Frugal Living: 25 new messages in 6 topics

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* How many trillion has the FED already injected? - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a9b52a8a6b700372?hl=en
* Question about a new website called Bailecn - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/fbb64cc5bd1e6f4c?hl=en
* Math on the bailout doesn't add up... - 11 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3213ff522966e10e?hl=en
* I'm celebrating because the bailout failed! - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8ad3e712cb6e0e31?hl=en
* The Birk (bailout)Plan - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7353d0c8c3ba3c4a?hl=en
* Can a rental property be used as a Roth IRA investment? - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e9345a6d41c09d2?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How many trillion has the FED already injected?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a9b52a8a6b700372?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 7:09 pm
From: clams_casino

hpope@lycos.com wrote:

>On Sep 29, 5:04 pm, aeron...@flight.net wrote:
>
>
>>Just today another $630B....With this kind of injection, and banks
>>still not lending, what makes the FED think another $700B will do it?
>>
>>
>
>It just won't work. Look at the 100 billion stimulus package. Let
>affected
>banks go under.
>
>mitch
>
>

Obviously you don't understand the problem or the proposed solution.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 8:12 pm
From: "Robert Ladd"

"clams_casino" <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:uTfEk.557$ex3.230@newsfe02.iad...
> hpope@lycos.com wrote:
>
>>On Sep 29, 5:04 pm, aeron...@flight.net wrote:
>>
>>>Just today another $630B....With this kind of injection, and banks
>>>still not lending, what makes the FED think another $700B will do it?
>>>
>>
>>It just won't work. Look at the 100 billion stimulus package. Let
>>affected
>>banks go under.
>>
>>mitch
>>
>
> Obviously you don't understand the problem or the proposed solution.
>

Explain then. One, the other, or both.

Robert Ladd

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 8:38 pm
From: Jeff

Robert Ladd wrote:
> "clams_casino" <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
> news:uTfEk.557$ex3.230@newsfe02.iad...
>> hpope@lycos.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 29, 5:04 pm, aeron...@flight.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just today another $630B....With this kind of injection, and banks
>>>> still not lending, what makes the FED think another $700B will do it?
>>>>
>>> It just won't work. Look at the 100 billion stimulus package. Let
>>> affected
>>> banks go under.
>>>
>>> mitch
>>>
>> Obviously you don't understand the problem or the proposed solution.
>>
>
> Explain then. One, the other, or both.

In one word: liquidity.

Google "Credit Crunch". You'll hit articles like this:

(Overview)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/29/AR2008092902762.html?hpid=topnews

The basic problem here is that too many people don't understand the
seriousness of the situation.

Americans fail to understand that they are facing the real prospect of a
decade of little or no economic growth because of the bursting of a
credit bubble that they helped create and that now threatens to bring
down the global financial system.

Politicians worry less about preventing a financial meltdown than about
ideology, partisan posturing and teaching people a lesson. Financiers
have yet to own up publicly to their own greed, arrogance and
incompetence. And leaders of foreign governments still think that this
is an American problem and that they have no need to mount similar
rescue efforts in their own countries.

In the coming weeks and months, all of these people will come to
understand how deep the hole really is and how we're all in it together.

They'll come to understand that the giant sucking sound they hear is of
a massive deleveraging of the global economy and the global financial
system as households, governments, businesses and investment funds
adjust to living in a world with less debt and more inflation.

And they will come around, reluctantly, to the understanding that the
only way to get out of these situations is to have governments all
around the world borrow gobs of money and effectively nationalize large
swaths of the financial system so it can be restructured, recapitalized,
reformed and returned to private ownership once the crisis has passed
and the economy has gotten back on its feet.

In the next few weeks, the center of attention here in the United States
will shift from the Congress and an exhausted Treasury to the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corp., which will now have to rescue any number of
failing banks, either by taking them over directly or managing their
transfer into stronger hands. It will also shift back to the Federal
Reserve and other central banks, which will have to step up their
efforts to maintain liquidity in money markets and prevent the credit
crunch from taking down hedge funds, businesses, and state and local
governments.

These will, alas, be only holding actions. Restoring real stability to
financial markets will require the kind of systemic approach and
extraordinary government interventions that the public has refused to
authorize and finance. In better times, the public might have put aside
its reluctance in response to the strong and unified recommendation of
political and business leaders. But it is a measure of how little trust
remains in both Washington and Wall Street that voters are willing to
risk a serious hit to their wealth and income rather than follow their
lead.

(A few specifics)
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2008/db20080928_348088.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_news+%2B+analysis

The ripple effects of the week that shook Wall Street are now being
painfully absorbed by nonfinancial companies across the nation, from
carmakers to casinos. "Tightening financial conditions have expanded to
reach nearly all sectors," says Diane Vazza, managing director of global
fixed income research at Standard & Poor's, which, like BusinessWeek, is
owned by The McGraw-Hill Companies (MHP). "Screaming headlines about the
financial sector might give some the misleading impression that
nonfinancials are mercifully out of the line of fire. Nothing could be
further from the truth. The heat will eventually spread."

A growing number of companies are already feeling the heat. As of Sept.
9, 57 companies had defaulted on $45.3 billion of debt for the year,
according to S&P RatingsDirect, up from 22 companies defaulting in all
of 2007. (While not a bankruptcy, a default sets off clear alarm bells
about a company's fiscal health.) Of the 57, 45 are outside the
financial industry. And more defaults are likely on the way: Roughly 70%
of nonfinancial companies carry a noninvestment or junk credit rating.
S&P projects that the three-year cumulative default rate between 2008
and 2010 among nonfinancial firms with poor credit will rise to 23.2%,
the worst on record since 1981.

Discerning which firms will cave first is difficult, but S&P has
identified 162 "weakest links," or companies in danger of defaulting
over the next 12 months. It is the seventh straight month that the
roster of credit-unworthy firms has grown. On that list are high-profile
names such as United Airlines parent UAL, General Motors, Tribune, Six
Flags (SIX), and Trump Entertainment Resorts.

This is not about Wallstreet.

Jeff
>
>
> Robert Ladd
>
>

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 8:46 pm
From: TruthTeller@nospam.net

In <uTfEk.557$ex3.230@newsfe02.iad>, on 09/29/2008
at 10:09 PM, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> said:

>hpope@lycos.com wrote:

>>On Sep 29, 5:04 pm, aeron...@flight.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Just today another $630B....With this kind of injection, and banks
>>>still not lending, what makes the FED think another $700B will do it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It just won't work. Look at the 100 billion stimulus package. Let
>>affected
>>banks go under.
>>
>>mitch
>>
>>

>Obviously you don't understand the problem or the proposed solution.

Stop wishing son. No one was willing to project the 700B was going to fix
anything. That's one reason it failed to pass.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Question about a new website called Bailecn
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/fbb64cc5bd1e6f4c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 7:11 pm
From: clams_casino

John James wrote:

>clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Sep 29, 12:50 pm, jan...@aim.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Sep 11, 8:16 pm, chief_thrac...@yahoo.com (Chief Thracian) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:24:33 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Avoid it at all costs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Walk away from the light!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Why do you say to avoid this site? I've also received an e-mail
>>>>about this page and am blown away with the pricing but....is it a
>>>>trustworthy site? Please give a reason for your discounting it!
>>>>
>>>>Thanx
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>For those that don't know how to use their computers to research
>>>sites what you got was a SPAM message. You've heard of spam,
>>>haven't you? And this is a company from China, so do you think
>>>you're going to get some super duper technical support or repair
>>>when you need it?? Can you kiss your money good-bye??
>>>
>>>Geez, people never cease to amaze me. And after you buy this
>>>fantastically low priced piece of junk I've got some lovely ocean
>>>front property to sell you right outside of Oklahoma City. Great
>>>breezes right off the water and the deepsea fishing is awesome.
>>>
>>>(Shakes head at the gullibility of people that claim to be
>>>intelligent adults.)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Did you know the word gullible is not found in any major dictionary or
>>spell-check program?
>>
>>
>
>http://onelook.com/?w=gullible
>
>
>
>
You obviously made that up. Try to find gullible in a major dictionary.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 7:44 pm
From: itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net

On Sep 29, 9:11 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> John James wrote:
> >clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>

> >>>(Shakes head at the gullibility of people that claim to be
> >>>intelligent adults.)
>
> >>Did you know the word gullible is not found in any major dictionary or
> >>spell-check program?
>
> >http://onelook.com/?w=gullible
>
> You obviously made that up. Try to find gullible in a major dictionary.
>
>
Evidently you don't know how to use a dictionary. I have no problem
finding the word 'gullible' in any dictionary. Try picking up one and
going to the G's, take your time, there's no hurry, flip the pages and
you'll find the word gullible.

Spelling wasn't a strong point for you, was it??

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 10:43 pm
From: Steve Daniels

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:44:25 -0700 (PDT), against all advice,
something compelled itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net, to say:

> On Sep 29, 9:11 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> > John James wrote:
> > >clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> >
>
> > >>>(Shakes head at the gullibility of people that claim to be
> > >>>intelligent adults.)
> >
> > >>Did you know the word gullible is not found in any major dictionary or
> > >>spell-check program?
> >
> > >http://onelook.com/?w=gullible
> >
> > You obviously made that up. Try to find gullible in a major dictionary.
> >
> >
> Evidently you don't know how to use a dictionary. I have no problem
> finding the word 'gullible' in any dictionary. Try picking up one and
> going to the G's, take your time, there's no hurry, flip the pages and
> you'll find the word gullible.
>
> Spelling wasn't a strong point for you, was it??

Hey Look! It's that lost post from 1994!
--

"The ABS system can not overcome the laws of physics."

Audi Owner's Manual

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Math on the bailout doesn't add up...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3213ff522966e10e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 7:12 pm
From: Jim

Michael Coburn wrote:

> Jim wrote:
> > Elmo wrote:
> >> Jitney wrote:
> >> > It is hard to find statistics on the mortgage crisis, so I'm making
> >> > an estimate. There are about 100 million households in the USA,
> >> > assuming 10% are in default or foreclosure, which I think is a high
> >> > estimate, subtracting rentals from the 100 million (if you can refute
> >> > me from a credible authority, I would love to be corrected). Ten
> >> > million divided into 700 billion works out to $700,000 per distressed
> >> > property, which should on the average buy out each property twice.
> >> > What is happening to the rest? I think this is a massive raid on the
> >> > US treasury, with a threat of a Great Depression if we don't pay up,
> >> > and that isn't even counting AIG, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Freddie
> >> > Mac, and Bear Stearns. Wall Street is stealing more than the Huns
> >> > that raided the Roman Empire, with similar results. And this is not
> >> > the end. Congress forked over 25 Billion to the automakers, the
> >> > airlines are next, and who then? Ben and Jerries? We are looking at a
> >> > new Dark Ages.
> >>
> >> You're focusing too narrowly. The problem isn't the mortgages alone,
> >> it's all of the "derivatives" which have been used to "create value"
> >> and "manage risk". Over half of the GDP of the USA comes from counting
> >> each link in the chain as Tom sells something to Dick who turns around
> >> and sells it to Harry who breaks it into pieces and sells shares of it
> >> to Louise and Louise buys a credit default swap from Thelma. It's a
> >> lot like the Dutch tulip mania except that there is precious little of
> >> actual, material value underneath it. And of course almost all of it
> >> has been done with borrowed money -- sometimes as little as 1% of the
> >> "value" being provided in the form of recognizable assets.
> >>
> >> Even those assets are suspect since so much of the concept of "value"
> >> for equity shares has come to be estimated based on declared earnings
> >> which are all too easy to manipulate as the current quarter comes to a
> >> close and the bonus calculations and stock options start to come out.
> >
> > well put Elmo. sadly though most if not the vast majority have 0%
> > understanding for what you just explained.
> >
> > the real and tangible GDP relates to manufacturing. the country with
> > the in country manufacturing has the wealth. the government of a
> > country with manufacturing has a real and taxable infrastructure
> > allowing that government of said country to collect real and usable
> > revenues.
> >
> > if the workers had simply learned their place in the overall scheme of
> > things and not attempted to exploit those with investment capital then
> > america just might still be the number one country with the most jobs in
> > manufacturing of real and durable goods.
> >
> > but some worker bees got together and attempted to reverse the roles of
> > who exploits who. funny how those with investment capital smiled and
> > waved bye, then simply moved on to a new location were hungry people
> > [worker bees] were eager to be employed / [exploited].
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

from your posting header
Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95

do you really pay $19.95 to gain access to usenet?

>
> This is the typical horseshit of "trickle down" rich bitch thievery to
> which the Republicans have _ALWAYS_ subscribed. The lie is that the rich
> people are necessary to a functioning economy in that they provide the
> "capital" (a total distortion of the word) that allows businesses to be
> built and that these businesses (all of which are very large) "create
> jobs". The reality is that work needs to be done regardless of whether
> there is a some rich bitch or not.
>
> But the "financial industry" is a fine example of a lot of "jobs" that
> _ARE_ created by the idle rich and a fine example of work that doesn't
> need doing and which would not need doing if the rich were not constantly
> blowing speculative bubbles to further enrich themselves.

the two above paragraphs you wrote pretty much demonstrate how you
do not truly understand where [real and tangible] investment capital
reside.

>
> The total collapse of all the derivatives will hurt only those who were a
> part of the big casino in the sky. And the sooner that house of betting
> slips implodes, the sooner a REAL financial sector can take over and the
> sooner REAL investments can take place.

without real and tangible investment capital then all there is
left is a "casino in the sky". and now it's time for that imaginary
"casino in the sky" to crash. a return to the sound business practices
of you can buy today what you can pay for today would do wonders as a
cure all for the concept of got to have it now and maybe it'll get paid
for tomorrow way of life americans are addicted to.

>
[....]

== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 7:40 pm
From: Truly Stunned

In article <gbrt8o$fco$2@aioe.org>, "Jim" <jim@home.com> wrote:

> "Michael Coburn" <mikcob@verizon.net> wrote
> > The Republicans were indeed responsible for the Tech Stock bubble and the
>
>
> Just because they made it =possible= for people to be fools and act on their
> stupid ideas, doesn't make it their fault...

Yes, it does. It is called "Giving them license".

== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 8:07 pm
From: Jitney

On Sep 29, 1:59 pm, Michael Coburn <mik...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:22:16 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:34:40 -0400, Ann <nntpm...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:35:32 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> >>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:29:32 -0700, "nospam" <a...@b.c> wrote:
>
> >>>>Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration,
> >>>>apologizing for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a
> >>>>direct result of their relentless pursuit of deregulation.
>
> >>>>These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
>
> >>> Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the
> >>> regulations both in 2003 and in 2005
>
> >>The records show that the Republicans had control of both the Senate and
> >>House through the end of 2004. Bush made the request that Congress give
> >>Treasury oversight in 2003.
>
> > Odd..the Democrats control both the House and Senate since 2006. Yet
> > they did nothing. So are they to blame?
>
> > "Just as Republicans got blamed for Enron, Worldcom and other early
> > 2000's scandals that were actually due to the anything-goes Clinton era,
> > the media are now blaming them for the mortgage meltdown.
>
> The Republicans were indeed responsible for the Tech Stock bubble and the
> Housing bubble.
>
> The Bubbles:
>
> IN 1997 the Gingrich Congress passed the "Taxpayer Relief Act" as a
> totally veto proof bill. Clinton could no more veto this Republican tax
> cut than he could have turned back the tide. The vote in the House was
> 3xx to < 50 and in the Senate it was 90 to 8 (or close to it). No veto
> of that bill was possible. It was a Republican bill all the way. That
> tax code adjustment allowed people to cash out of their homes (a
> retirement vehicle for most Americans) and to use the TAX FREE capital
> gains for speculative purposes in the highly touted tech stocks and, at
> the sam3e time to use a new home as a speculative vehicle.. And the
> gains from such gambling ("investment") would be taxed at a mere 15%.
> Prior to this speculation enabling bill homeowners could move from one
> home to another with no tax penalty and could then take a one time
> exemption at retirement (empty nest). But the new rules allowed the
> American to use the money from the house to gamble in both real estate
> and in the stock market.
>
> Prior to this Republican tax cut, Clinton in 1995 attempted to veto a
> bill passed by the Republicans that prevented small stockholders from
> suing the management of tech companies for lying about "forward looking"
> estimates of profits. That Republican bill was heavily lobbied by the
> tech sector.
>
> http://www.oreilly-sucks.com/News/clinton.htm----------------------
> On December 20, 1995, President Clinton vetoed the Public Securities
> Litigation Reform Act, which would have restricted lawsuits against
> corporation accused of securities fraud. In his veto message, Clinton
> presciently noted that while he supported the notion of reducing
> frivolous lawsuits: "I am not, however, willing to sign legislation that
> will have the effect of closing the courthouse door on investors who have
> legitimate claims. Those who are the victims of fraud should have
> recourse in our courts. Our markets are as strong and effective as they
> are because they operate -- and are seen to operate -- with integrity. I
> believe that this bill, as modified in conference, could erode this
> crucial basis of our markets' strength." The GOP Congress overrode
> Clinton's veto.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Republicans tried repeatedly to bring fiscal sanity to F&F. Dems opposed
> > them especially Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who now run Congress' key
> > banking panels. History is utterly clear about this.
>
> > After Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers warned Congress in 1999 of the
> > "systemic risk" posed by F&F, Congress held hearings the next year. But
> > nothing was done. Why? F&F had donated millions to key congressmen and
> > radical groups, ensuring no meaningful changes would take place.
>
> John the Con, McCain who presented a bill for altering the oversight of
> Fannie Mae had simply seen an opportunity in the Firing of then CEO
> Raines (A Clinton administration person) to move Fannie Mae much more
> into the private sector and away from oversight by the OFHEO which had
> cited accounting discrepancies at Fannie that resulted in the firing.
> A classic case of ab-using a scandal to move the oversight to Republican
> control.
>
> > "We manage our political risk with the same intensity that we manage our
> > credit and interest risks" Fannie CEO Franklin Raines, a former Clinton
> > official and current Barack Obama adviser, bragged to investors in 1999.
>
> Raines is __NOT__ an adviser to Obama, never was, and has told the Faux
> News liars so in no uncertain terms. Yet the Lying Pigs will not leave
> it alone. Obama's campaign people did contact Raines to ask about what
> happened in 2004 when Raines was ousted as CEO of Fannie Mae.
>
> > In November 2000, Clinton's HUD hailed "new regulations to provide $2.4
> > trillion in mortgages for affordable housing for 28.1 million families."
> > It made F&F take part in the biggest federal expansion of housing aid
> > EVER.
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/
> AR2008060902626_2.html ---------------------------------
> In 2000, as HUD revisited its affordable-housing goals, the housing
> market had shifted. With escalating home prices, subprime loans were more
> popular. Consumer advocates warned that lenders were trapping borrowers
> with low "teaser" interest rates and ignoring borrowers' qualifications.
>
> HUD restricted Freddie and Fannie, saying it would not credit them for
> loans they purchased that had abusively high costs or that were granted
> without regard to the borrower's ability to repay. Freddie and Fannie
> adopted policies not to buy some high-cost loans.
>
> That year, Freddie bought $18.6 billion in subprime loans; Fannie did not
> disclose its number.
>
> In 2001, HUD researchers warned of high foreclosure rates among subprime
> loans.
>
> "Given the very high concentration of these loans in low-income and
> African American neighborhoods, the growth in subprime lending and
> resulting very high levels of foreclosure is a real cause for concern,"
> an agency report said.
> ad_icon
>
> But by 2004, when HUD next revised the goals, Freddie and Fannie's
> purchases of subprime-backed securities had risen tenfold. Foreclosure
> rates also were rising.
>
> That year, President Bush's HUD ratcheted up the main affordable-housing
> goal over the next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent. John C.
> Weicher, then an assistant HUD secretary, said the institutions lagged
> behind even the private market and "must do more."
>
> For Wall Street, high profits could be made from securities backed by
> subprime loans. Fannie and Freddie targeted the least-risky loans. Still,
> their purchases provided more cash for a larger subprime market.
>
> "That was a huge, huge mistake," said Patricia McCoy, who teaches
> securities law at the University of Connecticut. "That just pumped more
> capital into a very unregulated market that has turned out to be a
> disaster."
>
> In 2003, the two bought $81 billion in subprime securities. In 2004, they
> purchased $175 billion -- 44 percent of the market. In 2005, they bought
> $169 billion, or 33 percent. In 2006, they cut back to $90 billion, or 20
> percent. Generally, Freddie purchased more than Fannie and relied more
> heavily on the securities to meet goals.
>
> "The market knew we needed those loans," said Sharon McHale, a
> spokeswoman for Freddie Mac. The higher goals "forced us to go into that
> market to serve the targeted populations that HUD wanted us to serve,"
> she said.
>
> > Soon after taking office, Bush had his hands full with the Clinton
> > recession and 9/11. But by 2003, he proposd what the New York Times
> > called "the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance
> > industry since the S&L crisis a decade ago."
>
> > The plan included a new regulator for F&F, one that could boost capital
> > mandates and look at how they managed risk. Even after regulators in
> > 2003 uncovered a scheme by F&F executives to overstate earnings by $10.6
> > billion to boost bonuses, Dems killed reform.
>
> > "F&F are not facing any kind of financial crisis" said Barney Frank,
> > then-ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. North
> > carolina Democrat Melvin Watt accused the White House of "weakening the
> > bargain power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable
> > housing."
>
> > In 2005, then-Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress: "We are placing
> > the total financial system of the future at substanial risk."
>
> > That year, Sen. John McCain, one of the three sponsors of a F&F reform
> > bill, said: "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue
> > to be exposed to the enormous risk that F&F pose to the housing market,
> > the overall financial system and the economy as a whole."
>
> > Sen. Harry Reid--now Majority Leader--accused the GOP of trying to
> > "cripple the ability of F&F to carry out their mission of expanding home
> > ownership."
>
> > THE BILL WENT NOWHERE!!
>
> > This year, the media have repeated Democrats' talking points about this
> > being a "Republican" disaster. McCain has repeatedly called for
> > reforming the mortgage giants. The White House has repeatedly warned
> > Congress. Some GOP members are complicit but F&F were created by Dems,
> > regulated by Dems, largely run by Dems and protected by Dems.
>
> > That's why taxpayers are now being asked for $700 billion." Terry Jones
>
> The US government could buy out every loan in the minority neighborhoods
> for approximately $200B and the taxpayers wouldn't lose a dime. The
> Republicans are making a mountain out of a molehill because they have
> nothing else. The Republicans have been in control of the Congress since
> 1995 and as George Bush took the Oval office in 2001 they have been in
> control of the entire government since 2000 and they have done nothing
> blown bubbles:
>
> To insinuate that this rat turd is the cause of the current financial
> meltdown is quite typical of the Republicans. This is a "nit" in the
> current meltdown, but what else do the deregulating moronic Republicans
> have? This is it, and they must dress it up and put as much lipstick on
> it as possible. Most certainly the nonsense surrounding the "Community
> Reinvestment Act" is an absurdity when we actually look at the minuscule
> number of failed mortgages that were inside the boundaries where this act
> was of any import. The US government could BUY OUT every one of these for
> a pittance.
>
> The attempt to alter the oversight of Fannie Mae in 2005 passed the House
> in a vote of 39x to 2x and then was hijacked by the Republican Senate with
> its own version. The Republican Senate attempted to weaken government
> oversight by placing Fannie and Freddie further into the private sector
> having it looked after in the same way as Federal Reserve that has failed
> miserably since the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 has "looked after"
> the banking sector in general. Those who wish to read the actual bill
> that was sponsored in the Senate by John the Con, McCain will see that it
> attempted to move Fannie and Freddie out from under the eye of the Office
> of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) or to rename OFHEO. This
> was the same OFHEO that had found "accounting discrepancies" at Fannie Mae
> and replaced Franklin Raines (CEO and X Clinton man) with an individual
> more acceptable to the deregulating Republicans. The reality was that the
> Republicans thought they had found an opportunity to promote more
> Republican control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
>
> Reality versus Republican pig manure:
>
> The reality is that Frennie Mae's acceptance of less than stellar
> mortgages was an attempt to support George Bush's version of a Lyndon
> Johnson "Great Society" referred to as "The Ownership Society". The Bush
> initiative for home ownership was the kingpin of the Republican fake
> economy built on government debt and propped up by even more private
> sector debt. Whereas government debt is actually fiat money (a fact)
> then, to the moron Republicans and their pet neoclassical moronic
> economists, private sector debt must also be good. Surely you understand
> that "deficits don't matter". And while the complicit actions of the Fed
> in lax oversight of the banks was seminal to the overall bubble blowing
> fake economy, the centerpiece that allowed tax cuts for the rich and
> concurrent imperialism the "American Dream Downpayment Act".
>
> Lets take a look at who was running this ship since 2000:
>
> http://realtytimes.com/rtpages/20020618_housinginitiative.htm----
> Published: June 18, 2002
> NAR, NAHB Endorse White House, HUD Minority Housing Initiative by Realty
> Times Staff
>
> The National Association of Realtors praised President George W. Bush and
> Housing and Urban Development Secretary Mel Martinez for their commitment
> to increasing minority homeownership opportunities and pledged its full
> support for the White House minority homeownership initiative announced
> yesterday. Regional Vice President Bob McMillan of Decatur, Ala.,
> represented NAR -- one of about a dozen partners in this public-private
> initiative -- at this morning's announcement ceremony at St. Paul AME
> Church in Atlanta.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_92843512-----
>
> WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 15, 2002
>
> The National Association of Realtors(R) announced today that it has made a
> pledge to the White House to help meet the President's challenge to
> increase the number of minority homeowners in America by 5.5 million
> before the end of the decade.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/10/20031015-10.htmlFor
> Immediate Release
> Office of the Press Secretary
> October 15, 2003
>
> President Calls on Senate to Pass American Dream Downpayment Act Remarks
> by the President on Housing and the Economy
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> For Immediate Release
> Office of the Press Secretary
> December 16, 2003
>
> President Bush Signs American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003 Remarks by the
> President at Signing of the American Dream Downpayment Act Department of
> Housing and Urban Development Washington, D.C.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5246/is_200403/ai_n19793121--
> Mortgage Banking, March, 2004 :
> FANNIE MAE HAS ANNOUNCED A PLEDGE to help 6 million families--including
> 1.8 million minority families--become first-time homeowners over the next
> decade. The pledge boosts the company's commitment to President Bush's
> Minority Homeownership Initiative and will help raise the minority
> homeownership rate from 50.6 percent currently to 55 percent, with the
> ultimate goal of closing the gap between minority homeownership rates and
> nonminority homeownership rates.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> But the reason you don't see garbage about the role played by Fannie Mae
> anywhere but on Faux News is that it just isn't newsworthy. It is
> because it is right wing crap that is almost irrelevant.
>
> Yup. Raines is currently a supposed crook that mis-stated the financial
> position of Fannie so as to gain a windfall from bonuses. But that has
> little or nothing to do with any of the _*current*_ problems in the
> economy or even with the current problems at Fannie. The problems at
> Fannie that stem from the "Community Reinvestment act" pale in
> significance to the problems resulting from the "Bush Home Ownership
> Initiative" and the "American Dream Downpayment Act". And those problems
> in turn are minuscule compared to the bubble created by normal middle
> class people attempting to create capital gains by speculating in the
> price of homes. These Republicans have had total control of HUD since
> January of 2001. Bill Clinton is history and if the economy was in
> jeopardy due to a Clinton failure in 1999 or a Carter failure of 1977 they
> had the power and the time to get it fixed. But they didn't get anything
> fixed and instead fanned the flames of speculation. And the Bush home
> ownership initiatives were simply a part of the lying fascist pig
> Republican war party economics of debt.

Thanks for all the replies, I've learned a lot from both sides. I'm
suggesting my right wing friends vote for Bob Barr, Libertarian, the
best choice after Ron Paul. To my leftist friends, I recommend Ralph
Nader. Watching the debate, I was less impressed by the differences
than by the similarities between the repiblicrats and demipubs..
ObamaCain is not the answer, it is the same $hit sandwich we've gotten
from both sides for years.-Jitney

== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 7:22 pm
From: Ann

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:14:54 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:23:38 -0400, Ann <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:11:18 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:28:37 -0400, Ann <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:22:16 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:34:40 -0400, Ann <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:35:32 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:29:32 -0700, "nospam" <a@b.c> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration,
>>>>>>>>apologizing for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a
>>>>>>>>direct result of their relentless pursuit of deregulation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the
>>>>>>> regulations both in 2003 and in 2005
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The records show that the Republicans had control of both the Senate
>>>>>>and House through the end of 2004. Bush made the request that
>>>>>>Congress give Treasury oversight in 2003.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Odd..the Democrats control both the House and Senate since 2006. Yet
>>>>> they did nothing. So are they to blame?
>>>>
>>>>Nothing odd about it. Yes, the Democrats are partly at fault.
>>>>Although, realistically, a bill passed in 2007 (assuming Bush had
>>>>signed it) would have been unlikely to prevent the melt-down. The
>>>>horse was not only out of the barn; it was miles away.
>>>>
>>>><...>
>>> You seem to have missed the references to the bills in 2003 and 2005,
>>> both blocked by the Demonrats.
>>
>>Already covered (scroll up).
>>
>>> Interesting you failed to address those. Ill bet you had a reason
>>> however, no?
>>
>>Already covered (scroll up).
>>
>>> And snipping the entirety of the rebuttal to the Leftists claim its
>>> Bush's and the Republicans fault...really is indicative.
>>
>>Indicative of its irrelevance. I never made the claim that it was
>>entirely "Bush's and the Republicans fault" so there was nothing to
>>rebut.
>>
> say..Congress has been controlled by Democrats for nearly 2 yrs. So why
> havnt they dont anything?

Already covered (scroll up).
>
> I see Pelosi shit herself just before the big vote today...with her foot
> stamping partisan attack speech.
>
> Got exactly what she didnt want, and did deserve, a vote against the
> bailout.
>
> Sucks to be her eh?

Why? She delivered the number of Democratic "yea" votes she committed to;
it was the House Republicans who broke ranks and whose "yea" votes fell
short.

The way controversial votes in an election year usually go is that
the most vulnerable members of a party get a "bye" if their votes aren't
needed to pass/reject a bill. That is, they get to vote in the way that
gives them the best chance at reelection. So, who it really sucks to be is
Roy Blunt and John Buchner. Ten Republicans they expected to vote for
the bill voted against it instead.

== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 8:20 pm
From: Jitney

On Sep 29, 7:22 pm, Ann <nntpm...@epix.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:14:54 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 18:23:38 -0400, Ann <nntpm...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:11:18 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 15:28:37 -0400, Ann <nntpm...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 11:22:16 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 07:34:40 -0400, Ann <nntpm...@epix.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:35:32 -0700, Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 22:29:32 -0700, "nospam" <a...@b.c> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>Not a single word from Bush or anyone in his administration,
> >>>>>>>>apologizing for this economic catastrophe, or even admitting it's a
> >>>>>>>>direct result of their relentless pursuit of deregulation.
>
> >>>>>>>>These people literally have no conscience. Amoral beasts.
>
> >>>>>>> Actually..the records show that they tried to stiffen up the
> >>>>>>> regulations both in 2003 and in 2005
>
> >>>>>>The records show that the Republicans had control of both the Senate
> >>>>>>and House through the end of 2004. Bush made the request that
> >>>>>>Congress give Treasury oversight in 2003.
>
> >>>>> Odd..the Democrats control both the House and Senate since 2006. Yet
> >>>>> they did nothing. So are they to blame?
>
> >>>>Nothing odd about it. Yes, the Democrats are partly at fault.
> >>>>Although, realistically, a bill passed in 2007 (assuming Bush had
> >>>>signed it) would have been unlikely to prevent the melt-down. The
> >>>>horse was not only out of the barn; it was miles away.
>
> >>>><...>
> >>> You seem to have missed the references to the bills in 2003 and 2005,
> >>> both blocked by the Demonrats.
>
> >>Already covered (scroll up).
>
> >>> Interesting you failed to address those. Ill bet you had a reason
> >>> however, no?
>
> >>Already covered (scroll up).
>
> >>> And snipping the entirety of the rebuttal to the Leftists claim its
> >>> Bush's and the Republicans fault...really is indicative.
>
> >>Indicative of its irrelevance. I never made the claim that it was
> >>entirely "Bush's and the Republicans fault" so there was nothing to
> >>rebut.
>
> > say..Congress has been controlled by Democrats for nearly 2 yrs. So why
> > havnt they dont anything?
>
> Already covered (scroll up).
>
>
>
> > I see Pelosi shit herself just before the big vote today...with her foot
> > stamping partisan attack speech.
>
> > Got exactly what she didnt want, and did deserve, a vote against the
> > bailout.
>
> > Sucks to be her eh?
>
> Why? She delivered the number of Democratic "yea" votes she committed to;
> it was the House Republicans who broke ranks and whose "yea" votes fell
> short.
>
> The way controversial votes in an election year usually go is that
> the most vulnerable members of a party get a "bye" if their votes aren't
> needed to pass/reject a bill. That is, they get to vote in the way that
> gives them the best chance at reelection. So, who it really sucks to be is
> Roy Blunt and John Buchner. Ten Republicans they expected to vote for
> the bill voted against it instead. - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 8:44 pm
From: "Dave"

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> from your posting header
> Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
>
> do you really pay $19.95 to gain access to usenet?
>

Pretty soon we all will, or we won't have usenet.

I was a newsguy customer a long time ago. From memory, they had two
plans....one was text only, and extremely cheap. The other was binaries
also, and was about 20 per month. -Dave

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 8:45 pm
From: Ann

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:44:36 -0400, Dave wrote:

> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> from your posting header
>> Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
>>
>> do you really pay $19.95 to gain access to usenet?
>>
>>
> Pretty soon we all will, or we won't have usenet.
>
> I was a newsguy customer a long time ago. From memory, they had two
> plans....one was text only, and extremely cheap. The other was binaries
> also, and was about 20 per month. -Dave

Altopia.com is still in business and still has a $6/mo account.

== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 9:54 pm
From: Jim

Dave wrote:
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > from your posting header
> > Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
> >
> > do you really pay $19.95 to gain access to usenet?
> >
>
> Pretty soon we all will, or we won't have usenet.

no, usenet is a subset of the internet. after accessing the
internet you can noodle around a bit and then access usenet.

>
> I was a newsguy customer a long time ago. From memory, they had two
> plans....one was text only, and extremely cheap. The other was binaries
> also, and was about 20 per month. -Dave

if his header had stated unlimited internet, I'd not have questioned it.

== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 11:04 pm
From: Michael Coburn

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:12:35 -0400, Jim wrote:

> Michael Coburn wrote:
>
>> Jim wrote:
>> > Elmo wrote:
>> >> Jitney wrote:
>> >> > It is hard to find statistics on the mortgage crisis, so I'm
>> >> > making an estimate. There are about 100 million households in the
>> >> > USA, assuming 10% are in default or foreclosure, which I think is
>> >> > a high estimate, subtracting rentals from the 100 million (if you
>> >> > can refute me from a credible authority, I would love to be
>> >> > corrected). Ten million divided into 700 billion works out to
>> >> > $700,000 per distressed property, which should on the average buy
>> >> > out each property twice. What is happening to the rest? I think
>> >> > this is a massive raid on the US treasury, with a threat of a
>> >> > Great Depression if we don't pay up, and that isn't even counting
>> >> > AIG, Countrywide, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns. Wall
>> >> > Street is stealing more than the Huns that raided the Roman
>> >> > Empire, with similar results. And this is not the end. Congress
>> >> > forked over 25 Billion to the automakers, the airlines are next,
>> >> > and who then? Ben and Jerries? We are looking at a new Dark Ages.
>> >>
>> >> You're focusing too narrowly. The problem isn't the mortgages
>> >> alone, it's all of the "derivatives" which have been used to "create
>> >> value" and "manage risk". Over half of the GDP of the USA comes
>> >> from counting each link in the chain as Tom sells something to Dick
>> >> who turns around and sells it to Harry who breaks it into pieces and
>> >> sells shares of it to Louise and Louise buys a credit default swap
>> >> from Thelma. It's a lot like the Dutch tulip mania except that
>> >> there is precious little of actual, material value underneath it.
>> >> And of course almost all of it has been done with borrowed money --
>> >> sometimes as little as 1% of the "value" being provided in the form
>> >> of recognizable assets.
>> >>
>> >> Even those assets are suspect since so much of the concept of
>> >> "value" for equity shares has come to be estimated based on declared
>> >> earnings which are all too easy to manipulate as the current quarter
>> >> comes to a close and the bonus calculations and stock options start
>> >> to come out.
>> >
>> > well put Elmo. sadly though most if not the vast majority have 0%
>> > understanding for what you just explained.
>> >
>> > the real and tangible GDP relates to manufacturing. the country with
>> > the in country manufacturing has the wealth. the government of a
>> > country with manufacturing has a real and taxable infrastructure
>> > allowing that government of said country to collect real and usable
>> > revenues.
>> >
>> > if the workers had simply learned their place in the overall scheme
>> > of things and not attempted to exploit those with investment capital
>> > then america just might still be the number one country with the most
>> > jobs in manufacturing of real and durable goods.
>> >
>> > but some worker bees got together and attempted to reverse the roles
>> > of who exploits who. funny how those with investment capital smiled
>> > and waved bye, then simply moved on to a new location were hungry
>> > people [worker bees] were eager to be employed / [exploited].
>>
>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> from your posting header
> Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
>
> do you really pay $19.95 to gain access to usenet?

Nope.

>
>> This is the typical horseshit of "trickle down" rich bitch thievery to
>> which the Republicans have _ALWAYS_ subscribed. The lie is that the
>> rich people are necessary to a functioning economy in that they provide
>> the "capital" (a total distortion of the word) that allows businesses
>> to be built and that these businesses (all of which are very large)
>> "create jobs". The reality is that work needs to be done regardless of
>> whether there is a some rich bitch or not.
>>
>> But the "financial industry" is a fine example of a lot of "jobs" that
>> _ARE_ created by the idle rich and a fine example of work that doesn't
>> need doing and which would not need doing if the rich were not
>> constantly blowing speculative bubbles to further enrich themselves.
>
> the two above paragraphs you wrote pretty much demonstrate how you do
> not truly understand where [real and tangible] investment capital
> reside.

And you are now demonstrating that you are clueless. Maybe we could
start your education by you telling the rest of us what you think
"investment capital" might be.

>> The total collapse of all the derivatives will hurt only those who were
>> a part of the big casino in the sky. And the sooner that house of
>> betting slips implodes, the sooner a REAL financial sector can take
>> over and the sooner REAL investments can take place.
>
> without real and tangible investment capital then all there is left is a
> "casino in the sky". and now it's time for that imaginary "casino in
> the sky" to crash. a return to the sound business practices of you can
> buy today what you can pay for today would do wonders as a cure all for
> the concept of got to have it now and maybe it'll get paid for tomorrow
> way of life americans are addicted to.

There is a very real need for credit in a properly functioning economy.
But in most cases it has next to nothing to do with saved up money or
clearing balances or big piles of gold. The concept of a "down payment"
is of much benefit. But even that can be too restrictive. Proper
regulation is a trade for better liquidity.

== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 11:06 pm
From: Michael Coburn

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 00:54:07 -0400, Jim wrote:

> Dave wrote:
>>
>> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> >
>> > from your posting header
>> > Organization: NewsGuy - Unlimited Usenet $19.95
>> >
>> > do you really pay $19.95 to gain access to usenet?
>> >
>> >
>> Pretty soon we all will, or we won't have usenet.
>
> no, usenet is a subset of the internet. after accessing the internet
> you can noodle around a bit and then access usenet.

Some of us have little time for noodling.

== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 11:19 pm
From: Gunner Asch

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:22:23 -0400, Ann <nntpmail@epix.net> wrote:

>>
>> Got exactly what she didnt want, and did deserve, a vote against the
>> bailout.
>>
>> Sucks to be her eh?
>
>Why? She delivered the number of Democratic "yea" votes she committed to;
>it was the House Republicans who broke ranks and whose "yea" votes fell
>short.

Oddly enough...60% of the Democrats voted against it

Seems that both sides had people who voted their consience against hte
bail out, which is frankly surprising for democrats

Gunner
"Obama, raises taxes and kills babies. Sarah Palin - raises babies
and kills taxes." Pyotr Flipivich

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I'm celebrating because the bailout failed!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8ad3e712cb6e0e31?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 7:34 pm
From: Jeff

OhioGuy wrote:
> I just read that politicians were getting more phone calls today than
> ever before regarding the bailout.
>
> Yay - that was me! I made a difference! We basically let our voices be
> heard, and told them if they used our money to pay off the companies who
> caused this whole fiasco, then we would be showing them the door in
> about 5 weeks. Today we saw the Republic working the way it should, with
> representatives REPRESENTING the will of their constituents.

The people know crap.
>
> I think the bailout as worded was a rush job that would have done very
> little to alleviate the current situation. We simply need to take a
> month to look things over,

In the last week or so, the largest Thrift, the largest Chevy dealer,
the largest mortgage lender and the largest investment banks have
failed. Wachovia went down today.

Lets just say , for arguments sake, that all that doesn't amount to much.

Lets look instead at the typical business that borrows money while
they wait for receipts to come in. That money is needed to pay for
payrolls and other goods and services. Right now the mechanism to
borrow that short term money is broken.

I don't know what the "right" plan is. But I can tell you that if
nothing is done, in the next month, you'll see a wave of collapses that
hasn't been seen since '29. What the Fed is doing now is treating the
frozen credit market ad hoc.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/10439813/2/fed-pumps-huge-wads-of-cash-into-system.html

In today's announcement, the Federal Reserve said that it would double
the size of its Term Auction Facility to $300 billion from $150 billion,
massively increasing its lifeline to commercial banks. The action should
help put downward pressure on the fed funds rate, which is one of the
reasons why the ability to pay interest on reserves is so important at
this time.

The Fed also announced today that it would double the size of its swap
facilities with foreign central banks to a whopping $620 billion from
$290 billion, an action designed to counter strains in the European
banking system, where demand for dollars is far outstripping supply.

The action will help lower LIBOR, which has been trading at 21-year
highs relative to the fed funds rate (three-month LIBOR settled at 3.88%
today).

And don't forget all those billions the Fed has already set aside for
AIG and Fannie and Freddie. That's some real money.

If you think we should sit on this for a month, then my advice to you
is this: Don't sell the cow.

Jeff

get feedback from economists, and craft
> something that makes more sense. Something that might actually WORK
> would probably be a good idea, too.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 9:04 pm
From: "Dave"

"Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote in message
news:5bKdnUHFr_zfDXzVnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink.com...
> OhioGuy wrote:
> > I just read that politicians were getting more phone calls today than
> > ever before regarding the bailout.
> >
> > Yay - that was me! I made a difference! We basically let our voices be
> > heard, and told them if they used our money to pay off the companies who
> > caused this whole fiasco, then we would be showing them the door in
> > about 5 weeks. Today we saw the Republic working the way it should, with
> > representatives REPRESENTING the will of their constituents.
>
> The people know crap.

It's that arrogant attitude that is exactly why our current form of
government does not work. It's supposed to be of the people, by the people
and for the people. It's actually of a wealthy subset of the people, by a
wealthy subset of the people and for only a wealthy subset of the people.
It simply doesn't work for "the people".

The people know that another 700 BILLION dollars in unsecured debt borrowed
from other countries, to be paid back at the rate of $10K each taxpayer, if
it's ever repaid, is a really bad idea. But if you are a wealthy
congress-critter? 700 Billion looks like chump change, when you are
spending other peoples' money to the tune of tens of trillions of
dollars....

No, the problem is, the people DO understand the issue, well. But their
government who also understands the issue doesn't see the issue in the same
light that "the people" do. That's why I'm shocked that the bailout hasn't
passed. And very relieved. For the moment.

> In the last week or so, the largest Thrift, the largest Chevy dealer,
> the largest mortgage lender and the largest investment banks have
> failed. Wachovia went down today.
>
> Lets just say , for arguments sake, that all that doesn't amount to
much.
>
> Lets look instead at the typical business that borrows money while
> they wait for receipts to come in.

That would be a business that is over-extended, and not properly managed.

> That money is needed to pay for
> payrolls and other goods and services. Right now the mechanism to
> borrow that short term money is broken.

So? It only exposes a weakness in the management that would have led to the
failure of the corporation anyway. It's not causing the demise of an
employer. At worst, it's only hastening the demise. Better to take the
lumps now and start working toward a real solution. Sooner, rather than
later. -Dave

>
> I don't know what the "right" plan is. But I can tell you that if
> nothing is done, in the next month, you'll see a wave of collapses that
> hasn't been seen since '29.

You could be right. However, the 700Billion bailout proposal would only
HASTEN this economic collapse that you speak of, if it happens. By
over-extending our borrowing even further, and de-valuing the dollar to the
point where we are burning 100 dollar bills in the fireplace to stay warm
this winter.

> If you think we should sit on this for a month, then my advice to you
> is this: Don't sell the cow.
>
> Jeff

Again, the 700BN bailout proposal is like trying to fix a stalled engine by
pushing the car off a cliff. It might be dangerous to do nothing, but it's
much more dangerous to throw 700 Billion at people who do not know how to
manage it. -Dave

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 9:17 pm
From: JonL

Dave wrote:
> "Jeff" <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote in message
> news:5bKdnUHFr_zfDXzVnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@earthlink.com...
>> OhioGuy wrote:
>>> I just read that politicians were getting more phone calls today than
>>> ever before regarding the bailout.
>>>
>>> Yay - that was me! I made a difference! We basically let our voices be
>>> heard, and told them if they used our money to pay off the companies who
>>> caused this whole fiasco, then we would be showing them the door in
>>> about 5 weeks. Today we saw the Republic working the way it should, with
>>> representatives REPRESENTING the will of their constituents.
>> The people know crap.
>
> It's that arrogant attitude that is exactly why our current form of
> government does not work. It's supposed to be of the people, by the people
> and for the people. It's actually of a wealthy subset of the people, by a
> wealthy subset of the people and for only a wealthy subset of the people.
> It simply doesn't work for "the people".
>
> The people know that another 700 BILLION dollars in unsecured debt borrowed
> from other countries, to be paid back at the rate of $10K each taxpayer, if
> it's ever repaid, is a really bad idea. But if you are a wealthy
> congress-critter? 700 Billion looks like chump change, when you are
> spending other peoples' money to the tune of tens of trillions of
> dollars....
>
> No, the problem is, the people DO understand the issue, well. But their
> government who also understands the issue doesn't see the issue in the same
> light that "the people" do. That's why I'm shocked that the bailout hasn't
> passed. And very relieved. For the moment.
>
>
>> In the last week or so, the largest Thrift, the largest Chevy dealer,
>> the largest mortgage lender and the largest investment banks have
>> failed. Wachovia went down today.
>>
>> Lets just say , for arguments sake, that all that doesn't amount to
> much.
>> Lets look instead at the typical business that borrows money while
>> they wait for receipts to come in.
>
> That would be a business that is over-extended, and not properly managed.
>
>
>
>> That money is needed to pay for
>> payrolls and other goods and services. Right now the mechanism to
>> borrow that short term money is broken.
>
> So? It only exposes a weakness in the management that would have led to the
> failure of the corporation anyway. It's not causing the demise of an
> employer. At worst, it's only hastening the demise. Better to take the
> lumps now and start working toward a real solution. Sooner, rather than
> later. -Dave
>
>
>> I don't know what the "right" plan is. But I can tell you that if
>> nothing is done, in the next month, you'll see a wave of collapses that
>> hasn't been seen since '29.
>
> You could be right. However, the 700Billion bailout proposal would only
> HASTEN this economic collapse that you speak of, if it happens. By
> over-extending our borrowing even further, and de-valuing the dollar to the
> point where we are burning 100 dollar bills in the fireplace to stay warm
> this winter.
>
>
>> If you think we should sit on this for a month, then my advice to you
>> is this: Don't sell the cow.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Again, the 700BN bailout proposal is like trying to fix a stalled engine by
> pushing the car off a cliff. It might be dangerous to do nothing, but it's
> much more dangerous to throw 700 Billion at people who do not know how to
> manage it. -Dave
>
>
One problem with this is, that $700 b is not a price tag, it's just a
"teaser" price, to get us sucked in. The true cost may be in the 4-5
trillion range. Japan did this bailout thing for a major bank back in
98. 4-5 yrs later they had to bail the same bank again, at 6x the cost
of the first bailout. Without addressing structural problems within the
entire financial system, they discovered it's just money down a rathole.

(snipped from Forbes)

"It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman
told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number."

They made it up to be sufficiently enormous to frighten everyone into
rapid action.

---------------------------------------

interesting comments,imo:

Dallas Federal Reserve Bank President Richard Fisher said the proposed
$700 billion rescue of financial institutions backed by Fed Chairman Ben
S. Bernanke would plunge the U.S. government deeper into a fiscal abyss.

------------------------------------------

"It's more hype than real risk," said James K. Galbraith, a University
of Texas economist and son of the late economic historian John Kenneth
Galbraith. "A nasty recession is possible, but the bailout will not cure
that. So it's mainly relevant to the financial industry."

"My sense is it will delay a disaster, given that you only have three
months left in this administration. But it will not cure the problem in
the (financial) industry or prevent the shakeout and downsizing of the
industry," Galbraith said.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 10:59 pm
From: Jeff

I'm continually surprised at how little most people know. JayWalking
is widespread. IMHO, if the people were thinking, George W Bush would
not have made a second term.

>
> The people know that another 700 BILLION dollars in unsecured debt borrowed
> from other countries, to be paid back at the rate of $10K each taxpayer, if
> it's ever repaid, is a really bad idea.

The debt won't be unsecured, there will be something to back it up.
But that is all besides the point, as the whole idea in aactuality is to
establish some value to all these "assets". Nobody knows the value now
because of completely lax oversight. Because of this, the asset has no
value. The basic idea is for some value to be established so these
securities can be traded again. The only way you can establish a value
for something is to buy it. This will be complex work as some of this
debt is quite complex.

But if you are a wealthy
> congress-critter? 700 Billion looks like chump change, when you are
> spending other peoples' money to the tune of tens of trillions of
> dollars....

700 billion is chump change relative to the whole fiasco. It works out
to one additional year of George W Bush, since the debt is going up
about that much a year. It's also almost how much the Fed is pushing out
each day to ease liquidity.
>
> No, the problem is, the people DO understand the issue, well. But their
> government who also understands the issue doesn't see the issue in the same
> light that "the people" do. That's why I'm shocked that the bailout hasn't
> passed. And very relieved. For the moment.

It's not really a bailout, it's an attempt to establish some movement
to a frozen monetary system. The Ad Hoc alternative of buying these
failed firms will prove to be much more expensive.
>
>
>> In the last week or so, the largest Thrift, the largest Chevy dealer,
>> the largest mortgage lender and the largest investment banks have
>> failed. Wachovia went down today.
>>
>> Lets just say , for arguments sake, that all that doesn't amount to
> much.
>> Lets look instead at the typical business that borrows money while
>> they wait for receipts to come in.
>
> That would be a business that is over-extended, and not properly managed.
>
>
No. It's almost every manufacturing business and most others. If you
make 10 cents on the dollar, you have to be able to have the whole
dollar until you get your 10 cents. If it takes you 1 month to
recuperate your expense, you would have to have in cash nearly your
years earnings to finance your operation.

Only very small businesses, or ones with great cash flow, can operate
with no short term debt.

>
>> That money is needed to pay for
>> payrolls and other goods and services. Right now the mechanism to
>> borrow that short term money is broken.
>
> So? It only exposes a weakness in the management that would have led to the
> failure of the corporation anyway.

There's a huge difference between the leveraging that these
investment banks did and the "Commercial Paper" that runs a large part
of the economy.

Without access to commercial paper, these businesses will grind to a
halt.

It's not causing the demise of an
> employer. At worst, it's only hastening the demise. Better to take the
> lumps now and start working toward a real solution. Sooner, rather than
> later. -Dave
>
>
>> I don't know what the "right" plan is. But I can tell you that if
>> nothing is done, in the next month, you'll see a wave of collapses that
>> hasn't been seen since '29.
>
> You could be right. However, the 700Billion bailout proposal would only
> HASTEN this economic collapse that you speak of, if it happens. By
> over-extending our borrowing even further, and de-valuing the dollar to the
> point where we are burning 100 dollar bills in the fireplace to stay warm
> this winter.

At this point .7T is a small part of the 10T debt that W has left us
with. It would, of course, be better not to have had a fiscal policy
that cared nothing about deficits. It would have been better not to have
had an incompetent president that was still cheer leading this disaster
months ago.

The problem is that George W Bush has sold too many pigs in a poke
because it was an emergency. Regretfully, I think this is one pig we are
better off buying. The next president will have to right the ship.

Jeff

>
>
>> If you think we should sit on this for a month, then my advice to you
>> is this: Don't sell the cow.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Again, the 700BN bailout proposal is like trying to fix a stalled engine by
> pushing the car off a cliff. It might be dangerous to do nothing, but it's
> much more dangerous to throw 700 Billion at people who do not know how to
> manage it. -Dave
>
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Birk (bailout)Plan
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7353d0c8c3ba3c4a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 7:56 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Dave <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
> "Marsha" <mas@xeb.net> wrote in message
> news:gbrohg$s40$1@news.datemas.de...
>> clams_casino wrote:
>>>
>>> Hopefully Obama does something about upgrading the US education
>>> system.
>>
>> I don't think it's as much of an education problem as it is a lack of
>> family structure and personal accountability problem.
>>
>> Marsha/Ohio
>>
>
> No, I see it as a "no connection to reality" problem. If someone
> thinks we have 85BN or 700BN just sitting around waiting to be spent
> on bailing out irresponsible financial corporations, or to be
> re-distributed to the taxpayers, or whatever...
>
> They obviously aren't living on THIS planet. :)

Or they have enough of a clue to realise that another great depression
or worse is absolutely guaranteed to cost a hell of a lot more than that.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 8:50 pm
From: "Dave"

> >No, I see it as a "no connection to reality" problem. If someone thinks
we
> >have 85BN or 700BN just sitting around waiting to be spent on bailing out
> >irresponsible financial corporations, or to be re-distributed to the
> >taxpayers, or whatever...
> >
> >They obviously aren't living on THIS planet. :) -Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Obviously you have no concept of what's going on - the problem or the
> proposed solution.

OK, enlighten me. Where will the U.S. government get $700 BILLION without
borrowing it from other countries, like China, for example? Temporarily
moving the funds from other line-items doesn't count, as then the money will
STILL need to be borrowed from other countries, eventually.

>
> Ignorance may be bliss, but potentially dangerous.

And the proposed solution bears a striking resemblance to the irresponsible
financial behavior that got the banks in this mess. Talk about ignorance
being potentially dangerous! Indeed... -Dave

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can a rental property be used as a Roth IRA investment?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e9345a6d41c09d2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 29 2008 8:21 pm
From: Jeff

itsjoannotjoann@webtv.net wrote:
> On Sep 29, 5:33 am, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 05:24:58 -0500, Mark Anderson
>>
>> <m...@nospambrandylion.com> wrote:
>>> In article n...@none.net says...
>>>> Anyone have any ideas on this? Thanks for your input.
>>> The first place I go for any advice on complicated financial, legal, or
>>> relationship matters is here on Usenet.
>> Me too. But to be safe I get a second opinion from my parrot.
>> Trust but verify.
>>
>> --Vic
>
>>
> My cat gives me great advice on any subject I bring up. Perhaps the
> OP should consider getting a cat, too??

I can help with that. How many free advice givers will you be
needing. Let me start you out with 4.

Jeff

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Monday, September 29, 2008

25 new messages in 6 topics - digest

No comments: