IT FAILED. by Wulfenstar

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

IT FAILED.

POSTED BY: WULFENSTAR
UPDATED: Thursday, October 2, 2008 11:24
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4335
PAGE 2 of 2

Tuesday, September 30, 2008 12:07 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Hey lookie... the market is rebounding. Imagine that.

See, nothing lasts forever, guess we've nothing to be concerned about, EVER, except the damn Liberals out to destroy this great nation...but if nothing lasts forever...

Hey wait AU...you logic falls apart...damn, like on EVERY post....how do you do that?

Chrisisall

The 'trick' is in your own mind, Chrissy. That you can't follow simple logic is what confuses your widdle mind.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 30, 2008 1:19 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:

Pelosi ALLOWED her commitee chairs to VOTE AGAINST it, so they could have political cover. She ALLOWED 95 Dems to vote NO.

Again, I think you're making Pelosi out to be much more powerful than you'd like to admit. And I agree with you that she IS a piece of shit, and I doubt she'll keep her spot, but the argument on the right seems to lend her more credence and power than she actually enjoys.

Was it Pelosi who ALLOWED two thirds of the Republicans to vote NO as well? Or was it one of those other two pieces of shit, McCain and Bush? They supposedly wanted this bailout as much as - if not more than - anyone, and they didn't get it BECAUSE of the lack of support from their own party. Why would they ALLOW their party to do that to them? It certainly makes the Republican leadership look awfully weak in the face of that little old housewife who never held a job in her life...

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 30, 2008 2:37 PM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Here we go again....

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/30/news/economy/bailout_tuesday/index.htm
?cnn=yes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 30, 2008 6:30 PM

KWICKO

Quote:

Well Mikey, you certainly know your stuff - yeah that's what he picked up.

The Saiga stuff looks pretty damn nice, and apparently they got a 12Gauge auto with a Kalishnikov action that looks a damn lot like Vera.
(is that what Vera really is, I wonder ?)

Know my stuff? Nah, I'm just learning. Trying to take it all in. And these drums were just a subject of much discussion in the last few days, since one of the larger sporting goods chains seems to have gotten their hands on a container-load of them! They're all gone now, though. Looks like I missed out. :(

Not a big deal, though, since I have no real need for such things - but they WOULD be sweet to have if they happened to come along for the right price.

As for the S12 shotgun, it SEEMS like a ridiculous idea at first blush, but by all accounts, it actually works amazingly well. Some of the guys who like them are getting grief because they're entering shotgun matches with them, and the semi-auto nature of them is seen by some as "unsporting".

Like any of the other Saigas, they used to be cheap (inexpensive, I mean, not poorly made), but now not so much. Nowadays, they run $550 or more IF you can find them in stock, and if you do find them in stock, don't think - BUY. They won't be there after you've thought about and gone back to pick one up. They sell out QUICK.

Oh, and stay away from Wraithmaker and everything they touch. They supposedly have some kind of drum mags for the S12, but I've heard nothing but horror stories about them. Not a one of them has ever seemed to fit or feed correctly, and they steadfastly insist that it's always the gun that's the problem!

And seriously, if you need more than 5 or 10 rounds of 12 gauge, something has gone horribly wrong already!

I don't own any of the Saiga shotguns - yet. But I've certainly gained respect for them from talking to some of the many happy owners who've happily bought 2, 3, or more of them for themselves. I'd like to pick one up at some point, but we'll have to see...

Meanwhile, I'd say get that ugly little ChiCom monster out to the range and try it out. AKs may come in some of the ugliest, cheapest-looking (well, maybe cheapest-looking after the Hi-Point Carbine...) variants known to man, but even a bad one seems to be more reliable than a good AR-15/M-16. So take it out and run some ammo through it, and I bet you'll be surprised.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 30, 2008 6:35 PM

KWICKO

Oh, and Frem?

Good call on Vera! Some searching reveals this:

http://www.fireflywiki.org/Firefly/CallahanFullboreAutolock

Apparently she WAS built up off a Saiga-12. Rather heavily modified, as you can see. The overfolding stock is an interesting touch, but I think I'd prefer a nice side-folder or an underfolder - IF it allowed for shooting from the folded position. Just in case, y'know, of a Zombie attack or something...

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 30, 2008 6:55 PM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Well Mikey, you certainly know your stuff - yeah that's what he picked up.

The Saiga stuff looks pretty damn nice, and apparently they got a 12Gauge auto with a Kalishnikov action that looks a damn lot like Vera.
(is that what Vera really is, I wonder ?)

Since a rifle wouldn't do me much good, that Saiga-12 is actually looking pretty good to me, since slam-firing my M1897 is a fairly athletic procedure and I happen to be getting a bit long in the tooth for that sorta thing, yanno.

Yes...Vera was based on a SAIGA 12...She's been so heavily modded as to be virtually unrecognizable...Virtually.

We've had at least one prior thread about that :
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=13&t=33594

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 30, 2008 7:08 PM

KWICKO

O2TB:

Sorry, I had no idea. Learn somethin' new every day (if you're lucky).

Thanks for the link; I hadn't seen that thread before.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:03 PM

OUT2THEBLACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
O2TB:

Sorry, I had no idea. Learn somethin' new every day (if you're lucky).

Thanks for the link; I hadn't seen that thread before.

Mike

No worries...And , no need for apology...

Just happy to be doin' good works !

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 1, 2008 2:11 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Some of the guys who like them are getting grief because they're entering shotgun matches with them, and the semi-auto nature of them is seen by some as "unsporting".

Sporting ain't got jack to do with it - if I point a weapon at something I damn well mean to obliterate it, and I follow the three rules of proper target service, you know.

1. Bring a gun.
2. Bring ENOUGH gun.
3. If effect is not immediate, use MORE gun.

I'd love to take credit for that, but actually I picked that up from a former USS Iowa crewman, who by nature of his job had firm experience with "enough gun".

For certain reasons however, I don't have to wait or search, if I want something of that nature, it's only a matter of whether I am willing to shell out the cashy money for it, which at this point in time I ain't... but let's just say my xmas stockin is gonna need a reinforced bottom, eh ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 1, 2008 3:02 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Hey lookie... the market is rebounding. Imagine that."

Yes, and all without a rich-people's care-package. Imagine that.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

Only in response to being told that the bailout will happen did people bite.

I thought GE was a cheap buy and didn't do my due diligence before buying it. There into everything. ... why didn't I think to see if they had a financial department? Whoops..... US Bancorp is the only financial I want to own. I sell it high and buy it low. It was a responsible bank and will come out of this better than most other banks in the world, let alone the US.

That being said, my GE was down about 20% yesterday and about 10% today.... we'll see what happens. I'm holding till I break even and then selling it when it's back in black. I'm hoping that the euphoria of a bailout will even make me some money by the end of the day.

This market is definately not for the timid. I could have been the guy that I bought from on the bottom and sold to on the top..... (I still can be that guy, but this ain't an impulse game, so unless we all lose, I think I'll be alright)

Good luck to you Hero. There's no way that anybody could ever guess where we're going more than a few days ahead at this point, what with all the blatant Government manipulation going on.

BTW people. I don't feel the need to defend my position on minorities anymore. Anything I said before wasn't racist, but it was fact. There were a lot of white people that bought too much house. They were the types that should have been buying the 250,000 houses when they were buying 500,000 houses. That's the upscale forclosure stories you hear about all the time, all the way on up to dumbass Jim McMahon.

The sad truth is, there are laws against discrimination, and this required the banks to take on, at the very least, a certain percentage of bad loans by minorities. Sure, you and I all know that the real financial tests were busted out more often against minorities, but there were plenty who got in that lied like everyone else about what they really could afford, and there was a law stating that the banks had to do it. It's all a game of percentages. I'm sure they knew exactly how many real financial checks and denials of minorites they could get away with every month. Some banks chose to be more responsible with those numbers, while others were completely reckless, assuming that houses would jump in value 10% a year forever.

Even my US Bancorp has some bad loans. I'd love to get a demographic study of who owes those bad loans. I'm sure that I'd never get to see that info though. It would probably implicate them for being "racist" when they were just being responsible.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 1, 2008 3:16 AM

DEADLOCKVICTIM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 1, 2008 4:01 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Deregulation is just "Patriot Act" speak for legalized criminal activity by the fat-cats in a system that is rigged.

Had the system not been rigged, many of these business would have never been able to be so reckless in the first place, let alone even think about putting out such rediculous loans.

You think houses would have been so easy to get in the early eighties when interest rates topped out at around 21%, even with today's laws?

No F'ing way!

You can thank a system that can change interest rates to make the waves move this way and that.

Even Hero has to admit that the entire system is rigged and that we are in a system where powers above us make all the money decisions, even though we can all choose to give ourselves a very long leash if we work hard for it...

It's kinda like a Communism reboot.....

COMMUNISM 2.0

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 1, 2008 6:45 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"BTW people. I don't feel the need to defend my position on minorities anymore. Anything I said before wasn't racist, but it was fact."

Hello,

I do not feel you are racist, but I do feel you are misinformed. Someone, somewhere, has explained fair lending rules to you in a way to support their political opinion.

Unfortunately, they themselves were either ill informed or uninterested in the whole truth.

As someone who has actually worked for a major financial institution, and who was exposed to the decisioning process, I can assure you that we lent in all 50 states, to all stripes and colors, and race was not a factor in decisioning.

Let me reiterate that. A file was approved and stipulations set before race information was even collected. (And it IS collected before a file is closed, on a voluntary basis, for government reporting purposes.)

Because a file is approved and stipulations set before race/sex data is collected, it is impossible to show that the bank was tailoring its approvals or stipulations to meet some imagined regulatory quota.

I'd also like to point out that my bank, one of the largest in the nation, didn't invest much in that sub-prime mess. It didn't matter. When you have bad lending policies, you end up with bad paper. It has nothing to do with race (or minority protection), and everything to do with my carefully outlined description of how lending went wrong.

That's lending, as in lending to everyone. Not just minorities. In fact, the #1 individual who is cheerily walking away from upside down homes is the wealthy investor. The guy who bought five houses hoping to flip them. He is now writing off his bad investment and moving on to greener pastures. Homeowners who live in their homes, by and large, do everything in their power to keep the house before regrettfully letting it slip away because they've run out of options.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 1, 2008 7:05 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Even Hero has to admit that the entire system is rigged and that we are in a system where powers above us make all the money decisions, even though we can all choose to give ourselves a very long leash if we work hard for it...

It's kinda like a Communism reboot.....

COMMUNISM 2.0

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

* in Mr. Universe voice*
Six, you're very smart.

Iagreeisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 1, 2008 7:44 AM

KWICKO

Quote:

The sad truth is, there are laws against discrimination, and this required the banks to take on, at the very least, a certain percentage of bad loans by minorities.

See, that's where you lose my interest and support - when you start insisting that it's not the hundreds of billions in bad debt that whites incurred, it's the bad loans to MINORITIES that really brought the house of cards crashing down.

Let's get this straight, once and for all: What brought the whole thing crashing down around Wall Street's (and the Administration's) heads was that they were giving bad loans out like free crack samples, and got everybody hooked on free money. They weren't discriminating, except in the sense that THEY WEREN'T DISCRIMINATING about who the hell they lent money to. Did some minorities get one over on "the Man" and get more house than they should have gotten? You betcha. But I bet that, statistically speaking, on a per-capita basis, the percentage of bad loans written to minorities is not out of line with the number of bad loans written to white folk.

The REAL minority here is the sheer number of people who have bad loans that are in foreclosure. They come in all races, creeds, colors, and sexes, but they're a solid minority because the fact of the matter is, there just aren't that damned many bad mortgages on the books. What's dragging the system down is the knowledge that there ARE bad loans out, and we don't know exactly how many, or which ones, are the bad ones, so it taints the whole market.

Think of those bad loans as the "poison pills" of the market. Like poisoned Tylenol, you might be able to figure out which batch is affected, but short of testing every single pill in that batch, you have to assume that the whole batch is bad and be prepared to toss them out and take the loss. And THAT is where we're at with the mortgage and credit markets today.

"Because we gave loans to minorities" is an affront to anyone with a brain. It's not the minorities that are crashing the system (though it would be kind of ironically hilarious if it WERE!), it's the SYSTEM that is crashing the system. They were falling all over themselves to loan money to anyone and everyone, and even when the states themselves tried to reign the banks in, the banks filed federal lawsuits to ALLOW themm to keep writing what they knew were bad loans - because they were then selling the loans up the chain in bundles with other mortgages, so it was assumed that any "bad ones" would be more than covered by the good.

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 1, 2008 7:48 AM

KWICKO

And by the way, why isn't anyone suggesting that Sarah Palin, with all her years of executive experience, ride in to the rescue, instead of sending McCain teetering off to Washington to save us all?

I mean, Palin IS qualified... isn't she?

Mike

This world is a comedy for those who think, and a tragedy for those who feel.

Trolls Against McCain!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, October 1, 2008 8:02 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Let's get this straight, once and for all: What brought the whole thing crashing down around Wall Street's (and the Administration's) heads was that they were giving bad loans out like free crack samples, and got everybody hooked on free money.

I bet that, statistically speaking, on a per-capita basis, the percentage of bad loans written to minorities is not out of line with the number of bad loans written to white folk.

Definitely, Mike.

Cisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 2, 2008 4:07 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

And here we go again....

If the House votes it down...how far are we looking to fall here?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 2, 2008 5:15 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I resent being stampeded by anyone - democrat or repubican. The message I'm hearing is - Don't look ! No time to think ! Just let us do anything we want !

SignyM brought this article to my attention. And I'm all for recapitalization IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE. Which is to say NOT the administration's plan. But don't take my word for it that the bailout is a scam. Here's an expert opinion:

Is Purchasing $700 billion of Toxic Assets the Best Way to Recapitalize the Financial System? No! It is Rather a Disgrace and Rip-Off Benefitting only the Shareholders and Unsecured Creditors of Banks

Nouriel Roubini | Sep 28, 2008

Whenever there is a systemic banking crisis there is a need to recapitalize the banking/financial system to avoid an excessive and destructive credit contraction. But purchasing toxic/illiquid assets of the financial system is not the most effective and efficient way to recapitalize the banking system. Such recapitalization – via the use of public resources – can occur in a number of alternative ways: purchase of bad assets/loans; government injection of preferred shares; government injection of common shares; government purchase of subordinated debt; government issuance of government bonds to be placed on the banks’ balance sheet; government injection of cash; government credit lines extended to the banks; government assumption of government liabilities.

A recent IMF study of 42 systemic banking crises across the world provides evidence on how different crises were resolved. First of all only in 32 of the 42 cases there was government financial intervention of any sort; in 10 cases systemic banking crises were resolved without any government financial intervention. Of the 32 cases where the government recapitalized the banking system only seven included a program of purchase of bad assets/loans (like the one proposed by the US Treasury). In 25 other cases there was no government purchase of such toxic assets. In 6 cases the government purchased preferred shares; in 4 cases the government purchased common shares; in 11 cases the government purchased subordinated debt; in 12 cases the government injected cash in the banks; in 2 cases credit was extended to the banks; and in 3 cases the government assumed bank liabilities. Even in cases where bad assets were purchased – as in Chile – dividends were suspended and all profits and recoveries had to be used to repurchase the bad assets. Of course in most cases multiple forms of government recapitalization of banks were used.

But government purchase of bad assets was the exception rather than the rule. It was used only in Mexico, Japan, Bolivia, Czech Republic, Jamaica, Malaysia, and Paraguay. Even in six of these seven cases where the recapitalization of banks occurred via the government purchase of bad assets such recapitalization was a combination of purchase of bad assets together with other forms of recapitalization (such as government purchase of preferred shares or subordinated debt).

In the Scandinavian banking crises (Sweden, Norway, Finland) that are a model of how a banking crisis should be resolved there was not government purchase of bad assets; most of the recapitalization occurred through various injections of public capital in the banking system. Purchase of toxic assets instead – in most cases in which it was used – made the fiscal cost of the crisis much higher and expensive (as in Japan and Mexico).

Thus the claim by the Fed and Treasury that spending $700 billion of public money is the best way to recapitalize banks has absolutely no factual basis or justification. This way of recapitalizing financial institutions is a total rip-off that will mostly benefit – at a huge expense for the US taxpayer - the common and preferred shareholders and even unsecured creditors of the banks. Even the late addition of some warrants that the government will get in exchange of this massive injection of public money is only a cosmetic fig leaf of dubious value as the form and size of such warrants is totally vague and fuzzy.

So this rescue plan is a huge and massive bailout of the shareholders and the unsecured creditors of the financial firms (not just banks but also other non bank financial institutions); with $700 billion of taxpayer money the pockets of reckless bankers and investors have been made fatter under the fake argument that bailing out Wall Street was necessary to rescue Main Street from a severe recession. Instead, the restoration of the financial health of distressed financial firms could have been achieved with a cheaper and better use of public money.

Indeed, the plan also does not address the need to recapitalize those financial institutions that are badly undercapitalized: this could have been achieved by using some of the $700 billion to inject public funds in ways other and more effective than a purchase of toxic assets: via public injections of preferred shares into these firms; via required matching injections of Tier 1 capital by current shareholders to make sure that such shareholders take first tier loss in the presence of public recapitalization; via suspension of dividends payments; via a conversion of some of the unsecured debt into equity (a debt for equity swap). All these actions would have implied a much lower fiscal costs for the government as they would have forced the shareholders and creditors of the banks to contribute to the recapitalization of the banks. So less than $700 billion of public money could have been spent if the private shareholders and creditors had been forced to contribute to the recapitalization; and whatever the size of the public contribution were to be its distribution between purchases of bad assets and more efficient and fair forms of recapitalization (preferred shares, common shares, sub debt) should have been different. For example if the private sector had done its fair matching share only $350 billion of public money could have been used; and of this $350 billion half could have taken the form of purchase of bad assets and the other half should have taken the form of injection of public capital in these financial institutions. So instead of purchasing – most likely at an excessive price - $700 billion of toxic assets the government could have achieved the same result – or a better result of recapitalizing the banks – by spending only $175 billion in the direct purchase of toxic assets. And even after the government will waste $700 billion buying toxic assets many banks that have not yet provisioned for such losses/writedowns will be even more undercapitalized than before. So this plan does not even achieve the basic objective of recapitalizing undercapitalized banks.

The Treasury plan also does not explicitly include an HOLC-style program to reduce across the board the debt burden of the distressed household sector; without such a component the debt overhang of the household sector will continue to depress consumption spending and will exacerbate the current economic recession.

Thus, the Treasury plan is a disgrace: a bailout of reckless bankers, lenders and investors that provides little direct debt relief to borrowers and financially stressed households and that will come at a very high cost to the US taxpayer. And the plan does nothing to resolve the severe stress in money markets and interbank markets that are now close to a systemic meltdown. It is pathetic that Congress did not consult any of the many professional economists that have presented - many on the RGE Monitor Finance blog forum - alternative plans that were more fair and efficient and less costly ways to resolve this crisis. This is again a case of privatizing the gains and socializing the losses; a bailout and socialism for the rich, the well-connected and Wall Street. And it is a scandal that even Congressional Democrats have fallen for this Treasury scam that does little to resolve the debt burden of millions of distressed home owners.

http://www.rgemonitor.com/roubini-monitor/253783/is_purchasing_700_bil
lion_of_toxic_assets_the_best_ way_to_recapitalize_the_financial_system_no_it_is_rather_a_disgrace_and_rip- off_benefitting_only_the_shareholders_and_unsecured_creditors_of_banks
***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 2, 2008 9:40 AM

OUT2THEBLACK

Look for more CRASH if Shrub , Inc. doesn't get what they want...

Expect a " Banker's Holiday " very soon...

The pattern repeats...Smart folk don't keep their Federal Reserve 'Notes' in BANKS...

Zoe: " Get OUT , Get out NOW ! "

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/print.asp?ID=9430

Lots of folk have been seeing all this coming for a long time now...

Controlled Demolition...ECON-Bomb...Financial 911

Put your spare 'NOTES' into canned goods , staple foods , SEEDS , and other commodity and comfort items...Buy in Bulk !

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 2, 2008 9:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, I see consistent "rewards/ punishments" going on. Every time it looks like the bailout is going to pass, stocks go up. Every time it looks like the bailout is going to fail, stocks go down.

I just can't get it out of my head: the UBS analyst who said back in MARCH that a bailout by October was a "sure-fire" thing.

THAT!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 2, 2008 10:31 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
The REAL minority here is the sheer number of people who have bad loans that are in foreclosure. They come in all races, creeds, colors, and sexes, but they're a solid minority because the fact of the matter is, there just aren't that damned many bad mortgages on the books. What's dragging the system down is the knowledge that there ARE bad loans out, and we don't know exactly how many, or which ones, are the bad ones, so it taints the whole market.

Think of those bad loans as the "poison pills" of the market. Like poisoned Tylenol, you might be able to figure out which batch is affected, but short of testing every single pill in that batch, you have to assume that the whole batch is bad and be prepared to toss them out and take the loss. And THAT is where we're at with the mortgage and credit markets today.

6.8% of total mortgages were of the problem subprime ARM type (accounting for 43% of foreclosures). Subprime ARMs do account for 20% of the total mortgage credit though. The real kicker is that plenty of people who qualified for A grade loans were given subprime. Why? Because Subprimes are 'greater risk' lenders can charge higher interest rates (which ironically makes borrowers more likely to default due to higher repayments), meaning greater profits.

But yanno, most people aren't bankers, so really it is all the fault of a particular minority...

Quote:
because they were then selling the loans up the chain in bundles with other mortgages, so it was assumed that any "bad ones" would be more than covered by the good.

Ironic when you realise the exact opposite happened. The bad more than covered the good.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 2, 2008 10:54 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

IT FAILED - BUT THEY KEEP TRYING !

If there ever was a time to call and write, it is NOW !

***************************************************************

Speak now or forever hold your peace.
But remember on election day.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 2, 2008 11:24 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Might I add a suggestion to that...

Show up.

Show up with friends, in fact, and try to look professional, concerned, and just a little... miffed.

Right now they're actually blocking and trash-filtering a lot of email and regular correspondance due to the sheer AMOUNT of folk pissed at them, the political equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending not to hear you.

So, if your local politico is in town, or gonna be any time soon, make a PERSONAL visit, and don't let their handlers and secretaries shine you, force em to give you five minutes, and use it well and eloquently.

You'll not convince them, but that ain't the point, the point is the implied threat of a hostile constituency both able and willing to address them personally, in court if necessary.

Believe me, that's FAR more motivating than a letter that goes, unread, into the shredder.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/11/AR2006
061100691.html

Another thing about it is trust and privacy, Levin, Conyers and Dingell know only that I am one of their constituents and a resident of Michigan, and nothing beyond that - of them all, Dingell is the only one completely comfortable with that cause if he's got the time, he'd give any american five minutes of it whether they are his constituent or not.

He has a demeanor that reminds me of a very competent school teacher, and mind you this is a guy whom I've discussed foreign policy with as I checked his cars fluids and topped off from my own stocks to save him the few minutes I was asking for.
(And if you actually bled those brake lines once in a while, John, the pedal wouldn't be so squishy.)

To send an email, they want more info than I feel comfy giving them in this oh so paranoid era, where a single off hand comment is enough to have you arrested and interrogated at length.

Digital age or no, there's just no substitute for personal contact, folks.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE