Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bush Wants To Bail Out Freddie MAC, Fannie Mae  
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2360 times:

Yes, this from the Administration that helped make it impossible, almost, for the average citizen to climb out of a financial hole. This from an Administration that said it didn't want to help homeowners recover from the Sub Prime fiasco.

Bush wants to bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Just breaking on CNN.com.

http://www.cnn.com/index.aol.html

Shows again that the GOP is more interested in the rich, banks and corporations than people. Well, let both have a taste of what the average American has under this crowd-let 'em drown.

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKent350787 From Australia, joined May 2008, 965 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2354 times:

After getting over the shock that two companies with such silly names as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae hold half of all mortgages in the US ($5trillion) (Eventually googled them and found that they used to have real names.)

Can you imagine the financial crisis in a US already heading well into recession if even one of these two companies collapsed? And the potential global impact.

I'm no GWB fan (what's the polar opposite?  Smile ) but such a move just makes sense....

Kent


User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2350 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
Bush wants to bail out Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

So what's your proposal? Let them collapse?


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2325 times:



Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 2):
So what's your proposal? Let them collapse?

Well, they got themselves into this mess, if they can't get themselves out, too bad.

Isn't that what the conservatives always say about people who are over their head in credit card debt? The people who bought a sub prime mortgage? If they can't keep control of their own house, why should I bail them out, with my tax payers money?

Get the drift? Bush and Co. made it tougher for the average joe to get "bailed out" when his/her finances have gotten out of hand. Didn't want to help people suckered by Sub Prime, but he's sure willing to bail out a big financial institution.

Why play different ball in this case?


User currently offlinePhotopilot From Canada, joined Jul 2002, 2737 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2324 times:



Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 2):
So what's your proposal? Let them collapse?

Absolutely.

The average American has lived with a false sense of entitlement for so long that the entire country needs a very rude, very drastic wake-up call. You have to learn to live WITHIN YOUR MEANS.

For far too long the USA has consumed the world's energy, borrowed heavily, run up a virtually unpayably foreign debt, lived on credit cards or "home equity" and believed that the debt would never be called.

Personally, I think the IMF needs to come into the states (just like they did to Argentina and so many other countries) and institute an austerity budget WITHOUT A DEFECIT and teach Americans to live within their means.

It's shockingly stupid to think that a country with so much potential is so far in debt (individually and collectively) and has the one of the lowest per capita savings rates of the Industrialised world.

Wake up USA, it's time for your painfull lesson.


User currently offlineMaidensGator From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2321 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Thread starter):
Yes, this from the Administration that helped make it impossible, almost, for the average citizen to climb out of a financial hole.

I hate to break it to you Falcon, but the average citizen doesn't need to climb out of a financial hole...  Cool



The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2316 times:



Quoting Photopilot (Reply 4):
The average American has lived with a false sense of entitlement for so long that the entire country needs a very rude, very drastic wake-up call. You have to learn to live WITHIN YOUR MEANS.

Isn't that what the GOP Congress was saying, when it slapped the Banking Reform on the American people? Never mind that it gave billions to the banks in the process. It made it harder to get out of bankruptcy; it doubled minimum payments. Yet now, the same President who signed that wants to spend billions to send the direct opposite message in this case.

The Dems should tell the president "You want to do this, fine. You'll sign the bill we pass. In it, we'll also take away the stuff that made it almost impossible for Americans to get out of debt with the Banking Reform bill. We'll scratch your back, Mr. President, if you scratch ours."

Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 5):
I hate to break it to you Falcon, but the average citizen doesn't need to climb out of a financial hole...

Actually, MaidensGator, but most average citizens in the U.S. ARE in a financial hole, when it comes to being in debt up to their freaking ears.

My wife and I just dug out of it-by borrowing against my retirement, using funds in my 401k, paying myself back with interest. Not everyone can do that. So, as usual, you have it all wrong.


User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2314 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
Well, they got themselves into this mess, if they can't get themselves out, too bad.

Isn't that what the conservatives always say about people who are over their head in credit card debt? The people who bought a sub prime mortgage? If they can't keep control of their own house, why should I bail them out, with my tax payers money?

Get the drift? Bush and Co. made it tougher for the average joe to get "bailed out" when his/her finances have gotten out of hand. Didn't want to help people suckered by Sub Prime, but he's sure willing to bail out a big financial institution.

Why play different ball in this case?

Because it's extremely narrowsighted and frankly, a little uninformed to simply look at this from a partisan political perspective.

This goes WAY beyond subprimes--Freddie and Fannie back a LOT more than just that, including a HUGE number of regular mortgages. If nothing is done to shore them up (and I'm not yet convinced they have reached that stage yet), you can forget about the "average guy" ever getting a mortgage again. Freddie and Fannie drive a great portion of the housing market: banks originate mortgage loans and then immediately sell them to Freddie and Fannie, which is what gives banks the liquidity to continue originating loans to new buyers (or in the alternative, Fannie and Freddie back those mortgages that the banks originate). If that capital flow gets cut off (we're talking trillions of dollars), the people that will really get hurt are the ones you speak of, the "average joe". So much money would get sucked out of the economy that you'd be better off keeping your money in your mattress.

Not to mention the fact that on the back end of this, if one or both of them were to fail, all the currently outstanding securities that Fannie and Freddie have sold (to raise the capital they need to pay the banks for the original mortgages) would then become practically worthless overnight. That's hundreds of billions of dollars down the drain. We're not talking about a mere ripple in the US economy or even a recession-causing event, we're talking a depression scenario, to put it mildly. You want that? I don't.


User currently offlineMaidensGator From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 945 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2313 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6):
Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 5):
I hate to break it to you Falcon, but the average citizen doesn't need to climb out of a financial hole...

Actually, MaidensGator, but most average citizens in the U.S. ARE in a financial hole, when it comes to being in debt up to their freaking ears.

My wife and I just dug out of it-by borrowing against my retirement, using funds in my 401k, paying myself back with interest. Not everyone can do that. So, as usual, you have it all wrong.

While many people have overextended themselves, it is by no means a large enough percentage of the population to be considered average... Maybe you have some facts to contradict me, besides your personal situation?



The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
User currently offlineCadet57 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 9085 posts, RR: 30
Reply 9, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2304 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 6):
Actually, MaidensGator, but most average citizens in the U.S. ARE in a financial hole, when it comes to being in debt up to their freaking ears.

Can you produce some numbers that show most average citizens are in debt? Furthermore what is you definiton of debt? I have about 1700 total left on my credit cards but At my current payment of 50 a week It'll be paid down in about 8 months. So by march of 09 I'll be credit card free. A great feeling. Next is my god forsaken student loans and my car for the next 4years.



Doors open, right hand side, next stop is Springfield.
User currently offlineQANTAS077 From Australia, joined Jan 2004, 5855 posts, RR: 39
Reply 10, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2261 times:



Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 2):
So what's your proposal? Let them collapse?

its not the business of government to bail out private companies which find themselves in trouble...

Quoting MaidensGator (Reply 5):
but the average citizen doesn't need to climb out of a financial hole...

but the average citizen from any country certainly knows how to bury themselves head deep in debt...its a tough job keeping up with the Jones'.  Smile

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
Well, they got themselves into this mess, if they can't get themselves out, too bad.

don't agree with you on much, but this I 110% agree with.



a true friend is someone who sees the pain in your eyes, while everyone else believes the smile on your face.
User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2241 times:



Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 10):
its not the business of government to bail out private companies which find themselves in trouble...

Do some research then on the foundations of Freddie and Fannie. They aren't completely private companies; never have been.

Further, it is the business of the government to manage the economy to the extent that it can--it's been that way the better part of a century (at least in the US), so let's get past the laissez faire crap. Government regulates the economy all over the place, and that's not going to change. It is the responsibility of government to avoid a widespread global panic and financial disaster, which it can do by giving institutions time to fix problems, and by looking at current and proposed regulations to protect against this occurring in the future. Undoing this mess (which is not impossible, but it will be if Fannie or Freddie collapses) takes time--regulations don't go into effect overnight.

Quoting QANTAS077 (Reply 10):
but the average citizen from any country certainly knows how to bury themselves head deep in debt...its a tough job keeping up with the Jones'.

People need to stop obsessing themselves with the micro level (waaaaaaah! it's Joe Q. Public's fault!! He shouldn't have those credit cards!!!!)--this is occurring on a much higher macro level than most people understand (since they have no idea how these things are actually structured). There is a systemic liquidity problem right now in the financial system--and Fannie and Freddie going under would make it about 10 times worse. And guess what? If it all falls apart, the US would be taking most of the rest of the developed world with it. Where do you think a lot of the people buying securities issued by Fannie and Freddie (and other issuers) come from? Canada, Europe and Asia.


User currently offlineMax550 From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 1150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2233 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
Well, they got themselves into this mess, if they can't get themselves out, too bad.

I have to disagree with you, we can't let them fail.
I wish we could let them fail, since it's starting to look like you can run a company into the ground, make your money, and have the government take care of the mess you leave behind. But on the other hand, the government should be keeping track of what these companies are doing when they control so much of our money.
The Bush administration has decided that we should let them run themselves how they see fit and the market will take care of the rest. Unfortunately, that's not always how it works. Government isn't always bad. They need to provide some oversight of what these companies are doing so stuff like this doesn't happen anymore.


User currently offlineRoadrunner165 From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 874 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2211 times:



Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 3):
Well, they got themselves into this mess, if they can't get themselves out, too bad.

This will result in an economic depression, and that is not good for anyone.

Adam


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2200 times:



Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 7):
Because it's extremely narrowsighted and frankly, a little uninformed to simply look at this from a partisan political perspective.

I'm just putting the shoe on the other foot. When it comes to people-individuals-this Administration doesn't give a damn. But when it comes to big corporations, or financianl instiatutions, or the wealthy, the policy is "the more help we can give them, the better."

I am NOT advocating that they be allowed to fail. But I am trying to point out the hypocrisy of this Administration when it comes to how differently they treat the average Joe, and how they treat corproations like this.

I think, if anything, the government should stay out of it, except to try to facilitate other lending institutions in shoring up Mac and Mae. It shouldn't be our tax money doing it, but other lending and financial instiatutions.

But the hypocrisy of this Administration is just breathtaking, and I hope that's been pointed out.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8149 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2183 times:



Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 2):

So what's your proposal? Let them collapse?

According to several respected economists, the impacts are not as dire as some would have you believe.

First, notice that the hit that bondholders will take will be limited in the absence of their bailout. With a debt/liabilities of about $5 trillion and expected insolvency – as of now and in the worst scenario of $200 to $300 billion – the necessary haircut is relatively modest: either a reduction in the face value of the claims of the order of 5% (if the mid-point hole is $250 billion) or – for unchanged face value – a very modest reduction in the interest rate on their debt after it has been forcibly restructured.

and further...

Fifth, a haircut on the debt of the GSEs does not need to destroy their business, the mortgage market or the housing market. The best debtor is a solvent debtor that has restructured and reduced its unsustainable debt burden: that is why firms coming out of a Chapter 11 process that reduces their debt burdens are viable businesses ready again to produce goods and services in a viable and profitable way. The worst thing that can happen to the GSEs is to remain as zombie comatose insolvent institutions whose debt burden is not restructured and who are barely propped by an implicit government lifeline. Do we really believe that GSEs with unrestructured debt kept alive in a zombie government “conservatorship” (the solution now most likely preferred by the U.S. administration) could function properly and continue their service of supporting the mortgage and housing market? Lets instead clean them up first and make them financially viable – after an out-of-court Chapter 11 style debt reduction – so as to ensure that they keep on providing the public goods that they are alleged to give.

The above are all comments from NYU's Nouriel Roubini, who has been right about almost everything that has unfolded the last five years.

In any case you are absolutely nuts if you believe further subsidization of US housing capital is either the right or wise thing to do.

William Buiter of the FT, another guy who has rarely been wrong the last few years, is far more scathing, now accusing Paulson and the rest of the current financial establishment as being guilty of fomenting a new direction in American socialism, for the rich and nobody else.

http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2008/0...nnie-and-freddie-charade/#more-279

There are many forms of socialism. The version practiced in the US is the most deceitful one I know. An honest, courageous socialist government would say: this is a worthwhile social purpose (financing home ownership, helping my friends on Wall Street); therefore I am going to subsidize it; and here are the additional taxes (or cuts in other public spending) to finance it.

Instead the dishonest, spineless socialist policy makers in successive Democratic and Republican admininstrations have systematically tried to hide both the subsidies and size and distribution of the incremental fiscal burden associated with the provision of these subsidies, behind an endless array of opaque arrangements and institutions. Off-balance-sheet vehicles and off-budget financing were the bread and butter of the US federal government long before they became popular in Wall Street and the City of London.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineRJdxer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 2169 times:



Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 11):
Do some research then on the foundations of Freddie and Fannie. They aren't completely private companies; never have been.

Not Falcons strong point. Let me help him yet again.

http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html

I don't expect you to change your opinion publicly Falcon but perhaps you'll understand the situation a little better. I don't know that dipping into your 401k was the best move but you are more keenly aware of your financial situation than any of us. I would like to see the numbers that says the average Joe is coming apart at the seams financially. I still maintain that it is buyer beware when buying anything be it an orange at the grocery story or a home mortgage. No one put a gun to anyone's head and made them sign on the dotted line.


User currently offlineHuskyAviation From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1152 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days ago) and read 2153 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 15):
First, notice that the hit that bondholders will take will be limited in the absence of their bailout. With a debt/liabilities of about $5 trillion and expected insolvency – as of now and in the worst scenario of $200 to $300 billion – the necessary haircut is relatively modest: either a reduction in the face value of the claims of the order of 5% (if the mid-point hole is $250 billion) or – for unchanged face value – a very modest reduction in the interest rate on their debt after it has been forcibly restructured.

Which says nothing about mark-to-market value of those securities--or what will happen to the secondary market of those securities. The ability of those institutions to continue funding--and securitization is the only way any large institution can continue to fund itself when issuing large amounts of credit to other institutions or to individual borrowers--will become very limited, as the perceived risk of those securities either (1) makes it too expensive for the institution to issue securities because the interest rates they pay are too high, or (2) investors won't buy them because the historical performance in the secondary markets is crap. Once they go into bankruptcy, there is no going back.

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 15):
There are many forms of socialism. The version practiced in the US is the most deceitful one I know. An honest, courageous socialist government would say: this is a worthwhile social purpose (financing home ownership, helping my friends on Wall Street); therefore I am going to subsidize it; and here are the additional taxes (or cuts in other public spending) to finance it.

Explain to me how having private markets funneling liquidity into the system is subsidization.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days ago) and read 2146 times:



Quoting RJdxer (Reply 16):
I don't know that dipping into your 401k was the best move but you are more keenly aware of your financial situation

No, you don't know. But I'd rather pay myself back at 5% interest, than Chase, or MBNA, or any of those other companies at anywhere from 15% upward, and get myself out under those credit cards, be able to pay down our remaining debt faster, and have some room to breath financially.

Some will say "yes, but you're borrowing from your retirement." Yes, but it'd be nice to make it there first.....


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8149 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days ago) and read 2145 times:

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 17):
The ability of those institutions to continue funding--and securitization is the only way any large institution can continue to fund itself when issuing large amounts of credit to other institutions or to individual borrowers--will become very limited, as the perceived risk of those securities either (1) makes it too expensive for the institution to issue securities because the interest rates they pay are too high

I fundamentally agree and for the American system to have any kind of credit reliability, your cited number 1 is exactly what would be an ideal result of this. There has been an incredible institutional push toward homeownership and the facilitation thereof over the last few decades that has been unsustainable in the pace and scope by which it has been carried out. A protracted period of high interest rates that make borrowing untenable for a larger proportion of prospective borrowers is precisely the correction needed to get everything back on sound footing.

Quoting HuskyAviation (Reply 17):

Explain to me how having private markets funneling liquidity into the system is subsidization.

Private market liquidity wouldn't be subsidization if it were the only market actor at work here, but backchannel actors like favoritism in the tax system and property tax assessment and valuation methodologies are very much an institutional basis that, by the way they operate, constitute a subsidy of housing's overall capitalization. To suggest that they aren't related to the availability of liquidity is nothing nice words allow for. This is only the tip of the iceberg as many well know - the practical control of that liquidity resting in the hands of institutions like Fannie Mae, subject to federal guarantees and protections, is also an offhand subsidy. Nowhere is it said that subsidization must be narrowly defined as merely transactional.

[Edited 2008-07-13 19:53:51]


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 2 months 5 days ago) and read 2137 times:



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 19):
if it were the only market actor



Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 19):
but backchannel actors

Get the "F" in there, Aaron.  Big grin


User currently offlineJCS17 From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 8065 posts, RR: 38
Reply 21, posted (6 years 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2107 times:

Oh Falcon, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. If this was a William Jefferson Clinton or a Barack Hussein Obama plan, you would be gushing and you know it (at the very least you would not care). After all, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae represented what you loved... the government essentially giving money away to the "little guy," no matter what the consequences. Don't get me wrong, if you're left to getting a loan from Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, you probably shouldn't be applying for it. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac might be the smelliest thing to come out of Washington since a Georgetown law degree. I'm not even saying Bush should even bailing out these institutions, far from it, but this post is based in pure political BS.


America's chickens are coming home to rooooost!
User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 22, posted (6 years 2 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2088 times:

Quoting Max550 (Reply 12):

I have to disagree with you, we can't let them fail.
I wish we could let them fail, since it's starting to look like you can run a company into the ground, make your money, and have the government take care of the mess you leave behind. But on the other hand, the government should be keeping track of what these companies are doing when they control so much of our money.
The Bush administration has decided that we should let them run themselves how they see fit and the market will take care of the rest. Unfortunately, that's not always how it works. Government isn't always bad. They need to provide some oversight of what these companies are doing so stuff like this doesn't happen anymore.

They are GSEs, or government-sponsored enterprises. They were "privatized" some time ago but still have many government benefits (lines of credit) and government goals. Click here to understand the fiasco.

Greenspan (February 2004) quote:

Quote:
Because Fannie and Freddie can borrow at a subsidized rate, they have been able to pay higher prices to originators for their mortgages than can potential competitors and to gradually but inexorably take over the market for conforming mortgages. This process has provided Fannie and Freddie with a powerful vehicle and incentive for achieving extremely rapid growth of their balance sheets. The resultant scale gives Fannie and Freddie additional advantages that potential private-sector competitors cannot overcome. Importantly, the scale itself has reinforced investors' perceptions that, in the event of a crisis involving Fannie and Freddie, policymakers would have little alternative than to have the taxpayers explicitly stand behind the GSE debt. This view is widespread in the marketplace despite the privatization of Fannie and Freddie and their control by private shareholders, because these institutions continue to have government missions, a line of credit with the Treasury, and other government benefits, which confer upon them a special status in the eyes of many investors.

This explains the absurdity pointed out by Kent in reply #1, that only two companies hold more than half of all mortgages in the U.S.

[Edited 2008-07-13 21:59:04]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19687 posts, RR: 58
Reply 23, posted (6 years 2 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2081 times:



Quoting Photopilot (Reply 4):
The average American has lived with a false sense of entitlement for so long that the entire country needs a very rude, very drastic wake-up call. You have to learn to live WITHIN YOUR MEANS.

That means that essentially NOBODY can go to college. Because most student loans? Freddie and Fannie.


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8149 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (6 years 2 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2075 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 23):

That means that essentially NOBODY can go to college. Because most student loans? Freddie and Fannie.

Bullshit. Other loan providers will gladly step in, especially if they have better secure lines of credit than government dinosaurs. In any case the rising cost of college is another serious issue that Americans need to confront - namely the fact that students and alumni don't complain enough about the staggering rise in university administrative expenses despite relatively low growth in program costs and educator salaries. Why these expenses are passed to the students rather than corporate and NGO beneficiaries of university services is anyone's guess but it's criminal any way you slice it when endowments and alumni giving are better than they've ever been and just about every uni President's office claims budget pressure each and every year.



If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
25 DocLightning : In my opinion, every American should be entitled to four years of full-time higher education for free. That should go under a "Free and public educat
26 PPVRA : Subsidized, government-guaranteed student loans? Maybe that's why tuition costs are sky-rocketing, just like housing was. You'd think that the rising
27 Pyrex : Sure, let them drown. And then you will have what Japan has, mamooth banks with flimsy balance sheets and no growth for 20 years. If you want a "lost
28 Aaron747 : Just to set the record straight, we have mammoth Japanese banks today because nonperforming loans were never permitted to default and small business
29 Falcon84 : Actually, I would not. I think it's wrong-headed to get the goverment involved in this. Facilitating other private companies to invest in them is one
30 Post contains links RJdxer : Well just in case you missed it in the several times it's been presented here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are insured by the government. No matter ho
31 Falcon84 : So are all banks, Sherlock. Then why don't you try not to comment, and embarrass yourself then? Or, is it the fact that I posted, you automatically,
32 Post contains images SlamClick : As does the fact that ANY hardship encountered by any large financial institution will immediately be passed directly on to "individuals" like you an
33 Falcon84 : My 401k lost about $2000 just before I took the loan, becuase of the doldrums the stock market is in. Meaning I could another $1000 out of it if I co
34 RJdxer : Incorrect. depositers of banks, with individual deposits up to 100k are insured by the government, not the bank itself. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ar
35 Baroque : Well some (probably most) outside the US have noticed that bugger ups in the US economy have a nasty habit of affecting us. Even though a goodly part
36 SlamClick : With actual funds on hand to cover maybe a few cents per thousand dollars. The FDIC sticker in the bank window is the most effective part of that who
37 SlamClick : I am over it. I am SO over it. I am trying to get YOU over it. Your religious rhapsody over anything not Republican is getting really sad. Of course
38 HuskyAviation : For all of the talk about removal of regulations and such by the Bush administration, I'd like someone to please point me in a direction as to when a
39 GDB : While a serious situation, the names of these organisations have provided some mirth. ('Fannie' albeit spelt as 'Fanny' is a slang term for the female
40 N1120A : Here is the issue with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They are federally backed corporations and have to get bailed out. We as taxpayers essentially ins
41 HuskyAviation : They do not have to get bailed out, yet. No. The Fed will not be on the hook for the whole thing--first of all, most of the money Fannie and Freddie
42 MaidensGator : It means no such thing. Suppose I have 100 grand in the bank, and earn 80 grand after taxes. But I spend 80,800 dollars. I have a negative savings ra
43 PPVRA : As my Greenspan quote above said, ". . .these institutions continue to have government missions,". That government mission is to help out the little
44 N1120A : Yet another reason that the government can't and wont let them fail. That isn't what I am talking about. It is the debt/asset ratio that is the probl
45 MaidensGator : You did say negative savings rate. And Falcon said average citizen. I'm not trying to sugarcoat how the economy's doing, but the foreclosure rate tha
46 HuskyAviation : They exist to help the little guy--they provide (as my colleague and I were just discussing) currently about 67% of all the cash right now used to fi
47 Post contains links and images PPVRA : Ok, I get your point. Well, some central banks have chosen to invest their assets into paper, which can easily be multiplied in value by a device inv
48 HuskyAviation : I'm waiting for someone to start a thread saying, "should I invest in Zimbabwean notes in case their currency strengthens?"
49 Baroque : With the surge in China these days, I think Gutenberg might have to move over, and I think the Indians are also pushing. That aside, you might be hot
50 Pope : This thread itself is an indication of the financial illiteracy of many American including the original thread starter. As a strong fiscal conservativ
51 Aaron747 : Couldn't possibly agree more.
52 Seb146 : Things like TVA, road and bridge building, and social security and other such programs during the depression. Yeah, we get it. It was horrible to thi
53 PPVRA : There's apparently a shortage of supply of paper, so who knows! Though the article says instead if three printing shifts they are down to "only" one
54 MaidensGator : It only slowed down under Clinton towards the end of his term. It hasn't gone down since 1961....
55 Pope : The one advocating that the Administration not get involved was Falcon84 the original poster to this thread. Wasn't Ted Kennedy the principle author
56 Aaron747 : What I don't get is: are you saying any and all Americans who aren't rich have some kind of birthright that involves homeownership? That's just nuts.
57 Baroque : That is another way of putting it PPVRA! As for the new musical from NY called "The Banking follies", I wonder what is in the next act, and just how
58 Seb146 : How many times did we have to hear Bush and his people talk about how wonderful "No Child Left Behind" was? Bush and his people were so gung-ho on "N
59 767Lover : Because though these are shareholder-owned corporations, they are a bit of a different animal in that their reason for being was/is to protect mortga
60 Pope : Was the principle author of the bill Ted Kennedy or not? If the administration works with Democrats they're damned. If they don't they're obstruction
61 Aaron747 : I'm not sure what this means exactly...can you elaborate?
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Bush Wants To Push "Democracy By Force" Into OAS posted Tue Jun 7 2005 03:44:03 by Falcon84
Jebber Bush Wants To Take Custody Of Terri Schiavo posted Thu Mar 24 2005 01:23:01 by STLGph
Bush Wants To End 'Legacy' College Admissions posted Thu Aug 12 2004 00:46:06 by Bruno
Rep. Dingell Wants To Tax Us Out Of Global Warming posted Thu Sep 27 2007 15:43:42 by RJdxer
George Bush To Jump Out Of A Perfectly Good...... posted Tue Jun 8 2004 21:16:50 by L-188
Bush Wants Hussain Out posted Wed Feb 13 2002 18:17:06 by David B.
Who Wants To Go Become Greenhorns? posted Tue Jul 1 2008 21:06:50 by KAUST
Uefa Euro 2008 "Tippspiel" - Who Wants To Join? posted Thu May 29 2008 09:50:44 by Sabena332
Peta Wants To Make A Bad Lawsuit Even Worse posted Wed Mar 5 2008 20:41:41 by L-188
Is There A Way To Find Out Where An IP Is? posted Sun Feb 10 2008 15:57:35 by A380US