 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The Bailout
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Date: 26 Nov 08 - 11:31 AM I agree to a degree with your sentiments, Bobez; but part of being an adult in the economy is understanding value, pay, costs, and such things. You don't listen to slick salesmen when you understand those things, and if you don't know how things work, you should at least know enough to ask for independent expert advice on how these things work. Anyone who signs a legal document is, by the nature of law, responsible for it legally, and he needs to be responsible for it personally as well. A child-like faithin advertisements and salespeople is not going to cut it any more than a blind trust in Gummint is. I am sure your WV SLide Rule has reached that conclusion manmy times. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Barry Finn Date: 26 Nov 08 - 01:35 PM Wrong Amos. That strawberry picker from Mexico, he was seduced into his home by a government that claimed "more homeowners" as it's banner. So the guy went for a 3/4 million dollar home, it was great while he was living in it & now that it's being foreclosed on he'll go back to Mexico after living & riding high. We opened the door & asked him to walk right in. If I could go to England & move into a 3/4 million dollar home on the seaside I'd be there in a New York second, so what if they foreclose on me 7 yrs later. I'd pack my bags & come home. Half of the loans make were very creative & made only so the broker could get fast cash & the home owner didn't even realize that with all he lawyer speak that they were getting raked. What me care? Fair practice, regulation, industry norms all went out the window & a good bit of it was criminal too. The little guy is the last one to blame if he should be blamed at all. They/we were all sold the great American dream, they shouldn't have been sold a nightmare. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 26 Nov 08 - 03:30 PM Yeah, beneath all the "Truth in Lending" laws and "Reg Zs" is the reality that the Fat Cats used some of the most bogus sales pitches in the world to get folks on the hook... Legality, when the deck is stacked with crooked law makers, isn't the issue... What is the issue is that the lenders knew that they were putting folks in houses that would be forclosed on down the road... But, like CEOs who raked in big dough for failures, these brokers werer paid upfront as if every payment was going to be made on time and the notes would go full term??? These assumptions were just that... Yeah, the CEO's company would either be bought up by a competitor or eventually make money... And all these mortgages would go full term... This is failed business logic... These folks knew it at the time but they looked around and everyone elese was being rewarded for failure so they just thought to themselves, "What the hey???" and frabbed as much dough as they saw others grabbin'... Regulators became business partners and helped these crooks craft better strategies to confirm to the "laws"... And if ya' found a regulator who was doing his job you had the option of changing regulators??? The Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) is once of the worst examples of what goes wrong when the inmates and the guards conspire against the warden... So, I for one, will not buy into their story that it was the borrowers who created this nmess or even had any part in creating it... It was a trap the borrowers were lured into not only by the lenders but with the support of the federal governemnt... Shame on the Bush administration and shame on Wall Street... Gitmo for them all!!! B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Date: 26 Nov 08 - 03:51 PM Well, I hear ya Bobez, and I am not denying that the promoters were crim to the max. However, I got all the credit-card pitches, low-cost loan pitches, junk phone calls, junk mailings, popups and email spam that these creeps put out, and I always knew enough to cut them short and toss them out. Not just because I'm jaded, but because I am used to calk'latin' where the bottom line goes, jes' like you are. You didn't get sucked into this shit either. All I am saying is, the guy who took the deal has to face the fact that he took it, in addition to everything else that was responsible. Without him signing, it would not have gone down. Ya gotta own what you do, or you will never be free. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Date: 26 Nov 08 - 03:53 PM It looks to me like a bigger game than that. The tax code was changed so that the only thing you can deduct anymore is interest on a mortgage. I took a job out of the country a number of years ago, and sold my house before I left. I got raped in taxes. I had to buy another house in order to stay afloat. It wasn't always that way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 27 Nov 08 - 08:42 AM Well, deferred caspital gains has been around a long time, Rigs... I mean, going back to at least the 70's... And this isn't a bad idea either because it allows people to have that flexibility to move up the ladder in terms of housing... The concept of a "starter home" is woven into that system... Ir's not a bad thing... It's when folks see their homes as a final payout that the problem come in... I'd like to see the "deferred capital gains" modified only so that if someone has gotten too old to maintain their home and wants to move into an assisted care that the capital gains can be put into something similar to a escrow account to be used to pay the monthly charges of that facility... Other than that, that part of the tax code actually makes sense... Okay, Amos, I fully understand yer situation but you are speaking as someone who is over 50 and has been successfull in life in terms of making good financial decisions... I would expect you, like me, to not be interested in new credit cards or loans that weren't absolutely necessary... But folks like us were the targeted market for these loans... Yeah, you might have gotten a dew phone calls and some junk mail but that's only because the lenders did blanket marketing to find the right kinds of people who they could lure into the trap... Kinda like bass fishing... That old and wise large mouth bass ain't all that easy to catch but that guy with the rod and reel in his hand is casting anyway... That's the way advertsing is... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Dec 08 - 08:19 AM I wasn't actually referencing capital gains. It's the tax code. I think it was in that 1986 legislation where they made it so the only interest you could deduct of taxes--at least for an individual--was the interest on a home mortgage. Before that, you could deduct credit card interest, auto loans, and etc. The tax structure created a situation where if you weren't making house payments, you got killed in taxes. I think this created a system where older people who had paid their house off felt the need to trade up, and professional people who might otherwise rent, simply couldn't afford to. All I'm saying is, this added to the problem, but it took a long time to materialize. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Dec 08 - 07:17 PM It's official - We're in a recession, and the Dow/Jones dropped 600 points to announce its arrival. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 01 Dec 08 - 07:26 PM Yeah, Rigs... The funny thing is that the folks who now say it's official say the recession began a year ago??? What took them so long??? I guess the funnier thing is that those folks who own stock must have been on Mars for the last year or so because they obviously were clueless if it took an "officail announcement" to get that kinda market reaction??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Dec 08 - 10:29 AM The whole thing is amazing to me. I wonder if the announcement had been earlier, if the Republicans would have fielded different candidates? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 02 Dec 08 - 09:39 PM Well, they certainly wouldn't have chosen the guy who proudly preclaimed that he didn't know jack about the economy... An' you can take that to the bank... That is, if yers ain't been closed down... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Dec 08 - 10:34 PM Yes, I can't argue with that. I have an account at the Bank of America. I've heard rumors that they're expecting to be the next big bank to go to Washington with a tin cup. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Date: 04 Dec 08 - 05:48 PM From Bloomberg: Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- American International Group Inc., whose bonuses and perks drew fire from lawmakers after the insurer accepted a federal bailout, will make special retention payments that more than double the salaries of some senior managers, according to a person familiar with the matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Big Mick Date: 04 Dec 08 - 06:08 PM I haven't read the entire thread, but based on the title and the last few posts, I think I will toss in. First, what is being sought by the automakers is a loan, not a bailout. It comes with conditions. This is necessary for the obvious reasons of knowing where the money is going and whether we have a chance of having it paid back. It is also necessary based on watching the dismal failure of the current administration to successfully manage the money given to assist the financial industry. Paulson hands money out with no conditions, and in one case the financial institution took the money and invested it in starting a construction company in China. It boggles the mind the arrogance of these bastards. It is a loan, It should be referred to as such. The perception of "bailout" is "handout". This is not the same thing Big Mick .............. from Michigan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 04 Dec 08 - 06:21 PM Here's my beef... The banks come to D.C. in corporate jets and nothin' is said about it... The car companies do the same and it is the bihhest scandal since, ahhhh, Watergate??? Here's my beef, Part B... The banks come to DC with their hats in hand and the governemnt fills the hat so full of big checks that the bank have to hire big strong guys just to carry the checks back to New York... Conditions??? None The car guys come to DC with their hats in hand and the governemnt takes a big steamy dump in their hats, hands 'um back to 'um and istructs the car guys to pull the hats down over their ears.... Here's my beef, Part C... The above scenerio is exactly what Herbert Hoover did, too... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Dec 08 - 06:40 PM Did Hoover bail out banks? I don't know, I'm just asking. The biggest problem with the car companies, as the media continues to point out, are their legacy costs. The foreign companies locating in the south don't have those expenses. If every auto coming out of Detroit has to generate %1,500.00 just to pay for past pensions and health care, there is no way they can build an inexpensive car and sell it at a profit. If they can't sell $40,000.00 SUV's they are facing a losing proposition. It isn't that they can't compete in the "little car" market, it's that they can't compete and continue to shoulder the legacy costs. If things continue to go the way they are, the foreign manufacurers in the south will probably have legacy costs like the Big Three have today, but they don't have them now, so the playing field is not level. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Dec 08 - 06:41 PM All of the above having been said, I think this thread was started when the banks originally went to Washington begging for money, and that, as it turns out, really was a bailout. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 04 Dec 08 - 06:47 PM Yes, Rigs, Hoover did bail out the banks... That is all he bailed out... He told the folks who were being forclosed on to "eat cake"... As for the advantages that ther Japanese car companies have over Detroit, a great part of the problem is that by setting up assmebly plants in 14(b) states they are taking advantage of our labor force... Kinda like sening jobs off-shore 'cept it's in Alabama or Mississippi where folks will work fir very little... If 14(b) were to go then things woukld be alot fairer... This isn't free trade within the US... It is manipulated trade... Nothin' free about it... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Teribus Date: 04 Dec 08 - 07:15 PM Oddly enough Bobert, in one way, for some completely perverse reason I do wish the US Government had followed your advice on this from day one, right across the board. The results would have been as follows: 1. The USA as you know it would be completely screwed. No money at all, nobody prepared to lend and a seige mentality benefiting very, very few - In other words Bobert you would create exactly what you have been saying has existed for years but which in actual fact hasn't. 2. A number of "catters" such as yourself and Little Hawk would be taught the object lesson that there is no such thing as "big, evil, multi-national mega corporations" who just happen to be responsible for all the ills on this planet. Because when all these banks, insurance companies and mass employers go to the wall as you suggest you will discover that the major shareholders in those "big, bad, evil, multi-national corporations" were ordinary Joes and their pension funds - You have no idea whatsoever of the spread of shot and exactly how wide the effect of following your plan would go. Some questions for you Bobert: 1. Who do people borrow from if all the Banks have been allowed to go under?? 2. If the Stock Market has gone down the tubes and companies have been wiped out. Who invests in what to generate capitial, wealth and jobs?? 3. You are not prepared to help companies that employ 1 in 10 of every person in the USA - You and the rest of the chattering left often talk of decimation, yet here you are actually advocating it. Fine let them go to the wall, 10% unemployment - how's Obama going to pay for that?? And that's only those directly employed the spread of those affected goes much wider than that. In this as with with many other topics Bobert you are a complete and utter chump, completely lacking in imagination and logic, who cannot see further than the nose on his own face. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 04 Dec 08 - 07:53 PM The define wrong-headedness, T-Bird... You apparently are either clueless as to what I proposed or have even less understanding about economics than you did about gettin' into Iraq... What I proposed was for the US government, if it was going to write some bigass checks, switch from the 30 year failed trickle down (supply side) economics which has gotten US here to trickle up (demand side) economics... Right now we have given the banks about $300B and don't have a clue where it went... I guess that's fine with you??? It was also fine for another guy who thinks like you... His name is Herbert Hoover... He was the guy who almost sunk the US for good with his stubborness (strange adjective...sound familair???) in supply side economics... What I proposed is somethimg akin to what FDR did... Rememeber him???... He established the Home Mortage Corp which stepped in and took over bad morgages... Given the massive distrust that Hoover created with the banks and folks not wanting their money in the banks he also established the Federail Depositors Insurance Program which still survives to this very day... But it was FDR's stepping in to assit folks who were about to be forclosed on that really made a huge difference... This is what I have proposed... And here's is why it works... When this money is used to help the working man who is about to be put outta his home where do you think that money goes, T??? Cat got yer tongue??? Well, to goes to the lender, that is where it goes... (So what, Boberdz???) Well, if the US were to buy all these mortages from the bottom up (demand side) alot of good things happen: 1. One less family is on the street creating even more burdens of Socail Services... 2. One less property is now vacant which means that property values around it aren't adversely effected... 3. One less property is on the market which means that if we take all the forclosed prioperties and refinance them thru a federal home mortage corp. then it dries up the excess inventory of houses and restores the housing market... and... 4. The money does make it back up to Wall Street as the feds, in essence, buy back these mortgaes one at a time... That koney will go into banks who will then feel a lot better lending... But there is more, T... If all these loans are refinaced thru a federal mortgage corp at 5 ot 6% as payments come in a portion of each will be amortized as either interst or pronciple... I think that part of the interest could be used to shore up Social Security while the rest going to pasy back the initial investment... Of course, all of the principle will go back to pay for the program leaving that portion to cover losses... Now, T, have at yer hole pokin'... There were lots of hole pokers in 1933, too... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 04 Dec 08 - 07:55 PM By the by, T... If you have better plan then lets hear it... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Teribus Date: 04 Dec 08 - 08:15 PM Nice one Bobert, but Oh So Predictable from you - Not one single question answered. Remember Bobert you weren't going to give anything to the banks, who loans people money to enable them to do things? - Under your scheme they've gone completely, taking with them all the people who could pay and inject capital into the system because when the Banks go tits up they had to call in all their loans. So Bobert where does this capital now come from?? Remember Bobert you weren't going to give anything to the Insurance companies - Under your scheme they've gone completely, taking with them all the pension funds that invested in them - They oddly enough are the biggest investors and you have now robbed them of the place whereby they can generate the fund growth to meet their "pay-out" commitments. Remember Bobert you were against giving anything to the big three US car manufacturers - They go under, immediate consequence 10% unemployed - Hint as to how bad that would be Bobert - America has never seen such unemployment and that is only the "direct" unemployment such a collapse would create. Financial crisis - yes there is one if you need to sell - If you can afford to sit tight and ride out the storm long term predictions are not too bad - all things are relative. Will things bounce back - of course they will. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 04 Dec 08 - 08:48 PM Youn have it right, T... Why give money to the rich when wwe don't have a credit crisis, we have a wage and job crisis??? Wages have been stagnant beginning the year that Ronald "The Deregulator and Union Buster" Reagan took office... That is how long that American wages have been stagnant... And that is why we are in this pickle... Then, from these deregulations, banks offered "products" which were evil... Like crdit cards to college kids... Like interest only, no downpayment, to home buyers... I mean, the schemes they came up with were so far out that the only way to describe it is "Fact is tsranger than fiction"... Then when it looked as if so9me of these were going to backfire on the lenders they bought congressman to pass the bankruptcy "reform" (hahaha) that aloowed the lenders to harrass the borrowers right into the grave??? What was that all about, T??? I've read that upwards of 500,000 promising college kids had to quit college because of the preditory credit card lenders hounding them 24/7, hauling them into civil courts, freezing their bank accounts, putting liens on thei cars, etc... Is that your idea of goodness, T??? As for the Big Three, T, seein' as Wall Street came in and fleeced the taxpayers for, ahhhhhh, who knows for sure??? $300B??? $350B??? $600B??? Who knows??? Well, sniff, I figure if we can run that much money thru the shreader then, hey, $50B to save a million jobs??? I can live with that... That is a bargain... BTW, T. I still haven't heard yer plan other than banks is where you go to borrow money??? Is that yer plan??? Well, if so then why after getting between $300 and $700B of my tax dollars aren't they, ahhhhhh, lending any money??? I hate to say this, T, 'cause you know I have a sof spot in my heart fir ya', but the stuff you post here is, ahhhhhhhh, alot of hot air with no real substance to it... And I mean, alot... You'll prolly be up all night writing more of it... So much of it that it will fill screen after screen... That will be fine... It will keep you entertained... It will be pure unatered BS but, hey, this is the BS section so have a night of it... BTW, my econmic theories aren't that far off froma economist who was just awarded a Nobel Prize for his views... You again, are one the outside looking in... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Date: 04 Dec 08 - 09:10 PM "'Ronald "The Deregulator and Union Buster" Reagan took office...'" I prefer to call him Ronald-Pig-Fuckin'-Reagan, but that's just me... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 04 Dec 08 - 09:47 PM Well, I heard about those piccures with Reagan and the pig, too, Rigs, but seein' as I never actually saw 'um I'll just leave it at that... Did he du*k the pig??? I donno??? Prolly did, though... Back to you, T... I have a theory that has just fallen upon me... Actually, was was practicin' a new song an broke a string... Seems every time a break a string, which ain't often, I get a little "broken-string-nugget" and this was no deviation... So, T... I forgive you... You can't help yourself... You are a, ahhhhhh, ***colonialist***... Yep, it came full circle tonight... You should have lived in the Dark Ages with lords and serfs 'cause this is the way you look at everything... There are winners and there are losers... Lords and serfs... Masters and slaves... Boss Man and Negroes... Yeah, this explains why you thought it was just peachy to invade Iraq... Control of Iraq would put the masters in control of the oil (lords) and the "sand niggers" as just that (serfs)... Fast forward to the "bailout"... Same thinking... The banks (lords) loan (ot not) to the serfish car building people... I mean, Iraq and the bailout are the same game to you, T-zer... Okay to give my dough to the lords... Not so, the serfs... In the words of "The Caveman", "I get it now"... I mean no disrespect here, T-zer.... We just look at things from entirely different perspectives... You represent the lords and I represent the serfs... Yeah, I get it now... Might have taken a few years for me to really see things the way they are but, "I once was blind, but now I see".... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Big Mick Date: 05 Dec 08 - 01:35 AM Well, riggie, let's see if I can answer your questions. First off, where the hell did the term "legacy costs" come from? It is a manufactured word that the big boys that come to Washington, DC, each in their company jet costing roughly $20,000 each for the trip; that are making 22 times the compensation of their Japanese counterparts make and 17 times the compensation that their German counterparts make while presiding over a failed business plan that MANAGEMENT was in charge of; that comes from having a middle management level that is bloated and ineffective, all the while presiding over incredible losses; the term legacy costs is one they came up with to describe pension and health care benefits that were fairly negotiated and for which autoworkers gave up compensation to have. These benefits, by the way were funded very well until Reagan courts presided over the rape of them by allowing the excess earnings of the pension funds (which were the workers funds that they negotiated for) to be skimmed off. We (meaning the Organized Labor/Unions) fought in court saying that their taking the earnings would be like taking the interest from our investment accounts. We warned that there would come a time when we would need those funds to pay benefits. We argued they didn't belong to the company to be used to pay exec's outlandishly, they belonged to the workers. The fucking Reagan courts decided that putting the money in the hands of the "risk takers" would result in enhancing trickle down economics. Further, the lowered the percentage required to be kept in pension funds to pay future benefits to something like 65% (I might be wrong, it could be 80%, but I am doing this from memory at 1 am in the morning) of the funds the actuaries said we would need to pay vested benefits. Fast forward to 2004. Silicone Valley goes bust, and the rest of the economic system collapses, and these asswipes make up the words "legacy costs" so that they don't have to say that the economic chickens of their stupid ass policy have come home to roost, and that they can't pay the people who made them rich what they promised them in good faith bargaining. And here is the kicker. If they had left the damned excess earnings in the plan, every retiree's healthcare and monthly income THAT THEY WORKED THEIR ENTIRE GODDAMN LIFE FOR, would be safe. Just as a kicker to that, right now the Autoworkers are again being asked for relief, when they just gave considerable concessions a year ago. And is this due to them not being productive, efficient, skilled, and hard working. Nope. Despite the perceptual bullshit, US autoworkers are still ranked the best in the world. It is because, among other things, they work for a bunch of greedy bastards, who don't use sound business practices, invested their R&D money on the wrong horse when the whole world was predicting they were wrong, and now are taking it out of the asses of the group that least deserves it, while they continue taking outlandish bonuses and perks. There are some things in the work rules that have to be changed, the job bank probably needs to go although even that is maligned unneccesarily. Why, in this friggin country, and among working stiffs do we always get the blame game wrong. Our buddy Utah Phillips always said he wanted to be the czar in charge of blame in this country. That's because we always blame those that least deserve it. We always say it is those damn union workers instead of the greedy corporate pricks that steal the money. We always say it is those dirty lazy ass welfare mothers (the ones working two jobs with not health insurance and getting no child support) instead of those that continually cut every program that could break the cycle of poverty. I have spent my entire working life really representing honest hardworking folks who are just trying to do their best for their communities, their kids, and their country. I am sick to death of simplistic know it all assholes that cast aspersions down to the folks that are trying the hardest, when these robbing bandit pricks ride in their jets and tell us that we all have to save their asses. I am sick to death of the Chrysler workers, who with the significant concessions they took saved their company, while Lee Iafuckingcocca took the credit. Yet when the company rebounded some years later and the workers attempted to regain a bit, they were told no. Some reward for loyalty. If it wouldn't hurt so many families, I would say let these bastards go and we will start over. But too many kids and families would be destroyed. Bet your are sorry you asked, eh? I need to go drink some whiskey. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: akenaton Date: 05 Dec 08 - 01:48 AM Why continue to support a system that you profess to hate so much??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Big Mick Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:00 AM ake, I don't hate the system. That is the type of typical bullshit folks like you put out to obscure the issue. What I hate is the greedy pricks that abuse the system, and the friggin' lackeys that allow them to, and the paid off criminals like Cheney who are allowed to run rampant. But here's a newsflash for you, pardner. The average folks in this country are starting to figure it out. They see shit like Paulson giving the money to banks and bankers with no controls, so that the $700 million bucks of taxpayers money ends up invested in a Chinese construction company. I would class that as damn near treasonous. They are figuring out things like Wamu, who hired a CEO two weeks before they were taken over by the Feds. Paid him a $7 million signing bonus, with a $6million golden parachute for anything other than a for cause termination. End result? $13 million in compensation for 2 weeks work. Defend that if you need to. But you don't look good doing it. As to my right to decry it in angry terms. I left blood on the ground for this country. I have worked in the system, and used the laws to try and help average folks. I have earned my right to raise hell about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Teribus Date: 05 Dec 08 - 02:56 AM Hey Bobert, this from a man I don't often agree with on this forum but, with regard to "The Big Three", in these two sentences he has it nailed to rights: "If it wouldn't hurt so many families, I would say let these bastards go and we will start over. But too many kids and families would be destroyed." - Big Mick The only flaw with it is, that with all those banks and insurance companies that you, Bobert, allowed to go to the wall earlier in the "crisis", the USA would have nothing with which to "start over". If they go, they go and are gone for good, the US only then assembles cars whose components are shipped in from elsewhere. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: akenaton Date: 05 Dec 08 - 03:05 AM "Helping" those exploited by Capitalism is akin to handing out goody bags to starving Africans. When Capitalism fucks up.....as it does fairly regularly, the "blood on the ground" always belongs to the weak and the poor! Don't get me confused with an apologist for the system....I hate it more than anything on earth.....thats why I was opposed to the Blair/Obama band aids Our financial and social problems require "MAJOR" surgery. Just look at the number on this forum who despite the evidence of their own eyes still see this system as "recoverable". I'm afraid the truth is that most of the left are grade one hypocrits, no matter how little they have, it's still more than the "poor folks" and they sure don't want to lose it! It can be argued that people who have worked long term in industrial relations, without attempting to change the system, are "enablers" who help keep the whole sorry show on the road. The collapse of the banking system and the unrest created by the coming recession should provide impetus for a real change, providing we are not side tracked down "Obama Drive"......The real enemy are not the fat cats of industry or finance, but the voices of the evolutionary left......Ake |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Big Mick Date: 05 Dec 08 - 03:18 AM I have no quarrel with that statement whatsoever. During the course of my career I had more than my share of trouble because of fighting the "corporate unionists". The old "we are a team, we are in it together" lines are destroying the progressive tension created by acknowledging the inherent adversarial relationship between the interests of management, the interests of capital, and the interests those that labor. Or put another way, we don't represent the friggin' bosses, or the friggin' investors, we represent the interests of the working stiffs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: akenaton Date: 05 Dec 08 - 03:41 AM The biggest fallacy of all is that change can be achieved without some degree of pain(Obama). Better that pain be suffered in the interests of the poor and in safeguarding our natural resources, than in the interests of the Capitalist system. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 08 - 07:59 AM You still aren't listening, T-Bird (pun intended here)... I never supported bailing out Wall Street directly... I have supported bailing them out indirectly like FDR did in 1933 with his Home Mortgage Corp... The way it works is really simple, T... You take the bad mortgagaes that Wall Street says are the basis of their woes and you buy them out from the bottom up... I know this is like trying to get the square pag into a round hole fir ya', T, so let me give you an example: Acme Mortgage (Wall street) loaned Charlie the Carpenter (Main St.) $250,000 to buy a house... Got it so far???... The mortage was set up as an ARM (Adjustable Rate Mortgage) which has adjusted and doubled Charlie's payments... Charlie can't pay that amount and so Acme forcloses and is stuck with an empty house... The nieghbors are also stuck with an empty house with weeds growing up around it... So here's how it works... We take the bulk of the $700B and put it into a Home Mortgage Corp. and buy back Charlie's mortgage from Acme and rework it to be a 30 year mortgage at a fixed 5 to 6% interest... Acme get back their $250,000 that they can use to loan out again... Charlie stays in his house and the interest on the mortgagae goes to: 1. shore up Social Security 2. administer the program 3. cover losses This is what ol' Bobert has been calling "trickle up" economics for years... This is smart economics... Or pragmatic, if you will... Everone gets something... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Teribus Date: 05 Dec 08 - 08:49 AM Eh Bobert, I do take it that you did read through that post of yours before hitting the "Submit" button. Your system and your example are so full of holes I'm stuck at just where to start. "Home Mortgage Corp" - Government sponsored "Fanny Mae" and "Freddy Mac" - A rose by any other name would sell as sweet. They f*****g well collapsed the market Bobert NOT WALL St. And they did it by giving people loans who shouldn't have had them in the first place, they wouldn't have been able to pay their mortgages anyway, oh by the bye what were the reasons and situation behind your Acme Mortgage (Wall street) doubling Charlies mortgage repayments?? You didn't go into that. It's not done on a whim, it normally only happens when something is done by the central banks to the basic interest rate, a thing that Governments are closely involved with. Another question for your example Bobert why did Acme Mortgage foreclose? They would have other options open to them that would have equally kept Charlie in his house and Acme Mortgage in pocket. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Amos Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:14 AM I don't think so, T--what collapsed the market was Wall Street bundling massive numbers of shitty loans sold by loansharks. And you may not know how ARMS work,. but the banks oftenw ill anchor the interest rate to a prime lending rate (or only if it goes up) and raise the interest rate on an ARM based on that. And they can and will do so even if the exisitng interest rate is quite profitable for them. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Dec 08 - 10:10 AM "Well, riggie, let's see if I can answer your questions. First off, where the hell did the term "legacy costs" come from?" Actually, Mick, I don't disagree with anything you say in the posts above, but I think I first heard of the term "legacy costs" in reference to the airlines when they began to run into trouble after deregulation. What we've seen there is cut-rate airlines like Southwest and Jet-Blue come in with substantially reduced rates. But they also have a "newer" work force simply because the companies are younger. When they first start out, they wouldn't have any pensioners at all, unless somebody got hurt on the job, maybe. If the car companies are successful in getting loans from the government, the first thing that needs to be controlled is management salaries--I certainly agree with that--but in the overall scheme of things, that isn't enough money to do much of anything with. If Hillary's health care program could have gotten off the ground 15 years ago, just thing how much American companies could have save since then, in medical costs. Getting back to Detroit, though, I don't see how the Big Three are going to make cost effective small cars if the United Auto Workers aren't included in the restructuring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 08 - 11:01 AM No, T, what collapsed the system was bad laons that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went merrily along with... A Home Mortgage Corp., after absorbing the worst features of these bad loans (ARM's) would provide sensible products (i.e. 30 or even 35 year fixed @ 5-6%... Beyond cleaning up Fannie and Freddie's mess the Hiome Mortgage Corp. or the various oversught agncies would restore pragmatic regulations to furure mortagages... Why is this so hard for you to understand??? Where are all thses so-called holes in what I, and many leading econimists, are recommending??? This is becoming just like another Iraq debate with you, T... You were wrong then and you are wrong now... But this time you don't have the bad intellegence to blame on it... The truth is out there in plain sight... The choices are not hard... Do we give hundreds of billions more to the moneyed class or do we do something for the workin' man??? That is the choice... It is apparent that you have cast your vote with the monied class... No wiggle in the world can change peoples perception that that is indeed where yoiu come down on this issue... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Dec 08 - 11:16 AM Bobert - If you were going to clean up the mortgage mess, how would you go about it? Some people find themselves in foreclosure because they were greedy themselves, others are simply victims of circumstance. Others are staying out of foreclosure by making super-human efforts to pay their obligations. If the government helps some people, this last group kind of becomes a victim class themselves. I think you're basically right, that it would do the most good to start at the bottom of the food-chain, but how could it be done? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 08 - 11:42 AM Rigs, I understand yer frustrations and the only thing I can say to ya' is, "Yeah, some folks will benefit who shouldn't" but the laternative of throwing the baby out with the bathwater just to punish that small percentage of folks to the detrement of the economy, the housing market and the majority of folks who are just trying to play by the rules isn't going to serve anyone in the long run... I learned at a very young age (polio at age 6) that life isn't always fair... That applies to what many of us are recommending here... And I'm not saying that the program will work in every case... There were very irresponsible buyers who thought they could flip properties and used the screwed up mortgage industry to do so... Some of these folks didn't have the income to be in those homes from the jump and those folks might not be in a position to hang on to those "to-be-flipped" homes even at fixed rates and lomf terms... I don't believe that their is any lifeline for those folks... Sorry, Charlie the Carpenter, if you fall into that group... But here is another observation that warrents some discussion and comment and that is the behavior of some Republican Senators toward the CEO's of the Big Three yesterday... It was appauling and rude... If these Republican Senators think that this is one big joke then they should just say that... Wall Street came in in corporate jets, got $350B right off the bat with an agreement that their CEO's wouldn't take more than a cool million in salary a year... The Dems didn't use that as an opportunity to disrespect thr Wall Street CEO's... But yesterday's display of partisan sarcasim toward men who had agreed to basicly work for free was uncivilized... If any Senator thinks that this is a time for joking around then that Senator, IMO, doesn't deserve to be in office... I mean, really folks, yesterday display was vulgar and down-right mean spirited... But worse than that, these Repubs, in essence, were trying to shift the blame of lousy governemnt by their party, to folks who didn't creat this mess... That is unacceptable... My dad was a company man for Ford Motor Company and I'm glad he isn't alive today to have heard these Repub Senators 'er he woulda been callin' my Cousin Buddy in New Jersey to come down and have a little talk with the Senators about manners... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Dec 08 - 01:10 PM I didn't see the hearings. I know a number of Republicans think the cure is for the companies to go through a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, and allow the court(s) to straighten things out. What that has meant for airlines has been to dump all their pensioners off onto the government, and then start over. I don't know why they would be rude to the corporate officers though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 08 - 03:13 PM The worst of them was Senator Richard Shelby (R- Alabama) who used the opportunity to chastize and harass these CEOs... He asked them if thay had done the actual driving from Detroit or if they shared the driving how much driving they actaully did... He asked them why they didn't carpool... I mean, the Senator showed no class and no real evidence of having been brought up with any understyanding to manners and courtesy... That's sad becuase most Southerners pride themselves when it come to such... Shelby not only let down the Seanate and his parents (if they are still alive) but the South, as well... And good point, Rigs, on the pensions... Pensions are insured by the feds and Iheard this mornin' on NPR that if the Big Three go down that the taxpayers are gonna be on the hook for well over $100B!!! No matter how big and nasty the pill is, looks as if the choices are few... At least the Big Three are hjaving to say how the money will be spent... Who knows where the $350B went when the Wall Street bandits came a knockin'... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Dec 08 - 03:33 PM Yeah, that's the sick part. Nobody seems to know where the money went, or if the do, they ain't talkin'. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 08 - 03:37 PM If I were Obama I'd ask that a freeze be put on the rest of the $700B until the first half was accounted for... (But he ain't president yet, Boberdz..) Oh, yes he is an' if he wants the remaining $350B frozen then he can get it frozen... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: heric Date: 05 Dec 08 - 05:00 PM As for the carmakers - shouldn't we make them abandon planned obsolescence as a core philosophy? I mean really, how else are they ever going to become a going concern? And GREEN GREEN GREEN what the hell, why should we believe they can do that right if they can't do a simple internal combustion engine? We should give money to Honda, Toyota and Hyundai to build plants in the US and get this show on the road. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 08 - 06:08 PM The problems with doing that, heric, is that Honda, Toyota and Hyndai would set up assembly plants in 14(b) states and we wouldn't realy have car manufacturing plants... We would have car manufacturing plantations... And if we take this even further, by not addressing the very real problem of 30 years of working class wage stagnation we will end up not looking very much like the country that Henry Ford envisoned when he decided that if he didn't pay his workers well then who could he sell his cars to??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Dec 08 - 08:32 PM Henry Ford was way ahead of his time. If he hadn't done that, I doubt anyone else ever would have. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 08 - 08:56 PM Yes, he was, Rigs... My great grand daddy went to work for Henry... My dad went to work for Henry in 1943... We need a Henry to step- to plate now and deliver that exact message in that you ain't gonna fix jack until people have jobs and can afford the stuff... Truth be known... I am tiring of the comsumption model... I'd rather see folks making more but saving more and I'd like to see our economy based more on building infastructure and schools than buying more Chinese made junk...When we have millions of mini-storage units being rented to store that excess junk there is something very, very wrong with our econmic model... Time to get back to building our country... Okay, so what it a thousand malls close??? In the big scheme of things, maybe it's time for that to happen... We have ignored our real priorties way too long ant it ain't buyin' more Chinese junk... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Riginslinger Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:00 PM Yeah, well I doubt if ol' Henry would encourage buying Chinese junk either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:25 PM No, he wouldn't an'... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The Bailout From: Bobert Date: 05 Dec 08 - 09:25 PM ...500... |
