100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: ANOTHER ONE BITES THE DUST - WAMU | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
but what if? that still is kinda what is happening to the banks They need to eat it and not make others pay for it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Fri 09/26/08 11:09 AM
|
|
and if you own stock in a bank that is losing 10% of it's income, do you sell it? and then the stock sales tank and THAT drives the bank under |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but what if? that still is kinda what is happening to the banks They need to eat it and not make others pay for it.
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
quiet_2008
on
Fri 09/26/08 11:14 AM
|
|
but what if? that still is kinda what is happening to the banks They need to eat it and not make others pay for it.
well that is one of the philosophies of handling. and I actually am inclined towards that. But that means that hundreds of thousands of people will lose there homes and we will have a massive recession to balance it out. But like Thomas Payne said "Better to face the difficulties now than to leave it for my children" (or something like that) or we can artificially increase the legal deficit ceiling and borrow more money to bail everyone out. preventing this big collapse and saving the present economy but delaying the eventual settling of the monetary score *********************************************** EDIT: I like this thread. people are actually talking about something and not just swamping it with competing copy/paste blogs and articles *********************************************** |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but what if? that still is kinda what is happening to the banks They need to eat it and not make others pay for it.
well that is one of the philosophies of handling. and I actually am inclined towards that. But that means that hundreds of thousands of people will lose there homes and we will have a massive recession to balance it out or we can artificially increase the legal deficit ceiling and borrow more money to bail everyone out. preventing this big collapse and saving the present economy but delaying the eventual settling of the monetary score |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but what if? that still is kinda what is happening to the banks They need to eat it and not make others pay for it.
well that is one of the philosophies of handling. and I actually am inclined towards that. But that means that hundreds of thousands of people will lose there homes and we will have a massive recession to balance it out. But like Thomas Payne said "Better to face the difficulties now than to leave it for my children" (or something like that) or we can artificially increase the legal deficit ceiling and borrow more money to bail everyone out. preventing this big collapse and saving the present economy but delaying the eventual settling of the monetary score *********************************************** EDIT: I like this thread. people are actually talking about something and not just swamping it with competing copy/paste blogs and articles ***********************************************
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
quiet_2008
on
Fri 09/26/08 11:19 AM
|
|
shrugs
it may NOT work, nothing is ever guaranteed I'm of the opinion that this is actually George Bush's fault. He was the one who pushed so hard for the "ownership society" and pushed Congress and the banks to loosen the lending criteria to get more lower income home owners. Not that I'm jumping on the "George Bush is evil" bandwagon. it's just Murphy's Law of Unintended Consequences |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shrugs it may NOT work, nothing is ever guaranteed I'm of the opinion that this is actually George Bush's fault. He was the one who pushed so hard for the "ownership society" and pushed Congress and the banks to loosen the lending criteria to get more lower income home owners. Not that I'm jumping on the "George Bush is evil" bandwagon. it's just Murphy's Law of Unintended Consequences |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
quiet_2008
on
Fri 09/26/08 11:29 AM
|
|
I never really liked Bill Clinton
not from a neocon/lib point of view, but ever since the boxer/briefs question he dragged the respectability and gravitas of the office of President of the United States down to an Entertainment Tonight/American Idol level and even George Bush still suffers from that BUT the one thing he did do that I respect and appreciate, he stayed out of the way of the economy and didn't try to tinker with it. The economy will always sort itself out without tampering from Presidents and the best thing they can do is just stay the hell out of the way |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I never really liked Bill Clinton not from a neocon/lib point of view, but ever since the boxer/briefs question he dragged the respectability and gravitas of the office of President of the United States down to an Entertainment Tonight/American Idol level and even George Bush still suffers from that BUT the one thing he did do that I respect and appreciate, he stayed out of the way of the economy and didn't try to tinker with it. The economy will always sort itself out without tampering from Presidents and the best thing they can do is just stay the hell out of the way |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but what if? that still is kinda what is happening to the banks They need to eat it and not make others pay for it.
well that is one of the philosophies of handling. and I actually am inclined towards that. But that means that hundreds of thousands of people will lose there homes and we will have a massive recession to balance it out. But like Thomas Payne said "Better to face the difficulties now than to leave it for my children" (or something like that) or we can artificially increase the legal deficit ceiling and borrow more money to bail everyone out. preventing this big collapse and saving the present economy but delaying the eventual settling of the monetary score *********************************************** EDIT: I like this thread. people are actually talking about something and not just swamping it with competing copy/paste blogs and articles *********************************************** Empathetic towards those that will lose their jobs and homes - but isnt this what started the ball rolling - loans handed out to people who did not meet requirements for the sole fact they were expecting them to default on their loans. Some were scammed, some live beyond their means and truthfully some through no fault of their own, may have lost jobs, etc., but why should I pay for their homes? one way or the other 'we' always end up paying for others, hell, I want the social security number of anyone I help and want to be able to claim them on my taxes (agree?) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I never really liked Bill Clinton not from a neocon/lib point of view, but ever since the boxer/briefs question he dragged the respectability and gravitas of the office of President of the United States down to an Entertainment Tonight/American Idol level and even George Bush still suffers from that BUT the one thing he did do that I respect and appreciate, he stayed out of the way of the economy and didn't try to tinker with it. The economy will always sort itself out without tampering from Presidents and the best thing they can do is just stay the hell out of the way hahaha are you nuckin futz? get out! get some sun! have a mojito!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Empathetic towards those that will lose their jobs and homes - but isnt this what started the ball rolling - loans handed out to people who did not meet requirements for the sole fact they were expecting them to default on their loans. Some were scammed, some live beyond their means and truthfully some through no fault of their own, may have lost jobs, etc., but why should I pay for their homes? one way or the other 'we' always end up paying for others, hell, I want the social security number of anyone I help and want to be able to claim them on my taxes (agree?) yahh, like I said I'm kinda inclined to let the whole thing collapse and actually have to endure the recession than to just delay it and let someone else worry about it ten years from now |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 09/26/08 12:22 PM
|
|
Its comes down to value.
Over the last 10 years the value of homes has skyrocketed. it has soo out striped inflation that it can be called and has been called a huge bubble. It is wholly unnatural value pricing like this that has caused this issue. When the price goes up and people buy at the inflated price expecting the price to continue to climb but instead drops . . well then you have a deficit. If the homes value stays the same, the bank forecloses, and is able to resell at the same rate/price then all is well, no net loss. But when a system allows this kind of overvalue to occur unchecked . . . that is when this crap happens. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but I'm sure that somehow we can blame this on George Bush and Halliburton...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
quiet_2008
on
Fri 09/26/08 12:24 PM
|
|
I have been saying for years (decades really) that one of the biggest flaws of Democracy is that it allows for so many ways to abuse the system (Teapot Dome, Tammany Hall, Enron)
but one of the attributes of Democracy is that eventually the abuses are uncovered and corrected |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but what if? that still is kinda what is happening to the banks They need to eat it and not make others pay for it.
well that is one of the philosophies of handling. and I actually am inclined towards that. But that means that hundreds of thousands of people will lose there homes and we will have a massive recession to balance it out. But like Thomas Payne said "Better to face the difficulties now than to leave it for my children" (or something like that) or we can artificially increase the legal deficit ceiling and borrow more money to bail everyone out. preventing this big collapse and saving the present economy but delaying the eventual settling of the monetary score *********************************************** EDIT: I like this thread. people are actually talking about something and not just swamping it with competing copy/paste blogs and articles *********************************************** Empathetic towards those that will lose their jobs and homes - but isnt this what started the ball rolling - loans handed out to people who did not meet requirements for the sole fact they were expecting them to default on their loans. Some were scammed, some live beyond their means and truthfully some through no fault of their own, may have lost jobs, etc., but why should I pay for their homes? one way or the other 'we' always end up paying for others, hell, I want the social security number of anyone I help and want to be able to claim them on my taxes (agree?) I already pay for enough people's problems. I don't want to pay for people who can't pay for what the signed for. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but you will
either upfront by bailing them out or by suffering through a massive recession (maybe even a depression) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
