Should the Federal Govt. Spend $1 Trillion Bailing Out US Financial Institutions?

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2766439
That is false... and been confirmed... Fannie Mae person is not an advisor or Obama... however, McCain has an advisor that lobbied for Fannie Mae.. and again... If social security was privatized... a lot of that money would be gone.

You don't even know what a recession is and you are telling others to check their facts
 

chilwil84

Active Member
obama is the #2 senator in total money recieved from freddie with chris dods being number one. the problem is how fast obama has become #2 with only just becoming a senator.
 

1journeyman

Active Member

Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2766439
That is false... and been confirmed... Fannie Mae person is not an advisor or Obama... however, McCain has an advisor that lobbied for Fannie Mae.. and again... If social security was privatized... a lot of that money would be gone.
Sorry. When your party calls a guy for advise...
Let's not overlook how much our our tax money Obama received when we bail out Fanny and Freddy...
If SS was privatized it would not be gone. Are you aware of the 20 year performance of the stock market? Do you realize bankruptcy means the money is already gone?
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2766941
McCain tried to take action
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/reco...Elementm0m0m0m
HO-Bama took cash
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008...d-freddie.html
Just love how a question on a subject that should be a non-partisan issue (since essentially BOTH parties are to blame for this debacle for one reason or another), and it turns into yet another political debate. But hey, what else in new? So to add to the useless fodder:
Yea. I'm sure opensecrets is biased and non-partisan.

And now McCain's team is discrediting the latest news report that a firm owned by his campaign manager has been getting paid $15,000/month since 2005 by Freddie Mac themselves to be a 'consultant', 'counselor', or whatever he calls himself to be sure he's not directly associated with the organization
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26859857
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2766911
i heard it was only going to be $700 billion to bail out the banks?
It all depends on what they can turn around and sell, what no one wanted to buy. They think they can sell it for x. And that is where the 700 billion comes from. But if the can only sell it for .5x then it ends up costing more. Others think they may be able to sell it for 1.5x and they give lower numbers.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2766955
Just love how a question on a subject that should be a non-partisan issue (since essentially BOTH parties are to blame for this debacle for one reason or another), and it turns into yet another political debate. But hey, what else in new? So to add to the useless fodder:
Yea. I'm sure opensecrets is biased and non-partisan.

And now McCain's team is discrediting the latest news report that a firm owned by his campaign manager has been getting paid $15,000/month since 2005 by Freddie Mac themselves to be a 'consultant', 'counselor', or whatever he calls himself to be sure he's not directly associated with the organization
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26859857
If there were republicans to blame, don't you think we'd be having about a gazillion congressional hearings. The biden himself has suggested that they prosecute bush.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2766955
Just love how a question on a subject that should be a non-partisan issue (since essentially BOTH parties are to blame for this debacle for one reason or another), and it turns into yet another political debate. But hey, what else in new? So to add to the useless fodder:
Yea. I'm sure opensecrets is biased and non-partisan.

And now McCain's team is discrediting the latest news report that a firm owned by his campaign manager has been getting paid $15,000/month since 2005 by Freddie Mac themselves to be a 'consultant', 'counselor', or whatever he calls himself to be sure he's not directly associated with the organization
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26859857
Yeah, it's too bad the two different Obama supporters turned this into a partisan debate by trying to make this a Republican caused event.
Opensecrets deals in facts, They are respected by both sides and you can check the FEC records if you doubt their information. BSNBC on the other hand

McCain is on the record trying to head off this mess. Obama was too busy running for president.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2766849
He is not an Obama advisor nor has he ever been... and trying to link Obama to Fannie Mae and the housing meltdown is simply another lie attempting to mislead people. Also keep in mind this guy is the CEO of Fannie Mae... and asking him questions in relation to trying to understand a problem seems logical to me.
What was McCain's position prior to this in all the years when this was being implemented... he would have had an input to the deregulation that put all this in motion.... Right?
Well he was for more deregulation... and has only changed his opinion in the last week or two. He is not Johm McCain ... He is now John Populist and will tell you what you want to hear.

Ok, first of all, I don't think I would ask advise of someone in charge of a company going bankrupt...no need to ask them advise, you can SEE what they did wrong....so leads one to wonder what advice he needed to learn...
Number 2, please stop flying out blind statements. McCain has been talking about this LOOONG before it become a problem in the public's eye.Trying reading some stuff before you try to sling it.
3rd, lets put 2 and 2 together, Obama is the second leading politician in terms of money from Fanny Mae, AND his campaign called the CEO about advise......hmmmm....hhhmmmmmm.....hmmmmmmm....hmmmmm
and I will say it again hmmmmmmm.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2766990
Yeah, it's too bad the two different Obama supporters turned this into a partisan debate by trying to make this a Republican caused event.
Opensecrets deals in facts, They are respected by both sides and you can check the FEC records if you doubt their information. BSNBC on the other hand

McCain is on the record trying to head off this mess. Obama was too busy running for president.
Of course they deal in facts. I recall using them several months ago to discredit some of McCain's numbers, and either you or one of the other pro-McCain supporters dissed it as a site for unreliable fodder. I guess it's only a factual site when it supports your arguments.
So MSNBC is an unreliable source? I guess in your eyes they are. They're just reporting the facts. Kinda like opensecrets. We know all politicians are honest and upfront. Especially McCain. No one would ever think he could be using his campaign manager's law firm as a way to funnel political contributions or gains into his personal accounts. Nooooo. No politician has ever done that.

Yea right. McCain's been out of touch with Washington since he put his name in the hat with the rest of them. That's the sad part about this election. These candidates all spout they care, and they want to fix what's wrong with this country, yet everyone of them hasn't 'been at work' for the last year and a half. Wish I had a job like that. Get paid well over six figures to parade around the country promoting myself for another job, and completly ignoring the job I was paid to do.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2767265
Of course they deal in facts. I recall using them several months ago to discredit some of McCain's numbers, and either you or one of the other pro-McCain supporters dissed it as a site for unreliable fodder. I guess it's only a factual site when it supports your arguments.
So MSNBC is an unreliable source? I guess in your eyes they are. They're just reporting the facts. Kinda like opensecrets. We know all politicians are honest and upfront. Especially McCain. No one would ever think he could be using his campaign manager's law firm as a way to funnel political contributions or gains into his personal accounts. Nooooo. No politician has ever done that.

Yea right. McCain's been out of touch with Washington since he put his name in the hat with the rest of them. That's the sad part about this election. These candidates all spout they care, and they want to fix what's wrong with this country, yet everyone of them hasn't 'been at work' for the last year and a half. Wish I had a job like that. Get paid well over six figures to parade around the country promoting myself for another job, and completly ignoring the job I was paid to do.
Did you not see them "reassign" the dem hacks that were their anchors? For that very reason?
 

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2766335
If there is money to be made they will find the money to borrow. Not even china would touch this. (but I do think they have other things on their plate, like trying to keep their money pegged to ours. And spending that USD would blow their game.) There are alot of multi-gazillionaires out there, with $$ sitting there to make money.
Not that kind of capital, and credit for it in this environment would be hard to come by IMO. At this point in time, there is too much uncertainty so it is a falling knife that no one really wants to catch. If the US Treasury starts buying, it serves to remove much of this from the market, thus helping to stabilize it. It also serves to set a value for these securities, thus stabilizing the market value of the securities they do not purchase.
I came up with a moderately neato idea though; what if someone were to in essence "unbundle" the securities and offer the notes back to the homeowners at the present discounted price. In such a case, say I had a note with an NPV of $200k, present discount rate of 50% (just a number, no magic to it,) the homeowner could be offered to buy back his note for $100k, to be free and clear - might well be worth it to pull money out of savings or a retirement plan. In essence, short selling it back to yourself but for cash and cash only. The banks take a hit, which they may or may not deserve but they clear the books of these notes, they have already written the loan down so instead of selling the loan to the gov't, they sell it to the homeowner, homeowner gets a good deal that I would personally snatch up quickly. I haven't given this too much effort yet, just a though :)
this much USD hits the money supply there is going to be a GLUTT of USD floating around. Dropping the value of the USD vs foreign currencies. Making oil that expensive again. (one of the reasons for the $140 a barrel price to begin with) Personally I don't think it is a move back into oil. Oil isn't stable, I think you're seeing people buy oil now, because if this hits the market, we are going to see oil driven up because of the change in the exchange rate. How high can that take it, I don't know. B/c the high wasn't driven solely by the exchange rate to begin with.
So it sounds like you're stating speculation drove the price up, which I agree with. IMO, oil was driven up somewhat due to the devaluation of the dollar but more by speculation. As an axample I seem to remember when IIRC Goldman Sachs released a report the oil would be $150 at end of year and oil jumped like $13 that day, this jump was was not indicative of fundamentals but rather speculation.
To release $700B into circulation would increase M2 by roughly 10% so some devaluation is inherent but not 50% to drive oil back to $150 by this action alone. This assumes all other currencies will remain stable and they will not act similarly, if they do act in kind - they dollar may not fall as much relative to others.
Also remember that the Treasury will be receiving payments on these notes so homeowners with these notes will essentially be writing their payments to the US Treasury.
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2767309
Their is still money out there.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9ae14e10-8...0779fd18c.html
I would hazard a guess that any purchases would be in stock, not cash. Similar to BofA's purchase of Merrill, essentially a stock swap.
FWIW, nice yackin' with ya on this and thanks for trying to keep it politic-free, at least with me ;)
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2767265
Of course they deal in facts. I recall using them several months ago to discredit some of McCain's numbers, and either you or one of the other pro-McCain supporters dissed it as a site for unreliable fodder. I guess it's only a factual site when it supports your arguments.
So MSNBC is an unreliable source? I guess in your eyes they are. They're just reporting the facts. Kinda like opensecrets. We know all politicians are honest and upfront. Especially McCain. No one would ever think he could be using his campaign manager's law firm as a way to funnel political contributions or gains into his personal accounts. Nooooo. No politician has ever done that.

Yea right. McCain's been out of touch with Washington since he put his name in the hat with the rest of them. That's the sad part about this election. These candidates all spout they care, and they want to fix what's wrong with this country, yet everyone of them hasn't 'been at work' for the last year and a half. Wish I had a job like that. Get paid well over six figures to parade around the country promoting myself for another job, and completly ignoring the job I was paid to do.
I've been referencing opensecrets for years. I trust their data.
BSNBC has been called out by everyone but the Obama supporters for their garbage reporting.
Do you have a clue how campaigns are financed and what records must be provided? A lawyer's office can't "funnel" money into a campaign. The plaintiffs bar does encourage it's membership to donate to their preferred candidate which is Obama. They can form a pac but the pac is limited to the same contribution levels as a individual. But they are all still limited to the same amounts the rest of us are. They can't as a corporation donate a single red cent to a candidate.
As far as politicians campaigning on the public's dime I agree with you, it's nothing new, both sides do it and it is ridiculous.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2767320
Not that kind of capital, and credit for it in this environment would be hard to come by IMO. At this point in time, there is too much uncertainty so it is a falling knife that no one really wants to catch. If the US Treasury starts buying, it serves to remove much of this from the market, thus helping to stabilize it. It also serves to set a value for these securities, thus stabilizing the market value of the securities they do not purchase.
So it sounds like you're stating speculation drove the price up, which I agree with. IMO, oil was driven up somewhat due to the devaluation of the dollar but more by speculation. As an example I seem to remember when IIRC Goldman Sachs released a report the oil would be $150 at end of year and oil jumped like $13 that day, this jump was was not indicative of fundamentals but rather speculation.
To release $700B into circulation would increase M2 by roughly 10% so some devaluation is inherent but not 50% to drive oil back to $150 by this action alone. This assumes all other currencies will remain stable and they will not act similarly, if they do act in kind - they dollar may not fall as much relative to others.
Also remember that the Treasury will be receiving payments on these notes so homeowners with these notes will essentially be writing their payments to the US Treasury.
I would hazard a guess that any purchases would be in stock, not cash. Similar to BofA's purchase of Merrill, essentially a stock swap.
FWIW, nice yackin' with ya on this and thanks for trying to keep it politic-free, at least with me ;)
There is plenty of politics involved, but the mechanics of the market is as interesting as the political reasons for it to happen. (I loved economics in college well hated it but loved it and this is a mix of micro/macro/management/and monetary economics I'm in geek heaven it is better than tv)
Here is where I really do differ from you, we have about 13 trillion dollars of gdp every year, here in the states. Take out the federal budget. You're talking about 9 trillion. There is TONS of money out there if this stuff was worth picking up. It is the principles of the market. If we are going to assume as I think you do that the government is out to turn a buck at this stuff, I'm not against the feds turning an honest buck instead of taking it out of my paycheck.
At the price the feds purchased all this junk debt. No one was willing to buy even a portion of it. I do realize that it would be all but impossible to get someone to loan you the money for buying the bad debt. But why not as the fed let it fall then pick it up at the prices that other firms were willing to pay for the "toxic debt".
We overpaid to rescue some major investment institutions. In an era of giant buyouts, I don't buy that no one was out there willing to make an offer. And imo any offer is better than watching the government (which had to privatize the capital hill cafeteria.) Why I'd prefer congress not get their grubby little hands on it.
To sum it at, there is always a buyer at the right price...
I don't think the a barrel of oil hitting 150 was totally a function of the devaluation of the usd compared to foreign currency. However it did help. Even if they do dump 10% of our gdp in the form of cash, I don't think that will make oil jump back up to $150 a barrel. (especially coupled with the dems folding in congress and not extending the drilling ban) however the value of the dollar and a barrel of oil are inversely correlated. And devaluation of the dollar will give it some upward pressure.
And no I don't think speculation (in the form discussed "evil speculator") drove up the price. Speculators guess both way, up and down, and for a while there was ABSOLUTELY nothing to indicate that prices would come down. So they were betting high. I don't think any one speculator or collusion of speculators is big enough to force the price higher. They as a whole were simply responding to what they saw in the market. Besides, by speculation some people purchased gas cheaper like sw airlines. I don't know of a option where you are forced to buy. Sell maybe, but not buy, and that is what you'd need to have if speculators forced the market up to $140ish. You'd have to have people buying above market price to force stuff higher.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2767320
I came up with a moderately neato idea though; what if someone were to in essence "unbundle" the securities and offer the notes back to the homeowners at the present discounted price. In such a case, say I had a note with an NPV of $200k, present discount rate of 50% (just a number, no magic to it,) the homeowner could be offered to buy back his note for $100k, to be free and clear - might well be worth it to pull money out of savings or a retirement plan. In essence, short selling it back to yourself but for cash and cash only. The banks take a hit, which they may or may not deserve but they clear the books of these notes, they have already written the loan down so instead of selling the loan to the gov't, they sell it to the homeowner, homeowner gets a good deal that I would personally snatch up quickly. I haven't given this too much effort yet, just a though :)
This whole idea assumes that the homeowner has access to money, which isn't that the mechanical base of the problem anyway, people defaulting on their loans?
I wonder if they'd lend money to do that?

And if you did, you wouldn't be the person that is in trouble in the first place.
I wonder if they did that, what it would do to home prices? You think they would drop since they basically just purchased a house at half of what they thought they did.
 

rylan1

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2767320
Not that kind of capital, and credit for it in this environment would be hard to come by IMO. At this point in time, there is too much uncertainty so it is a falling knife that no one really wants to catch. If the US Treasury starts buying, it serves to remove much of this from the market, thus helping to stabilize it. It also serves to set a value for these securities, thus stabilizing the market value of the securities they do not purchase.
I came up with a moderately neato idea though; what if someone were to in essence "unbundle" the securities and offer the notes back to the homeowners at the present discounted price. In such a case, say I had a note with an NPV of $200k, present discount rate of 50% (just a number, no magic to it,) the homeowner could be offered to buy back his note for $100k, to be free and clear - might well be worth it to pull money out of savings or a retirement plan. In essence, short selling it back to yourself but for cash and cash only. The banks take a hit, which they may or may not deserve but they clear the books of these notes, they have already written the loan down so instead of selling the loan to the gov't, they sell it to the homeowner, homeowner gets a good deal that I would personally snatch up quickly. I haven't given this too much effort yet, just a though :)
So it sounds like you're stating speculation drove the price up, which I agree with. IMO, oil was driven up somewhat due to the devaluation of the dollar but more by speculation. As an axample I seem to remember when IIRC Goldman Sachs released a report the oil would be $150 at end of year and oil jumped like $13 that day, this jump was was not indicative of fundamentals but rather speculation.
To release $700B into circulation would increase M2 by roughly 10% so some devaluation is inherent but not 50% to drive oil back to $150 by this action alone. This assumes all other currencies will remain stable and they will not act similarly, if they do act in kind - they dollar may not fall as much relative to others.
Also remember that the Treasury will be receiving payments on these notes so homeowners with these notes will essentially be writing their payments to the US Treasury.
I would hazard a guess that any purchases would be in stock, not cash. Similar to BofA's purchase of Merrill, essentially a stock swap.
FWIW, nice yackin' with ya on this and thanks for trying to keep it politic-free, at least with me ;)
that's interesting.. question is how many people would be able to have the liquid cash available for something like this.... and how much of a hit would the banks be able to absorb.... it is clear that much the increase in housing value was due in large to speculation... and these values were overvalued... that is why loans are worth more than the resale value of the home..
I like what Buffet did... there are still responsible business and investment firms out there....I also like how they did not jump on that $700B buyout.
 
Top