in 1993 I knew we would not be there that long so I did a 10/1 arm. It got me down to a 5% compared to a conventional 6.5%....and it was P & I.....the difference back then was I had to qualify at a 7% rate! And I ahd to put 10% down;. Nowadays the folks that did those teaser arms or option arms only had to qualify at the teaser rate of 1 or 2% and they could borrow 110% of the value of the house! Thats pretty much anyone that can fog a mirror.

Balloon mortgages have been around since the 80's and they never caused a problem...and they didnt cause a problem in this current mortgage crisis.

The problem is 100% with the mortgage underwriters that lowered their standards and the idiots who made 100K a year and thought they really could afford that $1MM house. I dont care if its a 30 conventional fixed or a LIBOR ARM, if someone cant afford it they will end up getting forclosed on.

Derivatives have thier place in Wall Street and Main Street when they are used correctly. Credit Default Swaps have their place and were used mainly by the holders of cash bonds as a hedge....things got out of hand when they were used primarily for speculation.....kinda like the accupuncturist in Miami who bought 6 condos with option arms.....

T. Mac
02-19-2009, 01:08 AM
Anyone else catch the recent largesse of congress in raising the postmaster general's salary from $186k/year (2007) to $265k/year and then because he is doing such a great job (the post office lost $2.8B last year and is about to see its revenue decline for the first time since 1946) they also awarded him a performance bonus of $135k. THis brings his total income with perks and retirement to nearly $840k for the year! And they have the nerve to fault the private sector for their management! Oh, note that they say it isn't taxpayer money that is involved. Wonder where that $2.8B loss was funded from?

T. Mac

Uncle Bill
02-19-2009, 02:35 PM
Anyone else catch the recent largesse of congress in raising the postmaster general's salary from $186k/year (2007) to $265k/year and then because he is doing such a great job (the post office lost $2.8B last year and is about to see its revenue decline for the first time since 1946) they also awarded him a performance bonus of $135k. THis brings his total income with perks and retirement to nearly $840k for the year! And they have the nerve to fault the private sector for their management! Oh, note that they say it isn't taxpayer money that is involved. ? Wonder where that $2.8B loss was funded from?

T. Mac

"Wonder where that $2.8B loss was funded from?"

Oops. How mean-spirited and non-liberal of you to point that out. :rolleyes:

UB

Gerry Clinchy
02-20-2009, 01:08 PM
Being in real estate, I get to be close to the mortgage market.

Just want you to know that Fannie and Freddie are trying to clean up their act. To do this, they have raised the points that are assessed for "conventional" mortgages that are given to buyers with high down payments and high FICO scores. (Yes, that does say high, not low.)Why does this seem to me like they are picking the pockets of the taxpayers twice? Especially focusing on those with the deeper pockets.

However, there is some respite for these buyers. If they are within the FHA limits in the price of the homes they are buying, they can get an FHA mortgage with only 3.5% down.

FHA interest rates vary compared to conventional mortgages. Usually they are a 1/4 to 1/2 point higher; though sometimes they are the same as conventional. Nobody (mortgage officers) has ever been able to explain to me how those variations are determined.

Banks are also raising rates on their credit cards. So, if someone has been able to make their payments currently, they may find they are going to be deeper in the hole with the increase in those rates. Maybe they won't be able to make those payments at the increased interest rates and increased minimum payments? Ooops! The idea backfires & the banks get more defaults instead of less? They have also found "loopholes" to do this with those balance transfers that were supposed to be at fixed rates "for the life of the balance". They simply change the terms of the card to add a "service fee" to the account. In some cases this can effectively triple the originally promised fixed rate. These changes are then applied at the bank's "whimsy" without any disclosure of how they arrive at the decision as to which accounts they will be applied to.

Really gotta give these bankers credit for using their heads, huh?