levnubhin

iTrader: (30)

Im not sure whether its a good thing or not at this point.


Discuss...
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

cueball1

iTrader: (13)

We'll be paying either way. Just wish they weren't rushing it. They didn't see it coming in the 1st place. Now they are supposed to be smart enough to know how to fix it?!?

Put someone like Warren Buffett in charge of the plan and watch him like a hawk. All govt seems to ever do is play catch up. It is blindsided by every problem that comes along. Economists don't have a clue either. Hell, the fallout happened in a week or two but it took years of screwups, hiding the problems, illegal activity to get to this. Where were the friggin whistle blowers? Where were the economists with their great insights and plans? Where was the Govt that should have been looking out for this? Where are the indictments? Where are the seized assets of the criminals/brokers/accountants/ceo's that caused all this?

We won't know if the bailout will work until it does. If it fails there's plenty of blame to go around and excuses to make. "hey at least we tried".

Has anyone considered that the 700 billion is just about $2500 for every man, woman and child in the country? 1/2 of the US population contributes only 5% to the tax coffers. That means the other 1/2 are those of us who have decent jobs and some reasonable level of assets and cover the other 95%. We get to pay more like $5000 per person.

****.

Newbsauce

iTrader: (2)

I dislike it, but unfortunately it is necessary or the market will go to ****. I dislike the fact that we are effectively bailing out banks and firms that got extremely greedy in buying up debt. There is a risk associated with every reward. I don't go blow 50k at Atlantic city, and then demand someone save me economically. I was reading the McCain/Obama approach on it, and from a process standpoint, I generally have to say that Obama's demand for extreme oversight is refreshing. This considers that Bush seems more like a "sign it and hope for the best" type of approach.

LOLA - 92

I think the TOP 30 executives from each of the companies should pay the maximum amount allowed.
Does everyone understand how much money they peel away from those companies every year? If they get terminated by the board of directors, they give them MILLIONS to leave. What the ***** up with that ****?
I happen to work for HOME DEPOT and I couldn't beleive the amount of MONEY that that ****** BOB NARDELLI walked away with as severance -over $250 MILLION -- That is just to LEAVE. He worked there for just over five years.
In 2005, Nardelli took home (after taxes) a hefty $38.1 million in total compensation.
Averages out to $478.6 MILLION for FIVE years of work.....
$127,000.00 a day (after taxes) roughly is what he was paid for his work, not including the $250,000,000.00 severance pay to leave.
All of these CEO's are taking the companies for a ride and no one is stopping them.
Who takes it up the *** in the end? --- You and I.................

y8s

iTrader: (8)

You guys did catch the quote on forbes right?

un-******* believable, no?

source

RotorNutFD3S

iTrader: (33)

So let's see, we're running out of gas in the southeast and some other areas are in shortages, mostly due to idiots panicing, but government won't take care of the problem even though they could. But they're about to spend a ton of money on bailing out companies that don't deserve it. Way to show the population that we matter.
And what sucks even more, we literally don't have the power to do squat about it.

LOLA - 92

Forgot to mention this part --
You say $700 BILLION?
How about the $300 BILLION that just went towards the SAME THING?
We are talking a TOTAL of $1 TRILLION bucks baby -- $1,000,000,000,000.00 (TRILLION).
My question is -- "WHERE DID IT ALL GO TO?" I don't have any of it!

olderguy

iTrader: (19)

Yeah, couple billion here, couple billion there; after a while it adds up to some real money.


I say repeal the capital gains tax and reduce corporate taxes and let the market take its' course. Let the banks and wall street figure their own next moves.


I'm old enough that I won't be around when everything goes COMPLETELY to **** they way it is being handled now..

magnamx-5

iTrader: (7)

I say let the correction happen on its own and who ever fucked themselves into a mountian of debt is screwed and better take a safer apraoch next time. By bailingout the institutions we only prolong the recession and depression we will face. This country has gone way to credit happy in the first place. And needs to return to the times of well i dont have he money for that 60" hdtv or that 5k square foot house, so i wont buy it. Untill i do. The instant gratification has to stop. It is childish and irresponsible esp if you have kids etc. The american dream is always to be succesfull yada yada, own a home etc, but with the currently still over inflated housing values and the glut of people in homes they have no way of affording on a good month i say go back to a simpler smaller home and live with what u have instead of using credit to make it seem like u have more.

cueball1

iTrader: (13)

Blame a lot of this on Bush 1, Reagan and Clinton era leadership. The 80's and 90's were marked by a push toward homeownership for the poor and minorities. Banks and wallstreet were largely deregulated. Some of this was in response to the S&L scandals and the 20% interest rates under the Peanut Farmer pres.

Dereg banks and traders and guess what?!? They take advantage of it! Suprise suprise suprise! Dirty cheating lying money grubbing unethical bastards need a mean *** watchdog and a short leash. White collar crimes need to be punished with as much enthusiasm as the Govt has for drug crimes. Let's see some CEO's go to hard core prisons with the general population for 20+ years. Let's see major assets seized. Problem is the dirtiest companies cover thier butt's by owning both sides of the aisle in Washington. Until it blows up and can't be covered up any more, Washington won't move. Dem's and Rep's are equally guilty in this debaucle.

Stein

iTrader: (46)

To really clarify it, the bottom 50% contribute less than 5%, the top 10% contribute over 70% themselves. The upper-middle 40% contribute about 25%. Should make those that complain that the rich should pay more think twice.

levnubhin

iTrader: (30)

I also heard someone say that one thing that could be done is to force these banks to rewrite these loans with longer terms at a lower intrest rate. That way the bank still makes it money but over a longer time and the "home owners" have a more affordable monthly motrgage.

I kinda agree with Magna though. Theres to many people in homes that they can afford. Banks need to go back to the days where you had to have 20% down to get into a house.


On a side note, should I take my money out of WAMU?
__________________
Best Car Insurance | Auto Protection Today | FREE Trade-In Quote

elesjuan

iTrader: (11)

But according to Obama by taking a sarcastic remark out of context you're filthy rich if you make 5 million a year. So who cares if you're already paying 70%, why not make up another 10 or 15%? Think they'll actually notice?

**** it. Just take 100% from everyone, then divide it up evenly among the people. Oh, wait.. Thats what he wants to do...

Seriously, we're in severe trouble any which way you throw it. Bail out, no bail out, McCain or Obama.. We're fucked.

Stein

iTrader: (46)

You nailed it. People say that there is no way that they could live on one income like their parents did. Bullshit. If they lived within their means in a reasonable house, one car, no credit cards, buying stuff when they could AFFORD it, it can be done. When you look at the percentage of income spent on food, utilities, reasonable house, the PERCENTAGES are the same today as they were 30 years ago. It's the McMansions, a couple of leased cars or 84 month financed cars and HDTV's in every room that makes it impossible. Now, I know that there are exceptions. When you go to NYC or Chicago when a 600 square foot condo sells for $600K+, it isn't going to happen, but in a lot of the US, it is possible.

We pay cash for everything. If we can't afford it, we don't buy it. We have no debt except the house and it will be paid off in 5 more years. This is on top of my wife and I capping our 401k's and Roths meaning we pay ourselves first. It's all about priorities. It also helps that we don't have kids and live in a pretty low cost-of-living area.

cueball1

iTrader: (13)

Unless another "great depression" hit's your money should be safe at Wamu. If you've got over the insured amount though I would get that out. (don't know too many people with over 100K in the bank though. If you have that much it's sitting somewhere other than a bank account.)

Every one of the bundles of "bad paper" should be looked at. Any bank that wrote an ARM that went into default after rates raised should be considered for rewriting as a fairly priced fixed rate loan. It would be interesting to know how many defaults could be prevented by doing this.

The easy availability of cheap money over the last 10 years drove house prices crazy. It was too easy to buy. That's why we saw low inventories and prices climbed 10%-20% each year. Much of what is happening now is correcting several consecutive years of outlandish growth in housing prices. The house I'm in was $375K 3 years ago. 5 years before that it was 200K. I'm lucky, it's a highly desireable neighborhood and I'm still in a good equity position. Easy to see though how a correction could wipe out people buying inflated prices in mediocre neighborhoods get burned though. My house 2 homes ago was $175k 5 years ago. 280K at the peak 2 years ago. It'd likely be $175k again now. All because of the meh neighborhood and unsustainable house price inflation caused by easy cheap loans.

Stein

iTrader: (46)

I don't see that as a real solution. When you look at the difference in monthly payment on a 30 year vs 15 it's not that much. Stretch it to 40 and you might see a $200 difference on an average mortgage. Saving $200 a month but paying an extra $240,000 over the course of the loan to do it? No way. Even at a good interest rate, a $200K mortgage will already cost you $600K if you go for the whole 30 years.

cueball1

iTrader: (13)

It's not the length of term that caused the problems so much. It was ARMS. People get into a 4.5% arm for a couple years then it jumps to 7.9% or much higher while fixed rates are still at 6%. Take all those ARM loans that are defaulting at the new high rates and move them to a fixed rate just higher than the current rates (higher to help make up for the years it was lower) and see how many people can keep going without defaulting. Would be interesting to know what percentage of bad loans that would help. Would it be 5% or 50%? I have know idea.

Machismo

iTrader: (1)

I live within my means because I have too.
No one wants to loan a recently divorced, late 30'sh Miata drivin', child supportin', non-mortgage payin', house ownin' sap a dime.....Go figure.

y8s

iTrader: (8)

If you have more than 100k in your account, it should be in multiple accounts. Otherwise leave it in there. You're FDIC insured to 100k. pulling money out of everything is part of why the depression was such a disaster. and why the FDIC was created: to prevent reactionary economic decisions.

care to cite your sources on any of that? stop making things up.

...

the real truth about the solution to the problem is that there's no way to predict what will actually work. anyone who claims otherwise is lying to themselves and you.

the govts initial idea was to pull from the biggest reservoir of income they could find--the taxpayers. if you start repealing the huge moneymaker taxes (cap gains, corp), then it really will fall to the individuals. I'm a lot more sensitive to losing my own shirt than worrying what happens to, say, ExxonMobil.

if they allow all the banks and institutions to fail, whatever money people had in them would be gone. the FDIC can't afford to cover that much damage.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

bye bye WaMu