| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/24/2008 08:52:56 PM · #1 |
I think this is what's in store for me...
I'm bracing myself to listen to a guy I was done with, the first time I heard speak (nine years ago). My poor neighbors. The walls Will rock.
Repost of the Wanda Sykes clip. There's perhaps salvation in humor.
Message edited by author 2008-09-24 20:53:46. |
|
|
|
09/24/2008 09:27:00 PM · #2 |
| Probably more on the lines of Ramen Noodles, Kraft is way too expensive. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 10:19:51 AM · #3 |
I think that was the best speech I've heard him make. He was honest and candid and did his best to explain what happened. If he'd ever been that humble and truthful before I may have even liked him a bit.
I'd like to see the package rolled out as a loan with no bonuses, huge salaries and certainly no stock gifts to anyone in the companies applying for the bail out.
These companies still stand to get back on their feet and make profits at some point and that should be repaid to us the taxpayers. There's a lot of mud to sort through and probably valueless properties but money will be made at some point.
It might also be nice to see a set-up of controled shares that the taxpayers are entitled to (we should be viewed as shareholders) sold back the workers once things are in the clear.
This may actually have been the kick in the ass we needed to realign and balance wealth and power a little more evenly.
Message edited by author 2008-09-25 10:21:06. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 10:33:52 AM · #4 |
I think Wanda Sykes hit the nail on the head; it's welfare for rich people.
I wonder how many of those now begging for a $700 billion handout are people who rant about poor people getting welfare.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2008 10:41:05 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think Wanda Sykes hit the nail on the head; it's welfare for rich people.
I wonder how many of those now begging for a $700 billion handout are people who rant about poor people getting welfare. |
Where's  coronamv or whatever his name is now? |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 10:47:24 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think Wanda Sykes hit the nail on the head; it's welfare for rich people.
I wonder how many of those now begging for a $700 billion handout are people who rant about poor people getting welfare. |
Where's coronamv or whatever his name is now? |
Waiting in line for his check? |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 10:50:07 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think Wanda Sykes hit the nail on the head; it's welfare for rich people. |
I do believe the package can be structured where we, the tax payers don't lose and maybe even benefit.
That is, if we don't get sold out (as usual) but Paulsons plan after taking minute to think about it was nuts.
For all it is, WE the taxpayers now own the companies and can pay the execs what we feel they are worth and award ourselves the packages they would normally get. It all might be a ways off but it's there.
Message edited by author 2008-09-25 10:55:23. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 11:05:27 AM · #8 |
The way I see the potential crisis is (as explained to me by various media) that the banks will run out of money to lend. People and companies alike will have hard(er) time getting credit lines. Maybe it is time to do this. Maybe it is time to have 20% interest rates on everything. Maybe it is time not to be able to go to any store, get a credit line and load the trunk with unnecessary items.
And if the gov't is worried about businesses not being able to get the money, let the gov't issue credit lines. Instead of giving money to select banks that can proceed with lending malpractice (since there is really no punishment for doing so), form a gov't agency that will review credit worthiness of individuals and companies.
The money is kept in the treasury, and the money is returned to the treasury.
If this is the only goal (to keep the economy running). If the secondary (or primary) goal is to save the a$$es of the bankers, then it is another story. I say let them fall apart, get the best and brightest uncorrupted employees from those failed institutions, and employ them in this agency.
And if this works, we can do the same with the health insurance companies.
:-) |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 11:06:41 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I think Wanda Sykes hit the nail on the head; it's welfare for rich people. |
I do believe the package can be structured where we, the tax payers don't lose and maybe even benefit.
That is, if we don't get sold out (as usual) but Paulsons plan after taking minute to think about it was nuts.
For all it is, WE the taxpayers now own the companies and can pay the execs what we feel they are worth and award ourselves the packages they would normally get. It all might be a ways off but it's there. |
I'm concerned about the possible lack of oversight, the lack of government ownership in these firm despite the HUGE amount of money being handed over and, of course the obscene compensation packages that reward failure on the part of top execs. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 11:23:52 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm concerned about the possible lack of oversight, the lack of government ownership in these firm despite the HUGE amount of money being handed over and, of course the obscene compensation packages that reward failure on the part of top execs. |
I don't know if the plan will roll out this way but I think ALL exec compensation packages (stock rewerds, bonuses, golden parachutes...gifts, perks) should be made null and void. That would be their penalty for screwing up.
As for oversight...the gov't has the absolute worst record in that area. Very little follow through or accountability.
I fear that once the Securities Lawyers get their teeth into this more hell will break loose. If the gov't issues the Execs pardons/non liabilty they will take whatever deals they are offered. As I'm certain many of them might be in line to get their asses sued off.
Message edited by author 2008-09-25 11:29:31. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 11:27:39 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
As for oversight...the gov't has the absolute worst record in that area. Very little follow through or accountability. |
I'll say it again. Form a 'national' bank. Employ people in it, create an office in every major city (there will be plenty of empty buildings around downtowns), charge 20% interest rate, and forget about the existing, failing banks.
if this is too much of a gov't involvement for some of you, then let the free market take care of it:-) |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 11:51:12 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
[As for oversight...the gov't has the absolute worst record in that area. Very little follow through or accountability.
|
Yes, but what I'm talking about is something akin to a government rep (or reps), being on the boards of these companies, so that they can represent the government's (our) interests. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 12:00:25 PM · #13 |
Yes, but which ones? I looked at the short sale ban list from my broker the other day, there are 100s of institutions listed there. Do we put people in every one of those? I think that it is cheaper to form a new one (or if you want, pick one or two to save) and go with that.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2008 12:04:46 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
Yes, but which ones? I looked at the short sale ban list from my broker the other day, there are 100s of institutions listed there. Do we put people in every one of those? I think that it is cheaper to form a new one (or if you want, pick one or two to save) and go with that. |
Why not? It's not uncommon for top execs to be members of multiple Boards of Directors in addition to their duties running their own organizations.
Also, not all of those organizations may be worth saving.
Message edited by author 2008-09-25 12:05:26. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 12:12:51 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm concerned about the possible lack of oversight, the lack of government ownership in these firm despite the HUGE amount of money being handed over and, of course the obscene compensation packages that reward failure on the part of top execs. |
I don't know if the plan will roll out this way but I think ALL exec compensation packages (stock rewerds, bonuses, golden parachutes...gifts, perks) should be made null and void. That would be their penalty for screwing up. |
I'd like to see them all get the Federal Minimum Wage until the all money is paid back. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 12:14:41 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm concerned about the possible lack of oversight, the lack of government ownership in these firm despite the HUGE amount of money being handed over and, of course the obscene compensation packages that reward failure on the part of top execs. |
I don't know if the plan will roll out this way but I think ALL exec compensation packages (stock rewerds, bonuses, golden parachutes...gifts, perks) should be made null and void. That would be their penalty for screwing up. |
I'd like to see them all get the Federal Minimum Wage until the all money is paid back. |
I think they should have to wait in line at Social Services to pick up their checks along with all the other welfare recipients and use foodstamps. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 12:21:13 PM · #17 |
This is what happens when you vote Republican.
They preach deregulation to let businesses thrive and all we get is Enron and now this mess.
Take a look at the people that benefitted most and see who they donate too. I'll bet it is 100% Republican.
Enron was the largest corporate donor to the 2000 Bush campaign and CEO Ken Lay was the largest individual donor to the Bush 2000 compaign.
I can't wait until they give Haliburton the no bid contract to manage the bailout.
Message edited by author 2008-09-25 12:21:32. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 01:12:53 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by srdanz:
The way I see the potential crisis is (as explained to me by various media) that the banks will run out of money to lend. |
From what I've heard, the banks have plenty of money... they're just afraid to lend it (even to other banks). This has a paralyzing effect on the economy as it becomes increasingly difficult to secure car loans, home loans, small business loans, capital, credit cards, and all the other borrowing that even honest, profitable people need to do business.
While I agree that CEO compensation and golden parachutes are an excess that should be sharply curbed, I'm NOT ready to lay blame for the current crisis at the feet of Wall Street corruption or Republican policy. The Fed was trying to encourage lending with low interest rates to spur the economy and prevent an unpopular recession, and the people who took advantage of that didn't necessarily do anything wrong (despite the now-obvious results). It was a noble intent that unfortunately worked out exactly like efforts to prevent forest fires: a lot of dead wood builds up that would otherwise be cleared out naturally by small fires, and then the stage is set for an unstoppable catastrophe. The current bailout efforts are an attempt to keep the dead wood from taking out the entire forest. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 01:14:38 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by srdanz:
The way I see the potential crisis is (as explained to me by various media) that the banks will run out of money to lend. |
From what I've heard, the banks have plenty of money... they're just afraid to lend it (even to other banks). This has a paralyzing effect on the economy as it becomes increasingly difficult to secure car loans, home loans, small business loans, capital, credit cards, and all the other borrowing that even honest, profitable people need to do business.
While I agree that CEO compensation and golden parachutes are an excess that should be sharply curbed, I'm NOT ready to lay blame for the current crisis at the feet of Wall Street corruption or Republican policy. The Fed was trying to encourage lending with low interest rates to spur the economy and prevent an unpopular recession, and the people who took advantage of that didn't necessarily do anything wrong (despite the now-obvious results). It was a noble intent that unfortunately worked out exactly like efforts to prevent forest fires: a lot of dead wood builds up that would otherwise be cleared out naturally by small fires, and then the stage is set for an unstoppable catastrophe. The current bailout efforts are an attempt to keep the dead wood from taking out the entire forest. |
well said |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 01:28:51 PM · #20 |
When the dangers of predatory lending first began coming to light, Congress refused to take decisive action because the banking and lending companies -- who spent millions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions -- opposed any regulation. And now, tens of thousands of people are losing their homes every month.
Any bailout bill must:
* Be completely transparent about how our tax dollars are being used.
* Include strict oversight over the actions of the Treasury Secretary. The current proposal gives unprecedented, unlimited authority to the Treasury Secretary, and makes his decisions non-reviewable by any court of law or administrative agency! Lack of oversight got us into this mess; Congress should not compound the problem.
* Include provisions to help families who are in danger of losing their homes avoid foreclosure.
* Cap the pay of CEOs of the bailed out companies. As ordinary Americans struggle to make ends meet and taxpayers are asked to shoulder this $700 billion bailout, the CEOs responsible for these problems should not be receiving million-dollar bonuses and golden parachutes.
* Ensure that, when the bailed out companies become profitable again, some portion of those profits will be returned to the public treasury. This cannot turn into a public debt for private profit situation.
commoncause.org |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 02:27:13 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
From what I've heard, the banks have plenty of money... they're just afraid to lend it (even to other banks). This has a paralyzing effect on the economy as it becomes increasingly difficult to secure car loans, home loans, small business loans, capital, credit cards, and all the other borrowing that even honest, profitable people need to do business.
... |
If this is true, it is counter-intuitive at least to me. If you lent the money out and in exchange all you've got is a bunch of property that is worth less than what you as a bank had paid for, where is that bunch of money coming from? You are not getting your expected monthly payments, and folks have less and less money to keep in banks as general deposits.
But, assuming that banks have money, why would they be afraid of loaning it? This is their fundamental way of earning more of it - you give it out in order to get it back with interest. Why would you need someone else's money (i.e. the bailout money) to continue with your lending practice?
If the bailout money is only to serve as insurance, then it is misrepresented in the media. I did not think so.
I think that the banks are wanting to loan someone else's money. That's why I say stop, let the gov't loan its own money to people. One less of the middle men(women), and more to the end users. Why do we need to use the same rotten infrastructure to do this? What's going to change then? If banks did not pay attention to whom they have given their own money, why would they do that with someone else's (our) money. Don't tell me that some oversight committee will be reviewing every loan application!
I do not subscribe to the tone that blames republicans for this - greed has no party affiliation. The republicans just happened to be in charge of helping out with the bills, along with the democrats that voted for those. The discussion (here at DPC is irrelevant, the discussion on the Capitol Hill is what I refer to) should concentrate on what is the cause of the problem and how to fix it permanently. We've tried laissez-faire, didn't work. Try strong clasp, maybe that will work. Heck, we already have degraded other constitutional provisions in the field of personal civil liberties. Why not degrade the flawed unregulated greediest form of personal power and money grabbing with something more moderate, that would be beneficial to all of "We The People"? The constitution does not mention anywhere that certain services are not to be provided by the government. And yet...
oh, enough. Nothing will happen out of my rant. The bailout will go through, it may be regulated/oversought on paper, but probably by a bunch of people representing the industry (such as ex-Goldman Sachs officers) because there are no others that understand the scope of the situation. We will not know what happened, as majority of us will blindly believe whatever CNN/NPR/FOX/(insert your favorite media outlet) explains to you. And blame the other side...
I'll patiently wait 10 years or so, to get on another high tech/housing bubble, and that time make sure to jump off in time.
Message edited by author 2008-09-25 14:44:50. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 03:11:34 PM · #22 |
The 'government' doesn't have any money. All the money at their disposal is taxpayer's money.
Also, banks don't really have money per se either. In a simplistic scenario, customer one makes a deposit of $1000. This is held in trust by the bank who loans this to customer two. The interest collected on the loan is their profit which is the only money they really have. If customer two defaults on the loan and customer one demands their deposit back at the same time the bank is in the red.
Message edited by author 2008-09-25 15:16:15.
|
|
|
|
09/25/2008 03:14:51 PM · #23 |
If a bank is in trouble then step in and sell (give/handoff -force the transfer of) the assets will value - buildings, deposits, good mortgages. Let the rest collapse - let the investors and shareholders eat it.
What they're doing now is making taxpayers pay for the losses. Wrong.
I'd like to see those that gambled (on house prices rising forever, speculators, etc) get what they're due. I shouldn't be paying for someone else's bad judgement.
The problem with this, so they say, is a big economic collapse. I don't know about that. I think much of it is a mindset as much as anything else.
Is lending tight? My credit cards still work, still have 8 something percent interest, I'm still getting offers in the mail every day for more credit, my home equity loan hasn't been called in or even had the rates rise. I know folks still are buying houses (more paperwork than some recent years but lack of this paperwork is what got us into this mess).
Car companies just got a big handout, I mean, loan, to modernize. Oh please. They're very modern - if you want an SUV. Not their fault WE bought SUVs over cobalts and focus'. So they need to charge high prices on the little cards like they've been doing on teh SUVs and things will even out.
I don't know of any photographers that got a govt handout to go digital!
|
|
|
|
09/25/2008 03:18:11 PM · #24 |
Interesting thought:
The great depression ended in the early 40’s. Thus, by the early 1980’s most people that lived through it enough to teach them a life lesson (20+) were 60-80 years old. Just a guess, but mid 80’s and early 90’s was when I remember credit cards becoming the big thing.
As adults that did not experience the great depression first hand started out numbering adults that did, our society became more about controlling our credit card debt and less about managing your savings.
In early 2000’s, anyone in there 20’s or more during the depression was now 80 years old or more and out of the housing market. That’s when the housing boom started and people started getting into homes they could not afford. Things like interest only ARMs, negative amortization loans, and getting a second mortgage to use all your equity became popular. Lenders helped people and even encouraged people to buy more house then they could afford.
Maybe we are too stupid to learn from history? If we didn’t live it, we don’t learn it? Maybe we need this once per lifetime to teach people a lesson? I remember hearing stories from my grandparents about banks running out of money and people losing their savings. Stories of people not being able to find work and living off money they stowed away for a rainy day. Stories of them willing to do what ever work they could find, for what ever pay was offered and being happy they were at least making something. They would never think to use a credit card if alive today, let alone carry balances in the thousands. The thought of a house payment that exceeded what they could easily afford would knock their socks off! All because what they lived through.
They lived without heat for a winter and their kids, my parents, had to wear the same clothes year after year even though they out grew them and they were worn out. People put patches on their clothes because it was cheaper then replacing them. People actually repaired socks with holes in them! I can’t see people today even giving up their cell phone, cable TV, new car, or internet access to put food on the table and make the house payment. Sending your kid to school in worn out shoes? Working a job that’s beneath you to put food on the table? Darning a sock? Will we do that if needed? I hope so!
|
|
|
|
09/25/2008 03:20:14 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The 'government' doesn't have any money. All the money at their disposal is taxpayer's money. |
With all due respect I disagree. There is no such thing as a taxpayer's money. That is an idiom used to give we the people impression that we are in control of it somehow. It is gov't money. The problem is, there isn't any in the government's wallet. All is spent already. The gov't owns the prints, though. That is where $700B is going to come from. Do not think that someone is going to take it out of budget. What can happen with this printing is (possibly) further weakening of US$ currency. That hurts the US because we are (still, but who knows how much longer) the world's biggest consumer. All people wishing to sell to us will have to virtually drop the prices on their products (in local currencies) in order to be able to sell them here.
Until they discover other markets... at which time we will be met with large, unstoppable inflation. Some eastern European and south American countries have experienced such periods of currency erosion. This is something that people live through. Nobody will die from it. Less fancy cameras around, more concerns with basic groceries, but that'll pass...
Later... (10 years or so) |
|
