Falling dollar.. Good or bad?

RoyalOrleans

New member
Not so dumb. They're being bailed out at your expense. :rolleyes:
I have to spread some rep around before I can give you some more.

Fukken aye.

Exactly... we're bailing them out, the taxpayers, not the Federal.

I hope AIG doesn't stand for Allah is Great.

 

RoyalOrleans

New member
YOUR WHOLE FUKKING INDUSTRY IS BASED ON RISK!
Such is life, wez. Such is life.

You're at risk every second of the day, though most of us shrug it off and go about our merry business.

Calamities happen, accidents happen, **** happens; life is a gamble and risk is rolling the dice.

 
F

Fullauto

Guest
I have to spread some rep around before I can give you some more.
Fukken aye.

Exactly... we're bailing them out, the taxpayers, not the Federal.

I hope AIG doesn't stand for Allah is Great.

We are dumping 83 billion dollars into the already devalued US market by giveing them a loan against money we don't have! I can hear the dollar value tumbling as I type this... ;)

 

ImWithStupid

New member
I am now quite certain that Nancy Pelosi is either completely delusional, in complete denial, or thinks that the American people are downright stupid...

Pelosi: Dems bear no responsibility for economic crisis By Klaus Marre

Posted: 09/16/08 04:14 PM [ET]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked Tuesday whether Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street, had a one-word answer: “No.”

Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Bush’s “mismanagement” of the economy and a lack of regulation that led to the current situation.

“I think the American people have had it with this situation where the middle-income people in our country are not protected from the ramifications of the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” Pelosi told MSNBC.

When asked whether the Democrats “deserve some responsibility” regarding the economic crisis, Pelosi responded: “No.”




“John McCain said that this is a result of overregulation by the Democrats in Congress,” she added. “Either he doesn’t know what he's talking about or he’s misrepresenting the facts as he knows them. But it’s simply not true.”

Republicans responded quickly, pointing out that a Congress led by Democrats had not helped the economy.

“The Pelosi-Obama Congress has failed to pass an all-of-the-above energy plan, failed to stop earmarks, and failed to break the partisan gridlock that plagues Washington,” RNC spokesman Alex Conant said. “If Pelosi thinks the Democratic Congress is doing a good job handling the economy now, then just imagine how bad our economy would be if Democrats controlled the White House, too.”
TheHill.com

 

Old Salt

New member
I am now quite certain that Nancy Pelosi is either completely delusional, in complete denial, or thinks that the American people are downright stupid...


TheHill.com
I'll go with choice number three. It was a difficult decision because there are elements of the first two included. Guess it was more like an "all of the above" choice.
 
F

Fullauto

Guest
I predict that soon there will be a 'bank holiday' to keep people from running thier accounts dry..
 

wez

New member
I predict that soon there will be a 'bank holiday' to keep people from running thier accounts dry..
I heard on the radio on the way home that Russia closed it's markets after a freefall.. and that all the billionaires are leaving cause they see their future.. get swallowed by the guv, go to jail, or be killed..

All the doings of hypocrites there, here, and everywhere..

 

wez

New member
I guess I should say all the doings of those of us who let the hypocrites of the world do what they do.. and climb aboard the train.. Nothing but ruin in every way, shape, and form at the end of those tracks.. right, eddo?
 

wez

New member
So the market goes up 400.. goes down 400... Bailouts to the tune of 1,000,000,000,000 +... we are kicking ***.. yay us

Bailouts so crooks can stay in business to rob again? Doesn't sound like the best idea to me, but what do I know?

Who was it getting free money today again as a reward for poor business practices? Goldman and some other steaming pile of dung..

 

ImWithStupid

New member
I still can't believe that Bush's failed policies have gotten us into this **** housing mess with Freddy and Fannie...

Minorities’ Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites’
By Ronald Brownstein

May 31, 1999 in print edition A-5

It’s one of the hidden success stories of the Clinton era. In the great housing boom of the 1990s, black and Latino homeownership has surged to the highest level ever recorded. The number of African Americans owning their own home is now increasing nearly three times as fast as the number of whites; the number of Latino homeowners is growing nearly five times as fast as that of whites.

These numbers are dramatic enough to deserve more detail. When President Clinton took office in 1993, 42% of African Americans and 39% of Latinos owned their own home. By this spring, those figures had jumped to 46.9% of blacks and 46.2% of Latinos.

That’s a lot of new picket fences. Since 1994, when the numbers really took off, the number of black and Latino homeowners has increased by 2 million. In all, the minority homeownership rate is on track to increase more in the 1990s than in any decade this century except the 1940s, when minorities joined in the wartime surge out of the Depression.

This trend is good news on many fronts. Homeownership stabilizes neighborhoods and even families. Housing scholar William C. Apgar, now an assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development,

All of this suggests that Clinton’s efforts to increase minority access to loans and capital also have spurred this decade’s gains. Under Clinton, bank regulators have breathed the first real life into enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act, a 20-year-old statute meant to combat “redlining” by requiring banks to serve their low-income communities. The administration also has sent a clear message by stiffening enforcement of the fair housing and fair lending laws. The bottom line: Between 1993 and 1997, home loans grew by 72% to blacks and by 45% to Latinos, far faster than the total growth rate.
Lenders also have opened the door wider to minorities because of new initiatives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the giant federally chartered corporations that play critical, if obscure, roles in the home finance system. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy mortgages from lenders and bundle them into securities; that provides lenders the funds to lend more.

In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers. Operating under that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been aggressive and creative in stimulating minority gains. It has aimed extensive advertising campaigns at minorities that explain how to buy a home and opened three dozen local offices to encourage lenders to serve these markets. Most importantly, Fannie Mae has agreed to buy more loans with very low down payments–or with mortgage payments that represent an unusually high percentage of a buyer’s income. That’s made banks willing to lend to lower-income families they once might have rejected.

But with discrimination in the banking system not yet eradicated, maintaining the momentum of the 1990s will also require a continuing nudge from Washington. One key is to defend the Community Reinvestment Act, which the Senate shortsightedly voted to retrench recently. Clinton has threatened a veto if the House concurs.
The top priority may be to ask more of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer. Although Fannie Mae actually has exceeded its target since 1994, it is resisting any hike. It argues that a higher target would only produce more loan defaults by pressuring banks to accept unsafe borrowers. HUD says Fannie Mae is resisting more low-income loans because they are less profitable.

Barry Zigas, who heads Fannie Mae’s low-income efforts, is undoubtedly correct when he argues, “There is obviously a limit beyond which [we] can’t push [the banks] to produce.”
Minorities' Home Ownership Booms Under Clinton but Still Lags Whites' - Los Angeles Times

 

wez

New member
What sucks.. is they're gonna bail em out to continue? :confused:

Real smart.. I can see now the chances of me ever buying a house are slim to none.. not in a commie economy.. Prices will never reflect reality.. I hear more and more people trumpeting 50 year mortgages and the like lately.. unreal.. people 30 - 40 years ago woulda laughed in the face of the notion of even borrowing for 30 years.. and prices reflected it.. People now seem to think they have no choice..

All this **** aint Bushes, Clintons, or anyones fault but our own.. That's what we get for expecting someone else to "take care of us"..

 

Old Salt

New member
What sucks.. is they're gonna bail em out to continue? :confused:
Real smart.. I can see now the chances of me ever buying a house are slim to none.. not in a commie economy.. Prices will never reflect reality.. I hear more and more people trumpeting 50 year mortgages and the like lately.. unreal.. people 30 - 40 years ago woulda laughed in the face of the notion of even borrowing for 30 years.. and prices reflected it.. People now seem to think they have no choice..

All this **** aint Bushes, Clintons, or anyones fault but our own.. That's what we get for expecting someone else to "take care of us"..
50 year mortgage :eek: . (Relatively) easy credit keeps prices up. A young couple taking one of those out would never get their house paid off.
Of course, people don't grow old in the same house anymore like they used to.

 

ImWithStupid

New member
What sucks.. is they're gonna bail em out to continue? :confused:
Real smart.. I can see now the chances of me ever buying a house are slim to none.. not in a commie economy.. Prices will never reflect reality.. I hear more and more people trumpeting 50 year mortgages and the like lately.. unreal.. people 30 - 40 years ago woulda laughed in the face of the notion of even borrowing for 30 years.. and prices reflected it.. People now seem to think they have no choice..

All this **** aint Bushes, Clintons, or anyones fault but our own.. That's what we get for expecting someone else to "take care of us"..
That's my point. I'm sick of this whole finger pointing saying that it's the last adminstration. It's all these ******** in Washington who don't care past the next election that put us here. I have no faith that anything they are doing now or will do in the future will do any thing to really help.

It's all a fricking bandaid to pass the blame on the next guy.

 

wez

New member
It's all a fricking bandaid to pass the blame on the next guy.
Seems to be a common theme throughout our whole society these days.. Fukk, I'll take the blame for everything our country has ever done.. lets just fix it and do what's right.. at least start.. Gonna destroy ourselves. Hopefully it aint to late..

 

ImWithStupid

New member
Washington must heed fiscal alarm bell
Published: September 22 2008 18:57 | Last updated: September 22 2008 18:57

What do AIG, Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch have in common? Some thought that these companies were too big to fail. They were wrong: all of these companies have either filed for bankruptcy, been "bailed out" by the government, or, owing to the sub-prime crisis, have been acquired. Over the weekend, the US government went one step further, with its proposals for an estimated $700bn (€493bn, ?391bn) bail-out to ease the credit crisis.

The US government truly is too big to fail. However, there are disturbing parallels between the factors that led to the sub-prime crisis and the deteriorating financial condition and fiscal foundation of our federal government. These similarities ought to ring an alarm bell for Congress and the presidential candidates. The question is, will they hear it and wake up?

The first parallel relates to the dangerous disconnect between the parties who benefit from various imprudent practices and those who bear the related risk and ultimately pay the price. In the housing crisis, some originators of unwise mortgages have not paid a price for their actions. In the case of our federal government, politicians have increased spending, expanded government entitlement programmes, and agreed tax cuts without considering their long-term costs.

Second, a lack of transparency facilitated the crisis. Banks and other financial institutions created off-the-books entities so that regulators would find it hard to track the risks to their health. The US federal budget does not reflect the government's huge off-balance sheet and unfunded promises, commitments and contingencies that stood at over $40,000bn at September 30, 2007.

Another similarity has been the role of credit rating agencies, which blithely rated securitised mortgage packages without looking at the weaknesses of underlying mortgages. In similar fashion, purchasers of American debt issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac assumed that it was guaranteed by the US government. The resulting expectation gap among foreign investors resulted in their demand that the government make explicit what until then had been only an implicit guarantee. The result is that the US taxpayer now stands behind more than $5,000bn in mortgages. It is too soon to say what the ultimate cost will be to taxpayers.

Finally, while there were private sector and executive branch failures, Congress also bears responsibility. It writes the laws and is charged with oversight of these formerly quasi-governmental entities and regulatory agencies. The sad but simple truth is that our country has strayed a long way from the principles and values that made this nation great. Washington has grown increasingly out of touch and out of control. Personal responsibility and stewardship for our collective future are largely absent in too many government areas. This must change.

Are there lessons from the sub-prime crisis? The answer is yes. The recent actions had to be taken because the government failed to establish an effective regulatory structure in connection with mortgages, derivatives and other securities. Greed was rampant. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac strayed from their original mission, becoming too focused on profit and personal gain rather than their public purpose. Lax oversight was facilitated by powerful Wall Street lobbies and the lobbying of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Beyond the turmoil for banks and homeowners, however, there is a super-sub-prime crisis brewing in Washington. Our fiscal policies have created a disconnect between today's citizens and future taxpayers. Today's taxpayers benefit from high government spending and low taxes, while future generations are expected to pay the bill. Our real challenge is where we are headed on our do-nothing fiscal path.

Washington has charged everything to the nation's credit card - engaging in tax cuts and spending increases without paying for them. Washington's imprudent, unethical and even immoral behaviour is facilitated by a lack of transparency. For example, as of September 30, 2007 the federal government was in a $53,000bn dollar fiscal hole, equal to $455,000 per household and $175,000 per person. This burden is rising every year by $6,600-$9,900 per American. Medicare represents $34,000bn of this deficit and the related Medicare trust fund is set to run dry within 10 years. The Social Security programme is projected to have negative cash flow within about 10 years.

What needs to be done? First, we need leadership from the presidential candidates and members of Congress. We need to re-impose tough budget controls, constrain federal spending, decide which Bush tax cuts will stay, and engage in comprehensive reform of our entitlement, healthcare and tax systems. A bipartisan commission that would make recommendations for an up-or-down vote by Congress would be a positive step to making this a reality.

While the US government is too big to fail, continuing on our current path will have adverse implications for our economy and international standing. The sooner Washington acts, the better. Our country, children and grandchildren deserve no less. In the interim, the government needs to decide how to account for its radical actions in the financial statements for the year to September 30. The Treasury has a responsibility to disclose and account for these costs adequately and the Government Accountability Office has a duty to insist the Treasury does so.

The writer is president and chief executive of the Peter G Peterson Foundation and former Comptroller General of the United States

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008
FT.com / Comment & analysis / Comment - Washington must heed fiscal alarm bell

 

wez

New member
Well.. bailout failed.. Perhaps there are still some true Americans in Washington after all..

I see poor little Wally Street is crying to the tune of 500 - 600 points.. waaaaaaaaa

Nancy Pelosi is a dumbass.

A shut down of the credit market sounds great to me.. I can charge loan shark rates on my savings.. yay me.

 
Top Bottom