(Gold Point Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
84,091 messages
Updated 11/8/2024 10:28:12 AM
Lakes Online Forum
5,204 messages
Updated 9/14/2024 10:10:50 AM
(Gold Point Lake Specific)
0 messages
Updated
Lakes Online Forum
4,172 messages
Updated 9/9/2024 5:04:44 PM
Lakes Online Forum
4,262 messages
Updated 11/6/2024 6:43:09 PM
Lakes Online Forum
2,979 messages
Updated 6/26/2024 5:03:03 AM
Lakes Online Forum
98 messages
Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM
|
|
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
- 
|
|
| Subject: |
Bailout -- yes or no?
|
|
Date:
|
9/23/2008 10:22:39 PM
|
I'm wondering what the smart people here think about the bailout. I watched some of the Congressional hearing today. Before that I was pretty well convinced it was necessary and the right thing to do; but now I'm not so sure.
What do you think?
|
| Name: |
Kizma Anuice
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Bailout -- yes or no?
|
|
Date:
|
9/24/2008 5:46:37 AM
|
It is a plan to rob the middle class and give money to the stupid rich and the stupid poor.
|
| Name: |
AUCATZ
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Bailout -- yes or no?
|
|
Date:
|
9/24/2008 9:03:04 AM
|
<not claiming to be 'smart> I have mixed feelings. Something should be done to keep the economy from tanking further. Some people should be made accountable for this debacle. Everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else. I would like to hear from the Banking Oversight Committee on why they didn't do something about this situation long ago - because we all have evidence they were aware. Republicans and Democrats are involved in this mess.
|
| Name: |
4thelake
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Bailout -- yes or no?
|
|
Date:
|
9/24/2008 9:52:46 AM
|
It is an interesting topic. It goes against both what reps and dems believe in. To bail out private companys that borrow money from the federal government to lend out seems a strange bedfellow in itself. Don't bail and people continue to lose houses and value in investments. Do bail and we sell a bunch of our country to foreign investors. Not a real clear choice here.
|
| Name: |
lakngulf
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Bailout -- yes or no?
|
|
Date:
|
9/24/2008 10:38:46 AM
|
I fully agree that this seems to be a no-win situation. If I lose my job, can't pay my mortgage, and lose my house to foreclosure there is not "bailout" for me. If there was then some would say I was just too lazy to get another job and keep the ship floating. Some would say I was never credit worthy to have gotten the mortgage in the first place.
Now big companies, that gave me the mortgage in the first place, are failing. So let's bolster them with a trillion dollar bailout? I am not sure I favor that. But then I hear that folks with 401(k) money will be losing much of that because of the investment portfolio, that much of this money will vanish as the big companies fail.
I am almost to the conclusion of "Let's just let the correction take place, and start over" But then that brings major recession, etc. Maybe I need to learn how to fish.
|
| Name: |
Rooster
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Bailout -- yes or no?
|
|
Date:
|
9/24/2008 1:55:51 PM
|
No to bail- out. Let it fall where it will. We have been living way over our heads so long we forget what it used to be like. In our pursuit of the almighty dollar, we have sold our kids future, our country, the values that our fathers and mothers fought for, Foreign investors already own over 60 % of this country's assets. We argue about high prices, we argue about offshore companies, we argue about why can't we make that in this country. At some point in time, all businesses have to say " let's bite the bullet now ". Subprime mortgages got us into this mess, banks, indivuals and government are all the blame. The only good governement buy-out was the bail-out of chrysler corporation. WHO OWNS CHRYSLER NOW!!
|
| Name: |
want2beonlake
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Bailout -- yes or no?
|
|
Date:
|
9/24/2008 2:54:20 PM
|
For those of you who have not read the proposal...
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL FOR TREASURY AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE MORTGAGE-RELATED ASSETS
Section 1. Short Title.
This Act may be cited as ____________________.
Sec. 2. Purchases of Mortgage-Related Assets.
(a) Authority to Purchase.--The Secretary is authorized to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, on such terms and conditions as determined by the Secretary, mortgage-related assets from any financial institution having its headquarters in the United States.
(b) Necessary Actions.--The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation:
(1) appointing such employees as may be required to carry out the authorities in this Act and defining their duties;
(2) entering into contracts, including contracts for services authorized by section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, without regard to any other provision of law regarding public contracts;
(3) designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Government, and they shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them;
(4) establishing vehicles that are authorized, subject to supervision by the Secretary, to purchase mortgage-related assets and issue obligations; and
(5) issuing such regulations and other guidance as may be necessary or appropriate to define terms or carry out the authorities of this Act.
Sec. 3. Considerations.
In exercising the authorities granted in this Act, the Secretary shall take into consideration means for--
(1) providing stability or preventing disruption to the financial markets or banking system; and
(2) protecting the taxpayer.
Sec. 4. Reports to Congress.
Within three months of the first exercise of the authority granted in section 2(a), and semiannually thereafter, the Secretary shall report to the Committees on the Budget, Financial Services, and Ways and Means of the House of Representatives and the Committees on the Budget, Finance, and Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the Senate with respect to the authorities exercised under this Act and the considerations required by section 3.
Sec. 5. Rights; Management; Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.
(a) Exercise of Rights.--The Secretary may, at any time, exercise any rights received in connection with mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act.
(b) Management of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary shall have authority to manage mortgage-related assets purchased under this Act, including revenues and portfolio risks therefrom.
(c) Sale of Mortgage-Related Assets.--The Secretary may, at any time, upon terms and conditions and at prices determined by the Secretary, sell, or enter into securities loans, repurchase transactions or other financial transactions in regard to, any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act.
(d) Application of Sunset to Mortgage-Related Assets.--The authority of the Secretary to hold any mortgage-related asset purchased under this Act before the termination date in section 9, or to purchase or fund the purchase of a mortgage-related asset under a commitment entered into before the termination date in section 9, is not subject to the provisions of section 9.
Sec. 6. Maximum Amount of Authorized Purchases.
The Secretary's authority to purchase mortgage-related assets under this Act shall be limited to $700,000,000,000 outstanding at any one time
Sec. 7. Funding.
For the purpose of the authorities granted in this Act, and for the costs of administering those authorities, the Secretary may use the proceeds of the sale of any securities issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, and the purposes for which securities may be issued under chapter 31 of title 31, United States Code, are extended to include actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses. Any funds expended for actions authorized by this Act, including the payment of administrative expenses, shall be deemed appropriated at the time of such expenditure.
Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.
Sec. 9. Termination of Authority.
The authorities under this Act, with the exception of authorities granted in sections 2(b)(5), 5 and 7, shall terminate two years from the date of enactment of this Act.
Sec. 10. Increase in Statutory Limit on the Public Debt.
Subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu thereof $11,315,000,000,000.
Sec. 11. Credit Reform.
The costs of purchases of mortgage-related assets made under section 2(a) of this Act shall be determined as provided under the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990, as applicable.
Sec. 12. Definitions.
For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1) Mortgage-Related Assets.--The term "mortgage-related assets" means residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008.
(2) Secretary.--The term "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Treasury.
(3) United States.--The term "United States" means the States, territories, and possessions of the United States and the District of Columbia.
so let me get this straight. Paulson - who was Goldman Sachs chairman and CEO is going to decide who gets the money and how much they get? And nobody can have any oversite? no review by the courts?
the first thing the better nip is the "golden parachute"
the more I read about this the less I am in favor of this bailout - and I am not happy with the Dems for trying to get some add on items in this proposal.
The debate should be interesting to say the least.
|
| Name: |
Talullahhound
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Bailout -- yes or no?
|
|
Date:
|
9/24/2008 5:39:47 PM
|
That is one of the things that really irks me about Congress -- the attempt to try to add onto any bill that is being considered.
I'm not opposed to Congress taking more time to study the proposal, but I'm afraid it is going to be given the slow roll and no action being taken for political reasons. I think both sides of the aisle are capable of this. I think that part of the deal needs to be that there are no "golden parachute" buy outs. Some people have legitmately been hurt by this, and they should be the ones that benefit.
It's going to be interesting.
|
| Name: |
AUCATZ
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Agree Completely
|
|
Date:
|
9/24/2008 5:43:14 PM
|
People are going to be hurt no matter what happens. I don't mean this as a cop-out, just a fact. I have never understood why corporate raiders and execs get these huge golden parachutes when their companies have great losses and employees lose their jobs, their pensions, etc.
|
| Name: |
GoneFishin
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The Parachute
|
|
Date:
|
9/24/2008 8:49:43 PM
|
The terms of a contract for a CEO is determined and voted upon by the Board of Directors. The Board for the most part is made up of fellow CEOs who have, likewise, a contract that includes a parachute.
Then you reorganize and outsource the jobs, cut expenses, play with the numbers and receive a fat bonus. The following year the noose begins to tighten cause the stock is still flat.
So, you consolidate the remaining plants and buy yourself more time. Another bonus but the stock goes down. The board allows you to resign so you can spend time with your family since all CEOs believe in strong family values. While you leave for the lake the parachute begins to descend on your house on the ridge. The govenment decides they need to bail out the Company so they take over 85% ownership and your parachute is now guaranteed by the US Treasury. Only in America with a Republican president.
|
| Name: |
4thelake
-
|
|
| Subject: |
The Parachute
|
|
Date:
|
9/25/2008 6:33:45 AM
|
Saw a cartoon last year with a CEO looking out his office window at the street. In the street was a thug robbing someone. The caption from the CEO was "amature"
|
| Name: |
NautiMinded
-
|
|
| Subject: |
Our individual cost
|
|
Date:
|
9/25/2008 9:34:24 AM
|
USA Per Capita Bailout Costs
The $700 billion financial system bailout has so far stabilized the financial markets. That part is hard to debate. The long term effects, the path, and the implications are, of course, up for debate. The questions in many discussions this weekend were what the real costs would be and whether or not these institutions should be allowed to fail.
So, one issue we wanted to consider, was what exactly does this translate to on a per individual in the U.S. In 2006, there were more than 133.9 million individual tax returns and the total number of tax returns including corporations, employment taxes, and more came to more than 168.8 million. We decided to use the larger number of 168.8 million as a representation for the entire tax system rather than just individuals, since the larger number of roughly $2.5 trillion collected was only about half of the total collections from individuals. After all, we are all in the same soup on bailouts here.
The $700 billion bailout translates to roughly $4,147.00 per filer. If you wanted to use just the individual tax filings, you would come up with more than $5,200.00. That is the price of saving Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman, Countrywide, and other failed financial institutions via assisted mergers and other bailouts. We haven't even gotten to the other failures which are waiting in the wings.
Dare we add in the $600 per individual or $1,200.00 per couple tax rebate stimulus checks that went out this year? We have also discussed that the entire package could even reach $1 trillion and even the notion of $2 trillion. These numbers are starting to look astronomical on a per capita basis. Before long, it might even add up to real money.
|
| Name: |
NautiMinded
-
|
|
| Subject: |
My opinion waivers
|
|
Date:
|
9/25/2008 9:47:22 AM
|
After reading this article, I am unsure what to do. On one hand, this proposed plan may help us avoid a huge recession/depression and complete failure of the economic market....On the other hand...5 fingers. (HaHa). Seriously, the flip side it will cost taxpayers a nice chunk of our own money to fix someone else's bad management, so why are we responsible for their mistakes? Can't the super wealthy "genuises" be accountable for their own mistakes? Additionally, if we start this cycle of bailing out, will this be the solution to every financial entity that fails so that our economy can survive?
I am all for helping those that fell victim to fraudulent lending practices, as the inflated housing prices and Clinton's euphoric false economy crumbled. However, the trend continued, under Greenspan, by dropping lending criteria, and those who, in the past, did not qualify for home loans got them. Bait and switch, possibly with the interest rates? If we were plugging right along with 5-7% interest rates on these sub-prime loans, why did the interest rates have to jump on these loans setting the stage for failure?
Just my humble and rambling thoughts...............
TaTa for now
|
|
|
New Post
Search
Off-Topic Forum
Reply
»
Louisiana Lakes
»
Gold Point Lake
Login
|
Home
