Warpath  

Home | Forums | Salary Cap Info | Shop | Donate | Stay Connected




Go Back   Warpath > Off-Topic Discussion > Parking Lot


$700 B Bailout

Parking Lot


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-25-2008, 03:58 PM   #16
Playmaker
 
BleedBurgundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,469
Re: $700 B Bailout

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
What laws where broken. Just because someone did a poor job and gave out a bunch of bad loans does not make it illegal. Is your stock broker breaking laws when he invest your money in poor stocks an you loss money? No. Have laws been broken? At this point we don't know but I'm sure we as tax payers will pay for a big long investigation into al of this.
Paying for an investigation into this is the one thing I approve of them spending my money on. If this was just a matter of a big "mistake," that's one thing, not that it removes accountability. BUT- if it turns out (and it will) that these firms were intentionally employing shady business practices that resulted in the collapse we've seen, I want those responsible held accountable. Jailed, assets confiscated, the whole 9 yards. Will it happen? Not in a million years. Maybe one or two examples will be made, but by and large I can't see any true measure of punishment coming down on "all" of those responsible.
__________________
"All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

Thomas Paine
BleedBurgundy is offline   Reply With Quote

Advertisements
Old 09-25-2008, 04:14 PM   #17
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 9,914
Re: $700 B Bailout

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan View Post
Well one of the issues they're having is actually pricing the bad loans. In other words determining how much they're worth or how worthless they are. So from an accounting standpoint it's tough to add that type of asset to your sheets.

Their are all types of challenges with this crap.
The cost of insuring the loans would almost certainly be less than 700 billion. If it costs 500b then we saved 200b. The caveat has to be that the gov't gets the properties that defaulted. Banks get thier money. The gov't gets the houses and sells them off.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2008, 04:15 PM   #18
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 9,914
Re: $700 B Bailout

Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy View Post
What kills me is the ZERO Accountability that has been observed in this situation. Everybody just talking about what a crisis this is and no one wants to go after those responsible. The only plausible reason for that is that our legislators ARE some of the ones responsible, either by direct intervention or inaction due to lobbying.
EVERYONE was responsible. Banks, legislators and regular people. We all share in the blame on this to varying degrees.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2008, 04:20 PM   #19
MVP
 
dmek25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: lancaster,pa
Age: 52
Posts: 10,515
Re: $700 B Bailout

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
I'll bet take that bet about congress taking loans from Fannie or Freddy. How much?
over the last 10 years lobbyists from Fannie and Freddie have dished out approx. 170 million to anyone that would listen. let me guess, you think the old maverick hasnt touched any of that tainted money?
__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan
dmek25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2008, 04:56 PM   #20
Registered User
 
firstdown's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: chesapeake, va
Age: 50
Posts: 15,818
Re: $700 B Bailout

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmek25 View Post
over the last 10 years lobbyists from Fannie and Freddie have dished out approx. 170 million to anyone that would listen. let me guess, you think the old maverick hasnt touched any of that tainted money?
I was not even thinking along those lines. I thought you were saying they borrowed money from them but now I see your talking donations it makes more sense. The Maverick did some 4 to 5 years a go introduced legislation to have more over site on Fannie and Freddie which did not get passed so he did try.
firstdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2008, 05:06 PM   #21
Playmaker
 
BleedBurgundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,469
Re: $700 B Bailout

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
EVERYONE was responsible. Banks, legislators and regular people. We all share in the blame on this to varying degrees.
Not this guy. I didn't over burden myself with bad credit and I didn't buy a house I couldn't afford. So, uh, no. But, I do agree with you in principle that there is a lot of blame to go around. I don't want idiots who lied on loan applications or simply purchased a home which was obviously above their income level to be bailed out either. I'm sorry, but the way I was raised was that if you make a mistake, you pay the consequences. I know, that's so passé.
__________________
"All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

Thomas Paine
BleedBurgundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2008, 05:14 PM   #22
MVP
 
dmek25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: lancaster,pa
Age: 52
Posts: 10,515
Re: $700 B Bailout

Quote:
Originally Posted by firstdown View Post
I was not even thinking along those lines. I thought you were saying they borrowed money from them but now I see your talking donations it makes more sense. The Maverick did some 4 to 5 years a go introduced legislation to have more over site on Fannie and Freddie which did not get passed so he did try.
i would like to see a link. because Sen. McCain has been one of the biggest proponents of deregulating. which in turn was part of the cause of this mess
__________________
"It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt."
courtesy of 53fan
dmek25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2008, 05:34 PM   #23
Living Legend
 
That Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Springfield, VA
Age: 31
Posts: 16,247
Re: $700 B Bailout

bill clinton (who i'm not a big fan off) had a really good idea of what's going on from what i saw on the daily show... about reviewing the loans to see if a lower payment could save the loan from failing outright, about loaning with interest or taking part of the upside, instead of just handing them free money for screwing up royally.

interview starts at the 9:30ish mark if you want to skip straight to it, 11:00 for actual bailout bit:
The Daily Show Full Episode | Tuesday Sep 23 2008 | Comedy Central
__________________
Who says shameless self promotion is stupid? oh yeah, that was me... Click For Tunes!
That Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2008, 06:39 PM   #24
Playmaker
 
Slingin Sammy 33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 4,320
Re: $700 B Bailout

I may be completely off on this, but it was explained to me by a guy who's heavily into the market and real estate this way: The loans that the banks have on their balance sheets have a value, because of the housing bubble and sub-prime lending frenzy loans that were valued at 100% of value are now valued between the banks at about 10% of value. The real value, all things considered should be about 50-70%. If the Fed comes in and buys up these loans at their current value of 10-20%, holds them until the market corrects and trends upward, then resells them at their "real" value of even 50-70% then the Fed (us taxpayers) should make money. Again, I don't know if this is correct or not.

The real problems I have with the bail-out are; the company officers with golden parachutes. I would like to see a very low cap on their buy-out packages. Give them a choice - accept the bail-out and cap or don't and expect to be Federally prosecuted for whatever charges the Feds can throw at them. The other problem is what saden brought up about accountability. It can't be with one person or office within the Fed. It must be some sort of independent/bi-partisan group providing the oversight. As much as I don't like gov't regulation, in this area it's desperately needed.
__________________
"I would bet.....(if), an angel fairy came down and said, '[You can have anything] in the world you would like to own,' I wouldn't be surprised if you said a football club and particularly the Washington Redskins.'' — Jack Kent Cooke, 1996.
Slingin Sammy 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 08:34 AM   #25
The Starter
 
mheisig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: The Southeast
Age: 30
Posts: 2,119
Re: $700 B Bailout

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
EVERYONE was responsible. Banks, legislators and regular people. We all share in the blame on this to varying degrees.
Right on.

The banks were stupid enough to make sub-prime loans to people that they knew couldn't afford them in the long run, and the people taking the loans were stupid enough to do it in the first place. It's rampant greed on the part of everyone involved. As much as people want to bitch about the high-paid CEOs, there should be equal bitching about the idiotic people who took these loans in the first place. It takes two to tango - the banks share half the guilt.

Now the federal government is forced to step in and start fucking with the market. It terrifies me when the government suddenly owns 80% of one of the largest banks in the country.

There really is not "good" solution to all of this - it's robbing Peter to pay Paul, we're just trying to figure out which one to rob and which one to pay.

I CPA that I'm good friends with says that he thinks the best solution is for the government to repeal a substantial number of the corporate taxes that are in place for about two years. The lessened tax burden allows the banks to recover and start backing their own loans. It's more of an easing of the pressure than a bailout. Of course then you have to deal with decreased tax revenue for two years which is it's whole own problem.
__________________
Your post count, reputation score, popularity ranking, VIP tag or funny signature has no bearing on how I value you as an individual.
mheisig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 10:46 AM   #26
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 9,914
Re: $700 B Bailout

Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy View Post
Not this guy. I didn't over burden myself with bad credit and I didn't buy a house I couldn't afford. So, uh, no. But, I do agree with you in principle that there is a lot of blame to go around. I don't want idiots who lied on loan applications or simply purchased a home which was obviously above their income level to be bailed out either. I'm sorry, but the way I was raised was that if you make a mistake, you pay the consequences. I know, that's so passé.
No I totally agree. And I am one of those who has a reasonable house bought at a reasonable price and a nice 30 year loan I can easily afford. Trust me, it is gonna piss me off if we let all these people with 800K houses on 70K year incomes keep their houses when they never should have bought them in the first place. It is THEIR fault for buying the house and it is the BANK's fault for giving them the money to do it and it is our gov't fault for not maintaining proper regulatory control to stop either of groups of idiots for letting this happen.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 10:59 AM   #27
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 9,914
Re: $700 B Bailout

Quote:
Originally Posted by mheisig View Post
Right on.

The banks were stupid enough to make sub-prime loans to people that they knew couldn't afford them in the long run, and the people taking the loans were stupid enough to do it in the first place. It's rampant greed on the part of everyone involved. As much as people want to bitch about the high-paid CEOs, there should be equal bitching about the idiotic people who took these loans in the first place. It takes two to tango - the banks share half the guilt.

Now the federal government is forced to step in and start fucking with the market. It terrifies me when the government suddenly owns 80% of one of the largest banks in the country.

There really is not "good" solution to all of this - it's robbing Peter to pay Paul, we're just trying to figure out which one to rob and which one to pay.

I CPA that I'm good friends with says that he thinks the best solution is for the government to repeal a substantial number of the corporate taxes that are in place for about two years. The lessened tax burden allows the banks to recover and start backing their own loans. It's more of an easing of the pressure than a bailout. Of course then you have to deal with decreased tax revenue for two years which is it's whole own problem.
I listen to Dave Ramsey. Look him up if you haven't heard of him. He is looking more and more like a genius nowadays.

One factor he was discussing stems from the fallout of Enron. This is a cautionary tale about trying to control business and the way they conduct their business.

Anyways, after the Enron debacle a huge new law was pass called Sarbanes-Oxley. Most have probably heard of it. It has a lot of provisions trying to legislate ethics.

One regulation it implements is that publically traded companies have to restate their assets value on a daily basis. Good idea. But it forces them to use market value. This is sometimes a good idea and sometimes not. In the case of the mortage industry it is a very poor stipulation.

Say a company like Merrill-Lynch owns 30B in bonds secured with sub-prime loans. This means the values of the loans is 30B and the value of the houses those laons are for at one point added up to 30B. Nowadays with a downturn in the market those houses are worth say 25B.

But the market value of those bonds may only be 10B since they involve poor loans. So ML has to take a 20B loss in states assets because the market value is so much lower. This hss caused the market for these types of securities to tank and essentially seized up the market. If the gov't would lift that provision for a the time being then ML could have increased their stated assets by billions and freed up the market to work a little more naturally.

A case of the gov't implementing something that seems good but has terrible unintended consequences.

We need to be careful about how we legislate fiscal responsibility. It doesn't work sometimes and can lead to an even worse problem.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 11:14 AM   #28
Franchise Player
 
jsarno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: 31 Spooner St.
Age: 39
Posts: 9,534
Re: $700 B Bailout

I HATE this decision. Here I am, making wise decisions, and I have a credit rating of over 750, my wife nears 800, while others make poor decisions with poor credit ratings. Some of this problem came due to the fact that the general public's credit ratings have been dropping over the years, and in order for Mortgage companies to survive, they had to take these chances. What I do not understand at all is the fact that when I first bought my house, I had to pay PMI (private mortgage insurance) cause my loan was more than 80% of my house's worth. So if I defaulted, it would have been covered by the PMI. What the hell happened to that?
__________________
Zoltan is ZESTY! - courtesy of joeredskin
jsarno is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 02:39 PM   #29
Franchise Player
 
FRPLG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Age: 35
Posts: 9,914
Re: $700 B Bailout

Well AIG is one of the main PMI insurers and that is basically what brought them down. I think Matty can speak more intelligently to this since he works for them.
FRPLG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2008, 02:43 PM   #30
Playmaker
 
BleedBurgundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,469
Re: $700 B Bailout

Quote:
Originally Posted by FRPLG View Post
Well AIG is one of the main PMI insurers and that is basically what brought them down. I think Matty can speak more intelligently to this since he works for them.
See, it's Matty's fault.
__________________
"All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."

Thomas Paine
BleedBurgundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.
Page generated in 0.37261 seconds with 9 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25