Should the Federal Govt. Spend $1 Trillion Bailing Out US Financial Institutions?
- Thread starter bionicarm
- Start date
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2768812
As a buckeye... I often agree with your logic... I have the same questions... I didn't consider the credit crisis... but was also thinking about airline industry and other large institutions such as auto makers. They all are hurting and bankruptcy could be a possibility. Now everyone is greedy... but given that these transporation people are having to deal with the consequences of a bad economy and oil/gas issues.
But that is a serious question that needs to be answered... when does it stop. I agree with credit cards and constantly changing intrest rates... even though a price says fixed... they can change it at anytime.. Also.. people are racking up more debt because they are still trying to maintain their lifestyle on less take home income...
I'd propose legislation capping credit card fees.... and perhaps having universal standards that put credit scores in tiers... maybe like 1-5 and base the interest rate upon that... for example
550-624 = 20%
625-699 = 17%
700-774 = 11%
775-850 = 5%
Of course you would. Why does this not surprise. You would have government dictate and mandate and run and own everything. Seriously, why don't you just move to China or N. Korea...they do that there.
Since when is a credit card a MUST USE thing now? I can sort of understand the
[hr]
issue, even if I disagree with it. But with CC you don't have to use it. If your rate goes up that is only on NEW purchases, not old ones. You can also get locked into a fixed rate...gee what a concept. But if you don't, and your rate goes up.....are you still FORCED to use that card? No, you have others or you get others. I know myself and my parents cancel our credit cards if they raise them to rates we disagree with. Gee imagine that concept, taking your business elsewhere.
My business we accept credit cards. There is a percentage fee we have to pay to the supplier each time we swipe a card. this rate sometimes goes up, we were locked in for a period of time, but the CC (VISA, AE, Mastercard, ETC) can raise the rates even if it is locked in...however this is not done often. But recently my supplier raised their rates. It wasn't much, I wasn't concerned but I did start looking at other suppliers, I found one and switched over at a significantly cheaper rate than what I got the very first time I signed up with the old company.
See here is the flaw with your idea. If you mandate this, how do companies compete, they all become the same....they all give to the same credit scores, and so on....You have just eliminated consumer choice.
While you are at, maybe we should make Pepsi change their formula to match coke, because after all they are using far more sugar in their products than coke and I am sure this is affecting us somehow...hell take away all of our choices. Why have multiple auto manufactures, just have them all build four models at 4 price ranges with 4 mileage standards and walla you have your emissions controlled and your global warming issue taken care of.
MORE GOVERNMENT.....YES....SOUNDS GOOD TO ME!
http:///forum/post/2768812
As a buckeye... I often agree with your logic... I have the same questions... I didn't consider the credit crisis... but was also thinking about airline industry and other large institutions such as auto makers. They all are hurting and bankruptcy could be a possibility. Now everyone is greedy... but given that these transporation people are having to deal with the consequences of a bad economy and oil/gas issues.
But that is a serious question that needs to be answered... when does it stop. I agree with credit cards and constantly changing intrest rates... even though a price says fixed... they can change it at anytime.. Also.. people are racking up more debt because they are still trying to maintain their lifestyle on less take home income...
I'd propose legislation capping credit card fees.... and perhaps having universal standards that put credit scores in tiers... maybe like 1-5 and base the interest rate upon that... for example
550-624 = 20%
625-699 = 17%
700-774 = 11%
775-850 = 5%
Of course you would. Why does this not surprise. You would have government dictate and mandate and run and own everything. Seriously, why don't you just move to China or N. Korea...they do that there.
Since when is a credit card a MUST USE thing now? I can sort of understand the
[hr]
issue, even if I disagree with it. But with CC you don't have to use it. If your rate goes up that is only on NEW purchases, not old ones. You can also get locked into a fixed rate...gee what a concept. But if you don't, and your rate goes up.....are you still FORCED to use that card? No, you have others or you get others. I know myself and my parents cancel our credit cards if they raise them to rates we disagree with. Gee imagine that concept, taking your business elsewhere.
My business we accept credit cards. There is a percentage fee we have to pay to the supplier each time we swipe a card. this rate sometimes goes up, we were locked in for a period of time, but the CC (VISA, AE, Mastercard, ETC) can raise the rates even if it is locked in...however this is not done often. But recently my supplier raised their rates. It wasn't much, I wasn't concerned but I did start looking at other suppliers, I found one and switched over at a significantly cheaper rate than what I got the very first time I signed up with the old company.
See here is the flaw with your idea. If you mandate this, how do companies compete, they all become the same....they all give to the same credit scores, and so on....You have just eliminated consumer choice.
While you are at, maybe we should make Pepsi change their formula to match coke, because after all they are using far more sugar in their products than coke and I am sure this is affecting us somehow...hell take away all of our choices. Why have multiple auto manufactures, just have them all build four models at 4 price ranges with 4 mileage standards and walla you have your emissions controlled and your global warming issue taken care of.
MORE GOVERNMENT.....YES....SOUNDS GOOD TO ME!
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2769093
Of course you would. Why does this not surprise. You would have government dictate and mandate and run and own everything. Seriously, why don't you just move to China or N. Korea...they do that there.
Since when is a credit card a MUST USE thing now? I can sort of understand the
[hr]
issue, even if I disagree with it. But with CC you don't have to use it. If your rate goes up that is only on NEW purchases, not old ones. You can also get locked into a fixed rate...gee what a concept. But if you don't, and your rate goes up.....are you still FORCED to use that card? No, you have others or you get others. I know myself and my parents cancel our credit cards if they raise them to rates we disagree with. Gee imagine that concept, taking your business elsewhere.
My business we accept credit cards. There is a percentage fee we have to pay to the supplier each time we swipe a card. this rate sometimes goes up, we were locked in for a period of time, but the CC (VISA, AE, Mastercard, ETC) can raise the rates even if it is locked in...however this is not done often. But recently my supplier raised their rates. It wasn't much, I wasn't concerned but I did start looking at other suppliers, I found one and switched over at a significantly cheaper rate than what I got the very first time I signed up with the old company.
See here is the flaw with your idea. If you mandate this, how do companies compete, they all become the same....they all give to the same credit scores, and so on....You have just eliminated consumer choice.
While you are at, maybe we should make Pepsi change their formula to match coke, because after all they are using far more sugar in their products than coke and I am sure this is affecting us somehow...hell take away all of our choices. Why have multiple auto manufactures, just have them all build four models at 4 price ranges with 4 mileage standards and walla you have your emissions controlled and your global warming issue taken care of.
MORE GOVERNMENT.....YES....SOUNDS GOOD TO ME!
you have a logicalpoint... I do want to encourage competition... but the limits need to be capped... and Ithink they now are...not sure if bill has passed fully yet or not...
http:///forum/post/2769093
Of course you would. Why does this not surprise. You would have government dictate and mandate and run and own everything. Seriously, why don't you just move to China or N. Korea...they do that there.
Since when is a credit card a MUST USE thing now? I can sort of understand the
[hr]
issue, even if I disagree with it. But with CC you don't have to use it. If your rate goes up that is only on NEW purchases, not old ones. You can also get locked into a fixed rate...gee what a concept. But if you don't, and your rate goes up.....are you still FORCED to use that card? No, you have others or you get others. I know myself and my parents cancel our credit cards if they raise them to rates we disagree with. Gee imagine that concept, taking your business elsewhere.
My business we accept credit cards. There is a percentage fee we have to pay to the supplier each time we swipe a card. this rate sometimes goes up, we were locked in for a period of time, but the CC (VISA, AE, Mastercard, ETC) can raise the rates even if it is locked in...however this is not done often. But recently my supplier raised their rates. It wasn't much, I wasn't concerned but I did start looking at other suppliers, I found one and switched over at a significantly cheaper rate than what I got the very first time I signed up with the old company.
See here is the flaw with your idea. If you mandate this, how do companies compete, they all become the same....they all give to the same credit scores, and so on....You have just eliminated consumer choice.
While you are at, maybe we should make Pepsi change their formula to match coke, because after all they are using far more sugar in their products than coke and I am sure this is affecting us somehow...hell take away all of our choices. Why have multiple auto manufactures, just have them all build four models at 4 price ranges with 4 mileage standards and walla you have your emissions controlled and your global warming issue taken care of.
MORE GOVERNMENT.....YES....SOUNDS GOOD TO ME!
you have a logicalpoint... I do want to encourage competition... but the limits need to be capped... and Ithink they now are...not sure if bill has passed fully yet or not...
acrylics
Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2768577
I don't see a deflationary period on the horizon. If anything, if dumping this much money into the markets, isn't followed by a massive contractionary polity by the fed. We are going to see some serious inflation. (by American standards) You can actually do some algebra and make the change in the money supply = inflation. (particularly seniorage) (where I'm coming from) and if you go back and look at history it is pretty dang close.
To be clear, in my line of thinking, if the Fed does not do this, then there will be deflation IMO. If the Fed does this, there will be inflation. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So in my mind it comes down to a choice of which is worse; inflation or deflation. I would contend that deflation is worse but JMO. You are already seeing it many markets; credit not easy to get (even for banks) LIBOR has doubled so any new int'l credit is at a premium and cash is being hoarded (check the latest on the 3 month treasury and other short term notes.) It is also evident in housing (obviously,) housing falls in value, people need to sell, can't sell so banks take over compounding the glut in supply. So they have a product that they can't sell or must sell at tremendous loss causing their own failures.
As interest rates rise as they very well may due to the increased perceived risk, the affordability of housing becomes problematic so deflating prices come down further, cash is hoarded people not wanting to invest long term, since prices are coming down - why buy today when it will be cheaper tomorrow? Thus furthering the downward spiral. This can/will affect other areas of the economy and those without significant cash savings will be affect the most, since this is much of America - problems occur and largely uncontrollable unless there is direct injections of capital into the economy to stimulate it. We got out of the great depression by huge injections of capital by the gov't public works programs and WWII - great injections of capital into the economy. If it happens again, the expenditures will be monumental.
See also the deflationary period in Japan in the '90s, many conditions which are remarkably similar to ours. With our present political climate though and it's associated pandering, I'm not so certain we will come out if it as well. If I thought our collective mindset would change, I'd be all for this to happen but I think it would take generations.
This is why government intervention in a market is such a serious problem. Because it is unsustainable. And eventually it has to go. And we get something like this bailout, or a big crash.
I agree to an extent, I just tend to believe that inflation is easier to control than deflation. The Fed is already out of bullets as far as monetary policy goes, suggestions? I would like less gov't intervention as a whole, however that is not going to happen with today's collective mindset. The aftermath I can see is public spending the likes of which we've never seen. If I could believe that this would not be the case and that we have "learned our lesson", I could actually welcome a depression. It would sting for some time but we'd be stronger in the end. The fact is though that I don't believe that to be the case in our present climate. Congress and politicians are completely unwilling to be fiscally responsible as it is, I have zero faith in them being responsible if the country were to fall into a depression. Their repeated refusal to pass a balanced budget amendment serves to strengthen my convictions (or lack thereof)
Your cross roads is understandable, I agree, in my head, I justify SOME regulation as needed protection just like we have police officers. The constitution says "promote general welfare" and I see that as providing a framework to allow us to reach for "the American dream" which including protection from the less scrupulous. That is why I'm not against organizations like the fed or some policing/ethical regulation. Likewise, our whole economy is based on trust, since our monetary system is fiat based, we did need some guarantee even if it is only on paper, to convince people to buy back into the system, after the 30's.
I think we are in agreement on this. The problem is that "we" feel we are entitled to the American dream rather than the opportunity to reach for it. And this sense of entitlement comes from the top down.
Let me clarify, No one was willing to pickup lehman at what the feds want to pay, so why not let lehman sink lower. And buy it at a lower price, they are sol anyway. Might as well pick it up cheaper if you can.
They did have some interest, but not at the price that the fed wants to pay. I don't remember who is was specifically.
IIRC the interest was from Barclay's but when it is better to liquidate through bankruptcy, it shows they could not get rid of it.
http:///forum/post/2768577
I don't see a deflationary period on the horizon. If anything, if dumping this much money into the markets, isn't followed by a massive contractionary polity by the fed. We are going to see some serious inflation. (by American standards) You can actually do some algebra and make the change in the money supply = inflation. (particularly seniorage) (where I'm coming from) and if you go back and look at history it is pretty dang close.
To be clear, in my line of thinking, if the Fed does not do this, then there will be deflation IMO. If the Fed does this, there will be inflation. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So in my mind it comes down to a choice of which is worse; inflation or deflation. I would contend that deflation is worse but JMO. You are already seeing it many markets; credit not easy to get (even for banks) LIBOR has doubled so any new int'l credit is at a premium and cash is being hoarded (check the latest on the 3 month treasury and other short term notes.) It is also evident in housing (obviously,) housing falls in value, people need to sell, can't sell so banks take over compounding the glut in supply. So they have a product that they can't sell or must sell at tremendous loss causing their own failures.
As interest rates rise as they very well may due to the increased perceived risk, the affordability of housing becomes problematic so deflating prices come down further, cash is hoarded people not wanting to invest long term, since prices are coming down - why buy today when it will be cheaper tomorrow? Thus furthering the downward spiral. This can/will affect other areas of the economy and those without significant cash savings will be affect the most, since this is much of America - problems occur and largely uncontrollable unless there is direct injections of capital into the economy to stimulate it. We got out of the great depression by huge injections of capital by the gov't public works programs and WWII - great injections of capital into the economy. If it happens again, the expenditures will be monumental.
See also the deflationary period in Japan in the '90s, many conditions which are remarkably similar to ours. With our present political climate though and it's associated pandering, I'm not so certain we will come out if it as well. If I thought our collective mindset would change, I'd be all for this to happen but I think it would take generations.
This is why government intervention in a market is such a serious problem. Because it is unsustainable. And eventually it has to go. And we get something like this bailout, or a big crash.
I agree to an extent, I just tend to believe that inflation is easier to control than deflation. The Fed is already out of bullets as far as monetary policy goes, suggestions? I would like less gov't intervention as a whole, however that is not going to happen with today's collective mindset. The aftermath I can see is public spending the likes of which we've never seen. If I could believe that this would not be the case and that we have "learned our lesson", I could actually welcome a depression. It would sting for some time but we'd be stronger in the end. The fact is though that I don't believe that to be the case in our present climate. Congress and politicians are completely unwilling to be fiscally responsible as it is, I have zero faith in them being responsible if the country were to fall into a depression. Their repeated refusal to pass a balanced budget amendment serves to strengthen my convictions (or lack thereof)
Your cross roads is understandable, I agree, in my head, I justify SOME regulation as needed protection just like we have police officers. The constitution says "promote general welfare" and I see that as providing a framework to allow us to reach for "the American dream" which including protection from the less scrupulous. That is why I'm not against organizations like the fed or some policing/ethical regulation. Likewise, our whole economy is based on trust, since our monetary system is fiat based, we did need some guarantee even if it is only on paper, to convince people to buy back into the system, after the 30's.
I think we are in agreement on this. The problem is that "we" feel we are entitled to the American dream rather than the opportunity to reach for it. And this sense of entitlement comes from the top down.
Let me clarify, No one was willing to pickup lehman at what the feds want to pay, so why not let lehman sink lower. And buy it at a lower price, they are sol anyway. Might as well pick it up cheaper if you can.
They did have some interest, but not at the price that the fed wants to pay. I don't remember who is was specifically.
IIRC the interest was from Barclay's but when it is better to liquidate through bankruptcy, it shows they could not get rid of it.
acrylics
Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2769274
you have a logicalpoint... I do want to encourage competition... but the limits need to be capped... and Ithink they now are...not sure if bill has passed fully yet or not...
There were once usury laws on the books that handled this but were largely rendered ineffective by a law passed due to inflationary pressures in 1980 IIRC.
As an example, if the bank was only allowed to charge 10% on a CC, but inflation and Fed rates were above that - they'd be forced to lose money.
http:///forum/post/2769274
you have a logicalpoint... I do want to encourage competition... but the limits need to be capped... and Ithink they now are...not sure if bill has passed fully yet or not...
There were once usury laws on the books that handled this but were largely rendered ineffective by a law passed due to inflationary pressures in 1980 IIRC.
As an example, if the bank was only allowed to charge 10% on a CC, but inflation and Fed rates were above that - they'd be forced to lose money.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2769531
To be clear, in my line of thinking, if the Fed does not do this, then there will be deflation IMO. If the Fed does this, there will be inflation. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So in my mind it comes down to a choice of which is worse; inflation or deflation. I would contend that deflation is worse but JMO. You are already seeing it many markets; credit not easy to get (even for banks) LIBOR has doubled so any new int'l credit is at a premium and cash is being hoarded (check the latest on the 3 month treasury and other short term notes.) It is also evident in housing (obviously,) housing falls in value, people need to sell, can't sell so banks take over compounding the glut in supply. So they have a product that they can't sell or must sell at tremendous loss causing their own failures.
I don't think deflation in and of itself is bad, but it is an indicator of being really really up a creek. More so than say 10% inflation. If we are experiencing deflation in our economy are screwed.
Personally, as far as inflation or deflation. Anytime you see an increase in the money supply, you're almost always going to see an increase of inflation. Long run, if the dooms day people are right, then yeah, if we experience long run recession, we'll see some deflation. But keep in mind the last time, that I remember seeing any deflation was the 30's and then we were talking 25% unemployment, along with a 50% cut in foreign trade. I just don't think America's purchasing power is fall to the point where we see any deflation.
There is also ample example of hyperinfation in situations where the fed bank dumps $ into the marketplace for various reasons. You can look at the south american markets in the 80's and 90's for that. I feel that would be more likely, because today you have a more active federal reserve. And back then the fed had been in existance for what less than 20 years when the markets collapse. And the basis of any growth type policy, is an expantion of the money supply.
http:///forum/post/2769531
To be clear, in my line of thinking, if the Fed does not do this, then there will be deflation IMO. If the Fed does this, there will be inflation. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So in my mind it comes down to a choice of which is worse; inflation or deflation. I would contend that deflation is worse but JMO. You are already seeing it many markets; credit not easy to get (even for banks) LIBOR has doubled so any new int'l credit is at a premium and cash is being hoarded (check the latest on the 3 month treasury and other short term notes.) It is also evident in housing (obviously,) housing falls in value, people need to sell, can't sell so banks take over compounding the glut in supply. So they have a product that they can't sell or must sell at tremendous loss causing their own failures.
I don't think deflation in and of itself is bad, but it is an indicator of being really really up a creek. More so than say 10% inflation. If we are experiencing deflation in our economy are screwed.
Personally, as far as inflation or deflation. Anytime you see an increase in the money supply, you're almost always going to see an increase of inflation. Long run, if the dooms day people are right, then yeah, if we experience long run recession, we'll see some deflation. But keep in mind the last time, that I remember seeing any deflation was the 30's and then we were talking 25% unemployment, along with a 50% cut in foreign trade. I just don't think America's purchasing power is fall to the point where we see any deflation.
There is also ample example of hyperinfation in situations where the fed bank dumps $ into the marketplace for various reasons. You can look at the south american markets in the 80's and 90's for that. I feel that would be more likely, because today you have a more active federal reserve. And back then the fed had been in existance for what less than 20 years when the markets collapse. And the basis of any growth type policy, is an expantion of the money supply.
rylan1
Active Member
Another bank collapse... just as I thought would happen... for the people who were saying the "fundementals of our economy were sound"... I wonder if they still have the same belief... The word is no longer recession... but depression...
Washington Mutal... is the largest collapse ever... I believe in '86... a bank failed that had like $40 billion in assets. Wash Mut has over $300B in assets... and unfourtantely... there will be more.
Second -
What is McCain doing? He suspended his campaign and tried to get us to believe he was going to fly in and save the day, yet in the talks everyone said he had nothing to say...
Why are House Republicans holding this up?
Washington Mutal... is the largest collapse ever... I believe in '86... a bank failed that had like $40 billion in assets. Wash Mut has over $300B in assets... and unfourtantely... there will be more.
Second -
What is McCain doing? He suspended his campaign and tried to get us to believe he was going to fly in and save the day, yet in the talks everyone said he had nothing to say...
Why are House Republicans holding this up?
1journeyman
Active Member
WaMu has been a dead duck for months now... No surprise to anyone.
McCain is in Washington to try to work on proper legislation to address the problem.
The bigger question is; What is Obama doing? He says the debate is important because the American people need to hear him. Where was that opinion when he repeatedly turned down numerous invitations to debate previously?
His response to coming back to Washington: "Call me if you need me". There's great leadership...
McCain is in Washington to try to work on proper legislation to address the problem.
The bigger question is; What is Obama doing? He says the debate is important because the American people need to hear him. Where was that opinion when he repeatedly turned down numerous invitations to debate previously?
His response to coming back to Washington: "Call me if you need me". There's great leadership...
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2769548
Another bank collapse... just as I thought would happen... for the people who were saying the "fundementals of our economy were sound"... I wonder if they still have the same belief... The word is no longer recession... but depression...
Washington Mutal... is the largest collapse ever... I believe in '86... a bank failed that had like $40 billion in assets. Wash Mut has over $300B in assets... and unfourtantely... there will be more.
Just another gleeful democrat, happy that the bank failed.
http:///forum/post/2769548
Another bank collapse... just as I thought would happen... for the people who were saying the "fundementals of our economy were sound"... I wonder if they still have the same belief... The word is no longer recession... but depression...
Washington Mutal... is the largest collapse ever... I believe in '86... a bank failed that had like $40 billion in assets. Wash Mut has over $300B in assets... and unfourtantely... there will be more.
Just another gleeful democrat, happy that the bank failed.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2769571
Just another gleeful democrat, happy that the bank failed.
No one is happy about this... but the question is are we going to do something about it or not.. because all indications suggest this is no where near the end... and soon it will begin having a domino effect that will effect all of us in some way.
http:///forum/post/2769571
Just another gleeful democrat, happy that the bank failed.
No one is happy about this... but the question is are we going to do something about it or not.. because all indications suggest this is no where near the end... and soon it will begin having a domino effect that will effect all of us in some way.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2769584
One thing I do find interesting observing this bailout proposal is who is for it and against it, Bush has the backing of the senate, and the dems in the house, but the republicans in the house aren't buying it.
the question is why... is it the content of the bill or is it political posturing. We know this is election time for House members.
http:///forum/post/2769584
One thing I do find interesting observing this bailout proposal is who is for it and against it, Bush has the backing of the senate, and the dems in the house, but the republicans in the house aren't buying it.
the question is why... is it the content of the bill or is it political posturing. We know this is election time for House members.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2769592
No one is happy about this... but the question is are we going to do something about it or not.. because all indications suggest this is no where near the end... and soon it will begin having a domino effect that will effect all of us in some way.
what indicators?
http:///forum/post/2769592
No one is happy about this... but the question is are we going to do something about it or not.. because all indications suggest this is no where near the end... and soon it will begin having a domino effect that will effect all of us in some way.
what indicators?
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2769595
the question is why... is it the content of the bill or is it political posturing. We know this is election time for House members.
Why is a question you could ask. Personally, I don't think that is all that important. But imo The house republicans have a little more libertarian blood in them. And far less liberal than the turkeys in the senate.
The real hook is, you democrats have moaned and groaned about bush being stupid, partisan, not reaching across the isle. So i find it pretty funny when, he can get support from the left and not the right.
http:///forum/post/2769595
the question is why... is it the content of the bill or is it political posturing. We know this is election time for House members.
Why is a question you could ask. Personally, I don't think that is all that important. But imo The house republicans have a little more libertarian blood in them. And far less liberal than the turkeys in the senate.
The real hook is, you democrats have moaned and groaned about bush being stupid, partisan, not reaching across the isle. So i find it pretty funny when, he can get support from the left and not the right.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2769598
what indicators?
there are many more banks that are being looked at... a couple months ago.. I heard that at least 12 banks were in serious danger of collapse... you still have these sub-prime mortgagess out there that have not reached their balloon... as well as Alt-A mortagegess that people could falsify income for self-employment.
Housing values continue to decline... foreclosures continue to rise... credit is about to get much tighter which will result in less expansion... less new businesses ... more unemployement... people won't be able to travel or buy large items such as cars... which will have an effect on many auto related industries.
http:///forum/post/2769598
what indicators?
there are many more banks that are being looked at... a couple months ago.. I heard that at least 12 banks were in serious danger of collapse... you still have these sub-prime mortgagess out there that have not reached their balloon... as well as Alt-A mortagegess that people could falsify income for self-employment.
Housing values continue to decline... foreclosures continue to rise... credit is about to get much tighter which will result in less expansion... less new businesses ... more unemployement... people won't be able to travel or buy large items such as cars... which will have an effect on many auto related industries.
1knight164
Member
Dems inserted provisions to give billions to ACORN???? !
Please tell me it's not true. No wonder the meetings were heated.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2769595
the question is why... is it the content of the bill or is it political posturing. We know this is election time for House members.
Here is the why.The democrats are adding an earmark or two to the bill. They want 100 million dollars to go to groups such as Acorn. And then any money they make with profit off the loans would be redirected to not for profit organizations such as acorn. Essentially they are adding earmarks to prop up certain NFP organizations possibly. The thing that gets me is , how can they justify this? The money made should go to the treasury either to our national debt, or back to us the TAX PAYERS.
This is what I can glean is going on, I have not confirmed this 100% yet as this is mainly on blogs and certain bised sites. as soon as I can 100% confirm this I will have an anuerism...and post what I find.
http:///forum/post/2769595
the question is why... is it the content of the bill or is it political posturing. We know this is election time for House members.
Here is the why.The democrats are adding an earmark or two to the bill. They want 100 million dollars to go to groups such as Acorn. And then any money they make with profit off the loans would be redirected to not for profit organizations such as acorn. Essentially they are adding earmarks to prop up certain NFP organizations possibly. The thing that gets me is , how can they justify this? The money made should go to the treasury either to our national debt, or back to us the TAX PAYERS.
This is what I can glean is going on, I have not confirmed this 100% yet as this is mainly on blogs and certain bised sites. as soon as I can 100% confirm this I will have an anuerism...and post what I find.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2769608
there are many more banks that are being looked at... a couple months ago.. I heard that at least 12 banks were in serious danger of collapse... you still have these sub-prime mortgagess out there that have not reached their balloon... as well as Alt-A mortagegess that people could falsify income for self-employment.
Housing values continue to decline... foreclosures continue to rise... credit is about to get much tighter which will result in less expansion... less new businesses ... more unemployement... people won't be able to travel or buy large items such as cars... which will have an effect on many auto related industries.
http:///forum/post/2769608
there are many more banks that are being looked at... a couple months ago.. I heard that at least 12 banks were in serious danger of collapse... you still have these sub-prime mortgagess out there that have not reached their balloon... as well as Alt-A mortagegess that people could falsify income for self-employment.
Housing values continue to decline... foreclosures continue to rise... credit is about to get much tighter which will result in less expansion... less new businesses ... more unemployement... people won't be able to travel or buy large items such as cars... which will have an effect on many auto related industries.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by 1knight164
http:///forum/post/2769658
Dems inserted provisions to give billions to ACORN???? !
Please tell me it's not true. No wonder the meetings were heated.
WHere did you hear that? I can't believe they would allow taxpayer dollars to go to that corrupt group
http:///forum/post/2769658
Dems inserted provisions to give billions to ACORN???? !
WHere did you hear that? I can't believe they would allow taxpayer dollars to go to that corrupt group