discussion comment
16 years ago
"Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told the Senate Banking Committee that failing to pass the administration's big-money bailout for the financial industry would stifle consumer spending, bring more home foreclosures and cause job loss.
However, Democratic and Republican lawmakers expressed outrage that the administration wants them to sign off on what amounts to the cost of two Iraq wars with less than a week of debate." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/PersonalFinance/Story?id=5865241&page=1
"Senior Democrats on the Hill are worried that Sen. McCain will 'demagogue' the bill, continue to voice opposition to it, use it to run against both Wall Street and Congress as well as to distance himself from the Bush White House. Democrats worry McCain will not only vote against the bill, he will provide cover for other Republicans to do so, leaving Democrats holding the bag for the Bush administration's deeply unpopular proposal.
A Democratic congressional leadership source says that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson went so far as to assure Democratic leaders that McCain 'won't be a problem' -- in other words that McCain will vote for the proposal.
McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds says McCain has not made a decision one way or another." http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/wall-street-bai.html
Less than a week of debate? Sounds more like a rubber stamp than a Congress. So sleazy. :) They've known about this problem for years . . . sorta surprising it is coming so soon before the election. Perhaps they known McCain has a lock on the election and are just trying to clean the slate for him a little.
discussion comment
16 years ago
governments'
discussion comment
16 years ago
The Wall Street Journal wayyyyyyy before the crise was complaining that Democrats were blocking an investigation into these Government Service Entities (Federal National Mortgage Association, nicknamed Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, nicknamed Freddie Mac). Is there any truth to the allegations? I don't know---the system as I understand it mandates sleaziness so it seems like both Democrats and Republicans would have been in on it. Party line votes are often just shows for gullible consumption.
The government in this mess is like the frame and foundation and roof of a home. The foundation is the government's massive body of laws. The frame could be seen as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The roof is oversight and enforcement.
This is a free market? :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
Too much misdirected blame on the attorney, imo. He was her customer before becoming her attorney. Because a woman sells you lap dances then you can't represent her? Whether in his office or the stripclub it doesn't seem like makes a bean's worth of difference.
An expensive lesson for the attorney, but then the government's job is to screw people, which he probably is well aware and has profited from handsomely in the past.
discussion comment
16 years ago
either enough social good-----or social harmed caused by their closing.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"BTW, why doesn't the government bail out failing strip clubs?"
I'm sure it would if there was either enough social good involved e.g. educating children, spreading religion, building homes, etc. Unfortunately, not only aren't strip clubs seen as providing a social good some government lovers assert that strip clubs harm communities; drugs, STDs, prostitution, violence, misogyny, lowered property values, etc. etc. etc.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"The Federal National Mortgage Association, nicknamed Fannie Mae, and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation, nicknamed Freddie Mac, have operated since 1968 as government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). . . .
Fannie Mae was created in 1938 as part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. The collapse of the national housing market in the wake of the Great Depression discouraged private lenders from investing in home loans. Fannie Mae was established in order to provide local banks with federal money to finance home mortgages in an attempt to raise levels of home ownership and the availability of affordable housing.
Initially, Fannie Mae operated like a national savings and loan, allowing local banks to charge low interest rates on mortgages for the benefit of the home buyer. This lead to the development of what is now known as the secondary mortgage market. Within the secondary mortgage market, companies such as Fannie Mae are able to borrow money from foreign investors at low interest rates because of the financial support that they receive from the U.S. Government. It is this ability to borrow at low rates that allows Fannie Mae to provide fixed interest rate mortgages with low down payments to home buyers. Fannie Mae makes a profit from the difference between the interest rates homeowners pay and foreign lenders charge.
For the first thirty years following its inception, Fannie Mae held a veritable monopoly over the secondary mortgage market. In 1968, due to fiscal pressures created by the Vietnam War, Lyndon B. Johnson privatized Fannie Mae in order to remove it from the national budget. At this point, Fannie Mae began operating as a GSE, generating profits for stock holders while enjoying the benefits of exemption from taxation and oversight as well as implied government backing. In order to prevent any further monopolization of the market, a second GSE known as Freddie Mac was created in 1970. Currently, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac control about 90 percent of the nation's secondary mortgage market." http://hnn.us/articles/1849.html
discussion comment
16 years ago
Interesting link clubber. However, *you* violated a key commandment: NEVER BLAME GOVERNMENT! It was the market that was to blame; greedy bankers and mortgage brokers and other dirty capitalist types. . . government as usual was 100% innocent of any culpability NO matter what humongous incentives for mass fraud or extreme risk taking it legislated. So, start waving that flag and chant evermore United We Stand! :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
"private reward and socialized risk"
Perhaps bailing out the rich would seem more palatable when considering the "private reward" could be identified as "socialized reward." To the extent government at all levels takes from the rich via taxes ostensibly for social good that is one example of how reward isn't merely private. Additionally, think of jobs, products, services, structure, and community provided by the rich and that is another example of how reward isn't merely private.
Seems fairly reasonable under the facts that it is more akin to "socialized rewards and socialized losses." I mean the government takes, takes, takes, maybe when the wealth creators i.e. rich are at serious risk it is time to give a little back; say a few trillion in fiat dollars. :)
I would love a free market system, but that ain't reality and probably never was. :(
discussion comment
15 years ago
Most don't. If they do, then sometimes it is off limits. A very few enjoy. This one girl with no boobs (my boobs were bigger than hers and they're not big) enjoyed it to the point it was no charge----I'd run out of money after only 4 dances and apologized because I loved what she was doing. She says you aren't happy? I said I'm thrilled, but a budget is a budget; I'd like to do this all day. She says that sounds very good. That was a very fun visit. Most customers probably would have no interest in her because she had no boobs.
discussion comment
16 years ago
President-to-be McCain did some yapping about how strong the economy (before the $700 billion and much more to come bailout) is and that type of unsavoriness is exactly what is needed in a President. Not that interested in the Presidential race, but perhaps Obama has shown similar leadership?
Instead of viewing the financial mess as a mess it seems like this is the perfect time for flag waving and nationalizing unprecedented numbers of businesses because America in No. 1 and your government will protect you! What could be better than we the people owning Wall Street and universal public service?
United We Stand! :)
discussion comment
16 years ago
China holds only 1 trillion? I thought it was 2 trillion.
To some extent the fraud was extremely beneficial to the point that with hindsight it would all be worth doing again. The real challenge is how to manage the meltdown so that it doesn't lead to wimpyness for future financial ventures. Of course, wimpyness is exactly the medicine government proposes.
discussion comment
15 years ago
One dancer would feel nothing if you're buying dances---it was like she had a shutoff switch. Don't pay her and WOW! A significant improvement---breasts harden and heart races.
She was smoking hot except she looked like a graffiti board. It looked like people had used her as a practice board to learn tattooing. I mentioned a good tattoo (very well done---a true artist where it is like I'd like to see some of his other work) she had and she says oh, I paid for that one. I say it is excellent. She says after all the bad tattoos she needed at least one good tattoo and so she went to a pro, but it was expensive. He told he worked extra hard so that in the future she wouldn't get marked up with garbage. She says that tattoo still makes her very happy every time she looks at it because it is so well done.
discussion comment
15 years ago
I like getting used as an ATM if 1) I can afford it (usually not the case) and 2) I'm getting value.
Even when "regular" women used me as an ATM that is fine assuming the 2 qualifications are met. Old fashioned and not practical normally in this day and age, but the man should be the provider. I don't want my woman being lil Rambo (fighting for nothing in Iraq) or being a bread winner.
This old lady that I see (no sex please! she is too old even though younger than me) lost her husband trying to bring home the bacon (she was actually very successful in that regard). He didn't care about rising bank balances or her pleasing some corporate masters----he wanted good old fashioned sex and home making. He remarried and is getting the sex non-stop as much as he wants, but cooking and cleaning aren't on the menu. He's happy. She can't believe is cared so much about sex----to her it is just a non-paying chore; a time waster that could be turned into productive time.
discussion comment
16 years ago
*Seems* like it is more likey to increase risk taking and probably lousy decisions. But, let's say you're 100% right. That isn't what I was asking.
Again: "In this private reward and private risk world of yours how many innocent people are you willing to see get destroyed by the ripple effects?"
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hello MisterGuy,
Here is a link that I think might enjoy: http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/la-sci-politics19-2008sep19,0,5113102.story.
Supposedly, conservatives are cowards at birth. Liberals meanwhile embrace the world and aren't afraid to reach out and help their fellow man. So it seems like Obama needs to reach out to conservatives and assure them that they will be safe under his presidency e.g. more police, more defense spending, zero tolerance for violent criminals, blah blah blah.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"I prefer private reward and private risk."
That is a fine preference. In this private reward and private risk world of yours how many innocent people are you willing to see get destroyed by the ripple effects?
I would also add that it may be even more disastrous not to "socialize" risk depending on the overall needs of the economy. A small note for whatever its worth. Milton Friedman was questioned about saving Chrysler and his opinion was that success of government loans was the real downside----better to see Chrysler die than have the government loans repaid in full. That was one sharp economist, imo---doesn't mean he was right for rooting against the government's rescue plan being successful. Just a little food for thought.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"It's just plain unprofessional."
Any particular reasoning or just a gut feeling? If the lawyer was the dancer's regular customer BEFORE she needed legal services, then would that make a difference? If the lawyer was a math instructor's customer BEFORE the instructor needed legal services, then would it be unprofessional for the lawyer to accept further tutoring instead of cash payments?
Finally, is it unprofessional for a lawyer to represent a current girlfriend or wife? How about ex-girlfriends or ex-wives?
discussion comment
16 years ago
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Yes, that is a very interesting point about dances being income. Heck, everytime a man gets FS or a BJ from his wife or girlfriend that should be seen as taxable income.
Damn, the government's deficits would be eliminated almost immediately if the IRS was on the ball.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Among the gloomiest -- and most prescient -- of economic prognosticators has been Nouriel Roubini, an economic professor at New York University and founder of RGE Monitor, an economic consulting and commentary firm.
In the past two weeks, Roubini has been lashing out at the Bush administration on his blog. He calls the president, Treasury secretary and Fed chairman 'comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke' and brands them as 'laissez faire voodoo-economics zealots.' He says the United States has turned into the 'United Socialist State Republic of America,' bringing 'socialism for the rich, the well-connected and Wall Street' and making sure 'profits are privatized and losses are socialized.'"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803638_2.html?sid=ST2008091703965&s_pos=
I read about a $700 billion dollar bailout and a $1 trillion dollar bailout. I could only yawn. And, if it was $10 trillion what is the big deal. A shortage of money? I heard there are some terrorists in the North Pole. Surely, the U.S. government would have NO problems spending trillions of dollars to kill or capture all 11 purported terrorists. I mean that's a bargain. Could be another 911, the worst thing that has ever happened to the U.S. or the entire world.
So, anytime some pea brained politician complains there is NO money just whisper the word terrorist and that should resolve any doubts about a lack of funds right quick.
I'm thinking maybe it is a software programming problem. How difficult can it be to program book keeping entries making everyone solvent? It isn't like the real problem of sending actual physical truckloads of cash to Iraq for goodness sakes. These are just computer credits. For jimmney crickets people get their panties in a bunch over nothing.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Years ago I was watching these six Senators talk about fixing Social Security. Most of it was the normal pablum i.e. raise taxes, reduce benefits, privatize, ad nauseam.
One Senator pointed out what should be the obvious. The government can credit whatever money is needed directly to beneficiaries or their providers and there isn't any need to raise taxes or cut benefits. The money game has absolutely nothing to do with taking care of the needs of seniors. The Senator pointed out the government could credit every senior entitled to Social Security with a million dollars or more. That isn't a problem---it is a bookkeeping entry and is done electronically. The problem is providing real goods and services for seniors---you need to try and see what seniors will need and then create a plan for delivering needed goods and services. Perhaps you will need a massive influx of young immigrants to physically care for the elderly. Perhaps robots can do the job. Government funding of medical research might be another way of preparing for an elderly population. Perhaps more medical schools will be needed. Money? Not a problem. Money that can buy a certain type of product or service, well that according to the Senator takes planning and preparation.
Of course, the other Senators looked at him like they didn't understand and it got back to the same nonsense about raising taxes or cutting benefits or privatizing.
discussion comment
16 years ago
A lady friend of mine who is facing foreclosure of her investment home might be pointed out as a "greedy" speculator. Well, I still remember when she ask my opinion and I told her it could go either way: hyper inflation where you are just grateful you aren't holding a bunch of worthless dollars or a credit collapse that would crash the real estate market. She didn't see how real estate could fall even after I had explained it to her. That, imo, is very understandable because all she is seeing is rising prices. Bottom line she felt she had to do something to protect her savings from ever rising prices. She bet on real estate to continue getting more expensive---we're in a period of endless war so prices should it would seem go up as more dollars are printed.
Wrong bet. She should have just let the government take her savings by inflation. At least she tried to protect herself. And, if she was wealthier the government would print whatever money was necessary to make her whole e.g. Long Term Capital Management.
President Bush, one should remember is an avid proponent of a cheaper dollar (that is being conservative???) as he yelped about how it would make U.S. products cheaper abroad. Absolutely brilliant. Want more sales? Just devalue the currency to the point where foreigners see your dollars as pennies. Sadly, you have learned economists who agree with President Bush's thinking on devalued currency 100%. Anyone remember the reasons President Reagan articuled for why a strong stable dollar was so important?
I hardly remember verbatim, but it just seemed like common sense. You want people to act responsibly one of the first steps should be a responsible currency. Why save and plan for the future if the government is just going to run its printing presses without concern for your savings? That *forces* people to "speculate" for purposes of financial self-defense as well as greed. Blame the government left, right, and center----it is the rule maker and its rules are disgusting.
discussion comment
16 years ago
What happened to my neighbors of 10 years? Well, they moved into a tiny apartment. They can forget about security or ownership. How much cheaper is the tiny apartment? $400 a month. :( I was paying an attorney $400 an hour. Due to pride, they didn't tell me about the problem until lawyer fees, interest, and penalties made helping a lot harder than $400 a month.
What was their big financial crime? Well, the husband lost his job at a company that he'd worked for forever and when he finally found a new job it didn't even pay half of the old job. He blamed it on imports . . . who knows if that is correct. He shoulda got a job with the government.
Will the bank seek blood from a turnip? Who knows. Supposedly, in this country there is bankruptcy protection. The law is whatever filth a judge says it is.
The family is flag wavers so maybe down the line there will be some government program that will actually help them.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Couldn't be sustained? Growth? You mean printing cash like there is no tomorrow. The amount of money the government can print is endless.
discussion comment
16 years ago
"Yes he should have been able to understand the terms of his loan conditions. Can't the common man read? He should have been able to see the growth in the economy/housing market could not be sustained forever."
Couldn't be sustained? Growth? You printing cash like there is no tomorrow. The amount of money the government can print is endless. The question is does the government follow history and print print print or is there a credit contraction? Gee, no credit contraction and all those little dollars in the bank will be mighty puny, while those who bought at inflated prices years earlier will look like geniuses. Besides when faced with ever higher rents it appears like the typical lose/lose that government offers. Lose is you don't buy the inflated properties because the money becomes like pesos or lose because the rents go ever higher. I wouldn't criticize those who gambled on spiraling inflation over a credit contraction. Besides those that just paid the ever increasing rents, where are they now? Sitting pretty? Or, more likely are they screwed financially as well? I'd rather pay the banker than the landlord and supposedly there is always bankruptcy court if the lender insists on getting blood out of a turnip. Some would rather pay the landlord----I just don't see it. During the 70s some brave souls bought inflated housing and low and behold that gamble paid handsomely by and large---an actual win for some in the traditional lose/lose government game. The alternative is generally just getting raped by ever higher rent.
Even in hindsight it seems like buying was better than renting assuming of course bankruptcy protection is still available. It is question of gee would I rather be broke paying insane rents or would I rather be broke at least trying to get some security and ownership. Sometimes poverty causes you to make a deal with the devil, but when all is said and done the devil's deal was the best option even if it went BOOM!
My neighbors of 10 years who got booted from their home via foreclosure: They would have been financially stronger if they merely rented? I don't think so! Perhaps some nonsense about stock ownership? A lot of excellent government propaganda about stocks----such a good deal the government had to ban short selling. Tsk. Tsk.
Blame the common man? I gues you could blame him for being so stupid as to believe in the government, but then there many "peso" governments so again just cut the deal with the devil and pray it works out for a win. :)