You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
At last a plan that gets at the root cause of the crisis...
- Thread starter Mvic
- Start date
Quote from AMT4SWA:
BTW, just a fact to pass along......the bailout is NOT in the $750 to $850 BILLION range. The bailout bill ACTUALLY allows for TRILLIONS to be used as needed, the $700 to $800 BILLION dollar number is really just for perception sake......bloomberg news has already written a good piece which highlights this unfortunate fact.
Yes, it will end up being at least double that. A stitch in time. Imagine where we would be if $100B had been applied to the sub prime issue back in the fall of 2007, in terms of modifying the term or rate of all but the hopeless cases. The irony is that in the end Bernanke and paulson will likely be lauded for having brought us back from the brink when they were instrumental in TAKING us to the brink in the 1st place with their cool calm and unruffled act.
Quote from arealpissedgoy:
when half witted illiterate imbeciles making $20,000 a year mouth off concerns on taxation policies for those making over 250K
you know the only answer can be
"we being fooled into "wealth distribution" from taxpayers to the wealthy"
I hear this statement all the time, but I don't see it. (Sort of a mythical "battle cry" of certain non-wealthy citizens.... no real truth to it, just sounds good to some.) I don't recognize any money flowing my way, I just pay A LOT... for which I feel I receive little.
Maybe I'm just dense. Please provide an example or two about how money flows from the non-wealthy to the wealthy.
Quote from gnome:
I hear this statement all the time, but I don't see it. (Sort of a mythical "battle cry" of certain non-wealthy citizens.... no real truth to it, just sounds good to some.) I don't recognize any money flowing my way, I just pay A LOT... for which I feel I receive little.
Maybe I'm just dense. Please provide an example or two about how money flows from the non-wealthy to the wealthy.
I think what the goy was talking about was the mcCain/Palin rally idiots who horrifyingly scream the right wing party lines, but don't have a pot to piss in themselves...
1 example would be the wealth transfer that occured from 2002-2008 culminating in a massive bailout OF the rich by the poor. The cause? The inflation tax and stagnant wage growth of the median family. Notice how Marc Faber said recently that the recession that we are in, and that is going to get worse, will effect the HAVE's and not so much the HAVE NOT's...The HAVE NOT's have already been fucked...
Quote from lassic:
are we being fooled into "wealth distribution" from taxpayers to the wealthy
Bingo.
As much as the simpletons would like to think that the wealthy would be content just to live their lives and leave the rest of us alone, 'tis not so. Those in money and power want more of both. And after they finish trying to rape eachother for wealth, there is only one place to go where they can find millions of media-whored people willing and able to pay the wealthy to control them.
Quote from PohPoh:
I think what the goy was talking about was the mcCain/Palin rally idiots who horrifyingly scream the right wing party lines, but don't have a pot to piss in themselves...
1 example would be the wealth transfer that occured from 2002-2008 culminating in a massive bailout OF the rich by the poor. The cause? The inflation tax and stagnant wage growth of the median family. Notice how Marc Faber said recently that the recession that we are in, and that is going to get worse, will effect the HAVE's and not so much the HAVE NOT's...The HAVE NOT's have already been fucked...
I don't buy that about '02-'08... a relatively small number of people made obscene money... by hook and by crook... but there was not "wealth transfer" from non-wealthy to the wealthy.
The wealthy's assets are harmed as much and more by the same inflation. It's just that the wealthy "still have more" after having lost... that's not a transfer from non-to-wealthy.
As for this bailout... the wealthy are kicking in on that too... through the same inflationary loss of buying power of their money... and are paying much more than the nons. It won't have the same "basic cost of living" impact as on the nons, however.
The real and obvious impact of the bailouts is that ALL Americans are getting hosed to reimburse a relatively few greedy, reckless and unscrupulous people.. now THAT'S unconscionable. !
In all cases, the wealthy still end up with more, regardless of how much they've paid. (That's always been a good reason and motivation for each of us to try to become wealthy, isn't it?)
Many non-wealthy like to claim, "the rich are rich because they get all the tax breaks and loopholes"... Well there are some specific, and dirty examples of that in the tax code but which impact a very small number of people... but "breaks" are generally not the reason the "rich get richer".
The REAL reason is capital. The non-wealthy spend a high percentage of their income on their lifestyle so that there is little left to invest... which makes it difficult to accumulate capital.
The wealthy's lifestyle usually consumes a smaller percentage of their income... leaving money left over for investment and capital accumulation... and then there is the fact that "capital begets capital"... through investment and even just compounding of interest. None of which is a transfer of money from the nons to the wealthy.
The truth about "breaks for the rich".. is that they become wealthier IN SPITE OF BEING HOSED BY THE TAX CODE.... not a concept the nons are willing to embrace.
And as America goes more and more Socialistic, whatever opportunity there was for an individual to become financially successful will be significantly reduced.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a95WHBbBgk54&refer=home
The beginning of a trend.
The question of the day is whether we are at resistance and it will hold and dip or will we break through and rally to 10-10200?
The beginning of a trend.
The question of the day is whether we are at resistance and it will hold and dip or will we break through and rally to 10-10200?
Quote from gnome:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a95WHBbBgk54&refer=home
I don't buy that about '02-'08... a relatively small number of people made obscene money... by hook and by crook... but there was not "wealth transfer" from non-wealthy to the wealthy.
When the currency is debased, not everyone is hurt equally. First, those that debase the currency benefit most, by being able to use the new money before its buying power has decreased. In general, the closer you are to the source of the debasement, the more you benefit; hence the rich being closer to the source, is one way that wealth is transferred.
Quote from theboxer:
When the currency is debased, not everyone is hurt equally. First, those that debase the currency benefit most, by being able to use the new money before its buying power has decreased. In general, the closer you are to the source of the debasement, the more you benefit; hence the rich being closer to the source, is one way that wealth is transferred.
talk about seigniorage.
Quote from Mvic:
True enough, it is no longer about just mortgages that time has long past but house prices are still a very important piece of the recovery puzzle and unless the foreclosures are taken out of the equation the market will have a hard time gaining its footing just as it does anytime there is forced selling that artificially impacts prices in any significant market sector.
Absolutely, extend the term if need be this is what I proposed as a solution back when subprime was still an issue. If they had dealt with the mortgages back then we would not have gone through what we just did. Maybe those who say it was all orchestrated are correct(personally think it is highly unlikely) but if they are I think those doing the orchestrating lost control somewhere along the way.
I hope that a lesson has been learned and that is that when you have a creeping problem that has the potential to unravel the whole system you act swiftly and decisively rather than jawbone and apply half measures. Oh, and it would help if people who are in charge of monitoring the financial system actually had a clue about what the instruments employed are and do. The whole notion that someone who has good management skills can transfer to any area without expertise in that area is bunk and yet it persists in this MBA and consultant saturated culture. Brownie did NOT do a heck of a job because he didn't know anything about the real work that FEMA did (that and he was probably a bad manager to boot, just like his Boss!). Obama's chief health care architect is a Harvard economist who doesn't have a clue about the actual challenges of providing quality healthcare (trust me I know this 1st hand having talked to the guy, utterly unrealistic about the actual working of healthcare and yet has written a book about it and will be directing Obama's healthcare plan!).
There is only one lesson to be learned here.
Before : Used to be if you lend someone money, you are on the hook if that person defaults.
Now : If the taxpayer is on the hook when someone default, that means free market fail and regulation is needed. Aka, everyone is going to have a HARD DEBT ceiling now. No, but, if, excuse. If you don't have the income, you don't get the loan period. Poor smuck can't own a home. Well, tough!