Milliners and our Country Legislators
I have been in this country many years over half century I have seen lot,
some I understood, some I did not and some I never will understand. We have
been preached that justice is equal for all! I am Sorry but that is one lie
I can not condone. Our Government does one thing and saying other. Yes old
Indian American Indian was absolutely right when they stated that white man
speaks with two tongs. "Our Government is doing just that". They are telling
us how much they want to help small individual business. Have any one "EVER"
heard of that State or on Federal level has bail out small business from
bankruptcy, instead they have actually put the people into bankruptcy "you
paid the tax" or everything your own and the house In which you are living
in is taking and you are out on street. However our Legislature bends over
to help Milliners
Why? Well you be the Judge.
State of NJ has bail out ENCAP and now ZANADU in Billions. With the money
that they collect from small individual business and if is illegally or
unfair, that is OK since we don't donate Thousands of dollars to politicians
for they extra curricular activities. Yes that is understandable we are not
Golden Goose laying golden eggs, I am truly sorry about that. And now USA
Federal Gov. supposedly is bailing out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and now
Lehman Brothers. Please don't get me wrong I am all for bail them out but?
First everything that they own must be used as collateral. This people Top
Management, Owners, CEOs they must be brought down on ground level with
blue-collar worker. No Limos, no Yachts, no Royal Royce, no gifts to sibling
in thousands or millions no houses and apartments world wide. You get one
reasonable house to live in that is all "That is Justice" Now you get bail
out, but that will not happen because our corrupted legislators covering
You see they are part of the system.
That is my Opinion Thank you
Absolutely ..... (I'm not a Dem., btw).......just as patriotic as the
clowns who have voted
in lock-step with Bush and voted down the plan presented by Bush's
The "leaders" should have seen this mess coming a long time ago and the
only answer was
to cut taxes. Cut taxes = buy votes. The entire house is up for
election in a month, and they
will sell their souls to get another 2 years, so the Reps tried to make
this a Dem plan. That
isn't politics? Florida has a great deal to do with the mortgage mess,
but Florida delegation
almost unanimously voted "no".
As for Obama not returning to Washington, that is ludicrous, as are many
positions. The freaking President is supposed to be the leader, not the
McBush was leading, he could pick up the phone, twist arms, and get a
deal made. Or,
better yet, come up with a deal more palatable and be able to
communicate it to the
public. Mebbe Sarah can do it for him.....just raise her hemline an
inch or something.
With several years of serious foreign policy "problems", energy crisis
economy, lots of folks are still voting on the basis of whether someone
was a POW,
has a vagina or dark skin. How many times has McBush voted against
minimum wage? And we blame people for being poor?
The "drill now" mentality reflects the same lack of leadership. We've
been talking about
the price of gas and the lack of saving by Americans for forty years!
What if we conserved,
which reduces the outlay in dollars AND we save our supply for the day
when the rest
of the world reaches our level of consumption?
The lame, pseudo-religious garbage in all of the elections since '80
could have been framed
in real moral terms that apply to everyone, like "save for a rainy day"
- don't refi to cover
your freaking credit card excess, save some money in the bank. Oh, the
have cash and not have to borrow? I can't buy $1,000 in cheap, imported
s--- to put
under the tree every Christmas? I'm old enough to remember the AIDS
started - it didn't really matter that a bunch of gays had a horrible
disease. It didn't matter
when hemophiliac kids started dying by the hundreds - we just had to
make sure they
didn't buy the home next to ours.
No healthcare plan? I've got mine, I've got a job (now) so you and your
kids can die?
I know Joe and Harry phonied up a sore back, got a permanent disability
and used the
money to open a construction business? What goes around eventually
She did not exactly cover herself in statesman-like glory. Most
people know that the time to excoriate and blame is AFTER the votes are
safely counted, not before. Doubt it really made any difference in the
vote itself, but it might cause hard feeling for round 2.
Interesting that almost the same %age of GOP-types voted FOR the
package as Dem types voting AGAINST it. Bipartisan outlook on both sides
of the question.
Yep. Trended down, got oversold in the new environment and then
started going back up. Futures in the US are looking up. Just like no
tree ever grows to the sky, no stock market falls to zero.
Right. The rule is "Don't gloat before the vote."
And her speech probably made a difference.
I suspect the back-channel conversations went thusly:
1. Many congress-critters had constituent action running 400-1 against the
bail-out. In order to vote FOR the proposal, they had to have political
2. Some Republicans, seeking this cover, go to their leader and say: "I'll
vote "AYE" if I can be assured the vote won't be used against me by my
3. Bonier (the GOP leader) goes to Pelosi and says: "I can give you an
additional 12-20 votes if I have your word you'll tamp down any criticism of
the vote by your Democratic candidates." Pelosi probably agrees. Bonier goes
back to the members and says "I have the word of the Speaker."
4. Then the speech. The speech leads several GOP members to significantly
distrust the "word" of the Speaker not to politicize the vote and decide to
vote they way their constituents want.
I will believe that premise after I prove there is a Santa Claus. Folks
still want Hillary to apoligize for
voting for the war, as if she was the only one voting. The greatest
strength of most of the elected members
is their hypocracy and deceitfulness in ramming through their favorite
What is strikingly odd, lately, is the disappearance of the
Clintons.........Bill has been so neutral that I'm
stunned. I am betting five cents that one of them are in line to be
treasury sec, regardless of whom is
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:20:13 -0700 (PDT), firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
If he and his spin-docs thought it'd serve their purpose, yes.
Whether true or not.
It has already spun out of control.
I don't even think that is the central issue.
The US now produces near nothing save WMD's and services. Wall Street
used to have numerous trusted financial institutions. NYC was the
"Money Center" of the world. As production in countries like China
and India has ramped up, foreign investment has become an increasingly
important component of the US economy.
Wall Street, as the foreign investors knew it, is gone. Never to
return. They have acted so irresponsibly that full trust will never
be restored, regardless of what the gov't does/doesn't-do.
1.) We don't even have definitive evidence of recession (yet), let alone
2.) Comparisons to the Great Depression are not the least bit
appropriate. Economic conditions then and now are very, -very-
So do they. But only when it is convenient and profitable for them.
You assume a.) doomsday and b.) gov't spending, essentially the
nationalization of the investment banks mutant loan bundles,
will save us. It's just not rational.
You believe precisely what they want you to believe.
Very close to the mark, that last.
If practical, I'd support unbundling the loans, separating speculative
loans from those on primary residences. Let the former default, provide
some re-financing for foreclosures on the latter. And that's all. Maybe
I think that what most people don't understand is that the US gov't
has become quintessentially hostile to all US citizens save the
"financial elite". The (gummint) gloves are off ... and the brass knuckles
"Take Yo' Hand Out My Pocket (I Ain't Got Nothing What Belongs To You)!"
- Rice Miller, who probably never even _heard_ of GW Bush, John McCain.
No, it hasn't. So far, everything is under control. Out of control
would be runs on banks both sound and unsound, dumping of US
securities by foreign investors, credit becoming unavailable to any
borrowers whether credit worthy or not, the Dow going down a few
thousand points in short order, etc. The problem would then extend
to the economy at large, with a resulting drop in GDP, unemployment
going higher to 10%, people taking big hits on their 401Ks, more
layoffs resulting in more foreclosures, etc. So far, this problem
has been largely confined to certain financial institutions and some
of the home building industry.
Of course it is one of the central issues which could occur if nothing
Complete nonsense. Boeing, Intel, Microsoft and a whole list of
other great world leading companies make that such a silly statement
that it's laughable. But when you drag WMD nonsense into a financial
discussion, it does show where you're coming from.
And NYC still is the money center of the world.
There is zero evidence that foreigners have the jaundiced view that
you do of the USA. They haven't left and they still own huge amounts
of US securities and assets. And that's because they know the US
economy and assets are basicly sound and good investments. If Wall
Street is finished, why do you think Warren Buffet, who is known the
world over as the greatest investor of our time, just put $5Bil into
Goldman Sachs? Maybe he knows a little more than you.
Recessions are declared by a non-partisan board that reviews data
months after the data is first released, revised, etc. In other
words, they are looking in the rear view mirror and don't declare a
recession until it's been under way for 6 months to a year. If we
wait for that to happen, it will very likely be too late and/or even
more of a bailout will be necessary.
Really, pray tell those very very drastic differences? The problems
then were caused by far too much leaveraging of assets and greed
turning into fear. Very similar to what is occuring today. Who do
you think knows more about the risks to the banking system and
economy? You or Bernanke?
These institutions that are going to be assisted, have already taken
huge hits. It hasn't been profitable to them, nor will it make it
profitable. Bear Stearns is wiped out, the investors lost
everything. Same thing at Lehman. Both of those companies are gone
and tens of thousands of employees have lost their jobs. Under the
current plan, the govt is going to be buying these sub-prime loans
deeply discounted. The institutions are NOT being made whole.
But you would rather have the economy go down on principle. I notice
none of the liberal Dems in Washington, who are always anti-business,
are claiming the risk to the economy isn't real. Obama agrees in
principle with the bailout too.
Only not rational to you. As to whether it's a potential doomsday,
I'm not willing to take that gamble.
My, I wish I could be enlightened like you, so I could go around
claiming the US economy is based on producting WMDs.
If you pay attention, most of these problem loans ARE on primary
Let the former default, provide
Refinancing for foreclosures? That's totally stupid. By
refinancing, the govt would be paying off the existing mortgage in
full, letting the current lender completely off the hook. The
lending insitution would be made whole. Under the proposed plan, the
lender takes a big hit, the govt buys the mortgage from them deeply
discounted, perhaps for 30 cents on the dollar.
Spoken like a true crackpot. How is it that people can come here
from all over the world with nothing, become citizens, buy homes, send
their kids to college, prosper and live the American dream, while guys
like you just bitch and have nothing positive to say about the
True, but buying those loans at a time when the actual value of those
assets cannot be easily determined seems like throwing money away, and
without solving the problem, to me. Then consider that wolf Paulson
would be guarding the chicken coop...
Would you buy one of those loans with your own money? For how much?
| email@example.com wrote:
| > It's not exactly giving the money away, which unfortunately is the
| > impression most people have because the media has not done anything to
| > explain it. Even Bush didn't do a good job of explaining it. What
| > they are going to do is conduct a reverse auction for loans that are
| > delinquent, but have not defaulted on.
| True, but buying those loans at a time when the actual value of those
| assets cannot be easily determined seems like throwing money away, and
| without solving the problem, to me. Then consider that wolf Paulson
| would be guarding the chicken coop...
| Would you buy one of those loans with your own money? For how much?
If it were the loan on my own house and I could sell (or possibly
refinance) the house for less than what I would have to pay for the
loan I might. In order for the bail out to actually help the banks
is the price going to have to be higher than that? I find it a
little confusing because people talk about "pennies on the dollar"
but it isn't clear that I can buy real estate for pennies on the
dollar compared to a year or so ago (unless we are talking about
maybe fifty pennies). Or is the problem that real estate isn't
moving at all because the prices haven't come down?
| | firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
| | > It's not exactly giving the money away, which unfortunately is the
| | > impression most people have because the media has not done anything to
| | > explain it. Even Bush didn't do a good job of explaining it. What
| | > they are going to do is conduct a reverse auction for loans that are
| | > delinquent, but have not defaulted on.
| | True, but buying those loans at a time when the actual value of those
| | assets cannot be easily determined seems like throwing money away, and
| | without solving the problem, to me. Then consider that wolf Paulson
| | would be guarding the chicken coop...
| | Would you buy one of those loans with your own money? For how much?
| If it were the loan on my own house and I could sell (or possibly
| refinance) the house for less than what I would have to pay for the
Oops, make that "more than what I would have to pay..."
It's more like a loan, although not exactly that either. Remember, the
government made a profit on the Mexico, Chrysler, and New York City
bailouts. By most accounting standards, the government made a profit on the
S&L rescue, too.
The government will buy troubled mortgages at a significantly reduced
value - some say as low as 10% of the face value. The feds then own the
mortgage or, in the event of default, the property itself.
The people who are for sure getting screwed are the investors in Freddie Mae
and Freddie Mac. Probably also getting screwed are the illegal aliens who
work in the building trades. There are ample foreclosed houses to handle the
housing market for quite some time, so new construction will fall fall way
Reconditioning of these foreclosed homes will boom, so there will be an
increased need for skilled tradesmen...
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.