tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post564822286011266355..comments2024-03-28T10:43:34.270-04:00Comments on field negro: That's it, blame it on the Jews.field negrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15411743587725023134noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-59177304346207069912014-11-06T08:21:58.609-05:002014-11-06T08:21:58.609-05:00ICC Mortgage And financial Services,Is a sincere a...ICC Mortgage And financial Services,Is a sincere and certified private Loan company approved by the Government,we give out international and local loans to all countries in the world,Amount given out $2,500 to $100,000,000 Dollars, Euro and Pounds.We offer loans with a dependable guarantee to all of our clients. Our loan interest rates are very low and affordable with a negotiable duration.<br />Available now<br />MORTGAGE, PERSONAL, TRAVEL, STUDENT, EXPANSION OF BUSINESS AND NEW UNSECURED, SECURE, CONSOLIDATE<br />AND MORE <br />Available now..<br />Apply for a loan today with your loan amount and duration, Its Easy and fast to get. 4% interest rates and monthly <br />installment payments.<br />{nicholasbrush.icc@gmail.com}<br /><br />Regards,<br />Nicholas BrushAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04371601837695987252noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-7402260892034050162008-10-01T13:19:00.000-04:002008-10-01T13:19:00.000-04:00Undervalued now. It's been crazy for silver in the...Undervalued now. It's been crazy for silver in the past few weeks. <BR/><BR/>81 cents to the dollar on the investment-grade corp bonds -- because the market broke. That's about 10% under the net asset value.<BR/><BR/>Yes, life is crazy right now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-49312585768416166802008-10-01T12:21:00.000-04:002008-10-01T12:21:00.000-04:00RisingTide, You are correct on the that Credit Def...RisingTide, <BR/><BR/>You are correct on the that Credit Default Swap mess. I honestly do not know how deep it really is. Insurance on investments...hmmm....the cynic in me admires the architects behind that. <BR/><BR/>I do know that AIG alone wrote 440 Billion in premiums - that is seven times the revenue that State Farm (the largest property/casualty insurer in the U.S.) generates in one year. <BR/><BR/>Oh...one more thing, RisingTide: I did some research on silver -definitely an undervalued metal. I am adding silver to my little safe at home. Thanks for the advice a few weeks back.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-75195382872736476152008-10-01T11:29:00.000-04:002008-10-01T11:29:00.000-04:00history repeats:many great nations have fallen int...history repeats:<BR/>many great nations have fallen into bankruptcy or just fallen by spreading their army too thin believing they were so great they could never fall.<BR/><BR/>banks-deregulated, mixed commercial banks and investment banks. Before there was a separation so deposits would not be used in the investment market.<BR/><BR/>banks-had 1/3 deposits, 2/3 credit.<BR/>Pushed homeowners into subprime loans even though many could qualify for regular loans; mortgage payments went from $1000/mo to $2300/mo (Las Vegas).you can't even rent a house in LV for $2300/mo.<BR/><BR/>Investors- wanted to "flip that house" didn't care how their actions affected people in the states where they bought houses. For example, Las Vegas my house is owned by a realtor in Ohio. Once the housing boom hit rents went from $500 for a two bedroom apartment to $850. Of course wages did not rise even a little bit.<BR/><BR/>Businesses- didn't care about investing in amerikkan wealth or how their policies took money directly out of amerikkan workers pockets. Shipped jobs overseas complaining amerikkan workers just wanted too much money an hour. As gas has skyrocketed many companies are bringing their jobs back. For example, one company was sending supplies to South Amerikka, then shipping the product to China to be completed and sent back to Amerikka to be sold.<BR/><BR/>all of the above thought only on the short term not the long term affects of their policies.<BR/><BR/>Dick cheney kept stating in the past let the free markets work, they will correct themsleves now he wants taxpayers to fix these markets and we have balked!<BR/><BR/>People scream about minorities on welfare, they just need to stop having kids they can't support. No one screams about corporate welfare.<BR/><BR/>PS- to the commentors that assume every voter is dumb and doesn't understand the bailout, stop it, puh-leeze. The dummy is in the White HouseAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-39267432501728892512008-10-01T10:23:00.000-04:002008-10-01T10:23:00.000-04:00Adam,Great info. I'm trying to absorb all that yo...Adam,<BR/><BR/>Great info. I'm trying to absorb all that you wrote. Good stuff.<BR/><BR/>Ez.EzMunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18320655541362238729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-61438408436826026482008-10-01T10:22:00.000-04:002008-10-01T10:22:00.000-04:00Thanks Risingtide. The whole issue of credit defa...Thanks Risingtide. The whole issue of credit default swaps is interesting, because here you have a product disguised as insurance when it was really these banks literally betting on the likelihood of default for the mortgages that they owned. That's craziness in itself.EzMunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18320655541362238729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-23413438424350446442008-10-01T09:53:00.000-04:002008-10-01T09:53:00.000-04:00Bush and Co are liars.Bush and Co are liars.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-8203446290265056922008-10-01T09:52:00.000-04:002008-10-01T09:52:00.000-04:0045 Trillion dollars, ezmun. You wanted to know how...45 Trillion dollars, ezmun. You wanted to know how much toxic shit we got on the market? that's it. All in Credit Default Swaps. The mortgages were just the trigger. The credit default swaps made people create circular firing squads of DOOM. Seriously. Someone would insure Lehman's bonds, and then pay money to another institution to insure their insurance. And that would get passed around, each one insuring the next, until Lehman would wind up insuring its own bonds. That's how opaque the system is. That's why it's likely that one bank failing could wipe out a thousand banks.<BR/><BR/>Kellner appears to be unreliable, as I can spot multiple problems that he ought to know about, inside that blurb you posted.<BR/><BR/>For what it's worth, I've been saying I think Roubini and the depression folks are probably wrong, for the United States.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, we could see this go worse than the Great Depression. Paulson and company have been using their cards to postpone the crash. At least Hoover was trying to do something, in his laissez faire way. <BR/><BR/>The closest parallel to today is Japan's housing crash. That took them twenty years to climb out of. And they had substantially more savings than Americans do, and a better economy in general than we do.<BR/><BR/>I'm not so negative as you might think, but I'm praying that Obama gets elected -- we need someone with smarts and determination NOW.<BR/><BR/>Paulson looks like he saw a ghost, and thank god. Something woke him up, and he'll at least do something now.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-24490727412071154412008-10-01T09:22:00.000-04:002008-10-01T09:22:00.000-04:00Field, RisingTide, and Others: As I have mentioned...Field, RisingTide, and Others: <BR/><BR/>As I have mentioned on other posts, I do expect things to get worse economically. But I want to add what I consider to be another solid point of view to balance all the fear and loathing I see going on. <BR/><BR/>This is taken from Dr. Irwun Kellner, a chief economist who writes for MarketWatch. RisingTide, I really hope you read this too, brother. Here it is: <BR/><BR/>We are nowhere near a depression, so let's stop talking ourselves into one.<BR/><BR/>Spiro Agnew's words of the Nixon era ring true today. The politicians, pundits and, yes, the press, are nattering nabobs of negativism. For example, in recent weeks, the broadcast and the print media have filed stories replete with scare words. You don't even have to look at the tabloids to see what I mean. <BR/><BR/>The front page of the New York Times recently described what it called "chaos" in the financial markets. <BR/><BR/>Not to be outdone, most of the first section of The Wall Street Journal one day last week was devoted to articles describing the "spreading crisis" in our economy. <BR/><BR/>And both newspapers have run stories using the word "depression" more times than I care to count. <BR/><BR/>Now, don't get me wrong, I am not saying things aren't serious out there, but another Great Depression? I don't think so. <BR/><BR/>If you look at the data, you will see more differences than similarities between the 1930s and today: <BR/><BR/>In the crash of 1929 the Dow Jones industrials plunged 40% in two months; this time around it has taken a year to fall 22%. <BR/>The jobless rate jumped to 25% by 1933; it is little more than 6% today. <BR/>The gross domestic product shrank by 25% during the early 1930s; it is up over 3% during the past year. <BR/>Consumer prices fell by about 30% from 1929 to 1933; and the last time I looked they were still rising. <BR/>Home prices dropped more than 30% during the Depression vs. about 16% today. <BR/>Some 40% of all mortgages were delinquent by 1934 compared with 4% today. <BR/>In the 1930s, more than 9,000 banks failed compared with fewer than 20 over the past couple of years. <BR/>Remember also it was policy errors, not the stock market crash, that caused the Great Depression: <BR/><BR/>Instead of increasing the money supply, the Federal Reserve of that era reduced it by one-third. <BR/>Instead of lowering taxes, Herbert Hoover raised them. <BR/>And to channel whatever demand was left into U.S.-made goods, the government enacted the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act to keep out foreign products; this only provoked our trading partners to do the same. <BR/>Add to this today's automatic stabilizers such as unemployment insurance and Social Security, the FDIC to insure bank deposits and circuit breakers to keep stocks from falling too quickly, and you can see why this is not a depression in any way shape or form. <BR/><BR/>While I am at it, I would like to take issue with the almost ubiquitous use of the word "bailout" to describe the government's rescue package.<BR/><BR/>Folks, this is not a bailout of anyone, not Wall Street, not Main Street, and certainly not the so-called "fat cats." It's an infusion of liquidity, designed to unclog the financial markets. In doing so, it will benefit everyone, business and consumers alike.<BR/><BR/>Also, the $700 billion bandied about will not be immediately handed over to the Treasury secretary; he will simply have a line of credit, similar to what the typical business might have.<BR/><BR/>Finally, this package may not even cost $700 billion. For that matter, it may wind up costing nothing. It all depends on the price the government pays for these distressed assets and what it winds up selling them for."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-92212526049664826752008-10-01T06:30:00.000-04:002008-10-01T06:30:00.000-04:00@ezmun: cosign@ezmun: cosignAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-36364653304408451002008-09-30T22:16:00.000-04:002008-09-30T22:16:00.000-04:00Hennasplace, The issue with your analysis is that ...Hennasplace, <BR/><BR/>The issue with your analysis is that we're talking about "toxic" mortage-backed securities... loans that were given knowing that many of them would fall into default. At the end of the day, the government will have a very tough time selling any of these securities back to anyone, likely at any price. <BR/><BR/>If there is anyone who was interested in buying these mortgage securities they would have bought them, and the banks now holding these mortgages would have been able to find a buyer to buy these assets. They haven't, and now intend to find the deep pocket (American people) to stick them with these assets that no one wants to buy and no one can sell.<BR/><BR/>The reality is that when the government buys these securities (bundled mortgages) the only way that we'll be able to get rid of them is to sell them at an extreme loss. What would make us think that anyone would buy them if they aren't buying them now? And then the Secretary of the Treasury will then take another $700 billion and squander it on assets that should have never been bought in the first place.<BR/><BR/>The ONLY way that the government makes money on this is 1) if the government buys these assets extremely low and then 2) sells them at a profit. But if no one is buying it doesn't matter how low the price is. And keep in mind that during the holding period, many of these loans will still fall into default. <BR/><BR/>This bill is a lot of wishfull thinking. The problem with the bill (and the discussion preceding it) is that NO ONE, not even the Secretary of the Treasury, can identify which of these assets the government intends to buy and NO ONE has come up with the methodology that the government will use to select and purchase these toxic mortgages. It's a recipe to pass risk off to the American people with the fake deep pockets. <BR/><BR/>Something needs to be done ... just not this bill. If George Bush's history is any proof, we need to stop and think this one through and not rush such an expensive decision.EzMunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18320655541362238729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-23800291843904122722008-09-30T20:54:00.000-04:002008-09-30T20:54:00.000-04:00Anon 8:11P:The Republicans insisted to have the Pa...Anon 8:11P:<BR/><BR/>The Republicans insisted to have the Paulson Plan revised, and it was. They still rejected bill after the got what they wanted. I read the bill today while commuting home as it is posted on speaker.gov and it does include a provision that would re-evaluate the sub-prime mortgages with either reducing the interest, principal or related items. It's also not a bailout, but a loan as the government sell back the mortgages back to the financial markets. Of course, this may not be a good deal for the banks, but their hands are tied at the moment.<BR/><BR/>113 Section. Minimization of Long-Term Costs and Maximization of Benefits for Taxpayers. This section allows the Secretary to sell the assets at maturity. The deal can be profitable for the taxpayers. The government will purchase them low and sell them back at a profit. "The Secretary determines that the market is optimal for selling such assets in order to maximize the value for taxpayers".<BR/><BR/>I would advise people to read the bill and discern for yourself whether it's a good deal or not. However, government will come up with some plan to bring liquidity and stability to the financial marketsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-23040343587281762302008-09-30T20:36:00.000-04:002008-09-30T20:36:00.000-04:00Like I've been saying...F#*k them. They will find ...Like I've been saying...F#*k them. They will find their way. <BR/><BR/>They will still not give regular folks any credit love for a while no matter what we "give" them, so fu#k 'em.<BR/><BR/>And Field, while I was reading the other comments I noticed Caramel colored cutie Aretha.<BR/><BR/>I might hang out at her blog for a while. I mean you're cool and all but...LOLAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-4836390770699541892008-09-30T20:11:00.000-04:002008-09-30T20:11:00.000-04:00Hennasplace,Sen. Shelby received a letter signe...Hennasplace,<BR/><BR/>Sen. Shelby received a letter signed by about 100 economists last week urging the Senate banking committee not to accept Paulson's proposal. He referred to it during a press conference on MSNBC. (You can easily google this information).<BR/>Several senators wanted to look into other economist's proposals. For some undisclosed reason, this was not done. Probably because Bush and Paulson were insisting that a Their bill had to be passed post haste.<BR/> Something this huge cannot be sensibly rushed. Prudence dictates that other options must be considered.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-66290013537718396172008-09-30T19:49:00.000-04:002008-09-30T19:49:00.000-04:00Now we just have to keep our assholes puckered up ...Now we just have to keep our assholes puckered up and our fingers crossed that nothing happens to the Chinese economy. After all, we have no way, no fucking way, of paying back our $3 billion a month war debt to them. If they called up our debt, the little value left in our currency would evaporate into the vast nothing that our Clinton budget surplus has.<BR/>So, let this be a lesson to the American people who were all chest-pounding gungho about the Iraq war 7 years ago. This is the first time in the history of our nation that we have had tax cuts during wartime. There is a reason for that. If you support a war, then SUPPORT it. That does NOT mean slapping a yellow magnet on your car.<BR/>As you said, we are fucked. Credit isn't going to be available for the masses. The middle class is an endangered species. I think we are headed to a Mexico-isque society of super, super wealthy and super, super poor.<BR/>Thank you, George Bush, for giving us a new definition of failure.Shonda Littlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14411603868888972136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-59105156464872814922008-09-30T17:55:00.000-04:002008-09-30T17:55:00.000-04:00I said I didn't think it was a good bill. Really....I said I didn't think it was a good bill. Really.<BR/><BR/>Somewhere it would be nice if bankruptcy judges could renegotiate mortgages for people. They can do other debts, why not the most important/largest debt that most of us have?<BR/><BR/>I would like them to make a fix at the bottom, so that the "little" people feel the benefit first, as well as in the long run.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-30622793985706865422008-09-30T17:37:00.000-04:002008-09-30T17:37:00.000-04:00A lot of ya'll have a lot of anectodal talking poi...A lot of ya'll have a lot of anectodal talking points about credit markets freezing up and the like, but still no one has been able to define what this bad debt is and who has it and how much of it these people who have it have. It's crazy to think that out of fear we're about to bankrupt the treasury for a problem that the Secretary of the Treasury has failed to define. <BR/><BR/>The "bill" that was voted down was over 100 pages, and I'd posit that very few have actually read the damn thing... scary in all it's implications. One key clause is that the so-called $700 billion is just a limit to the total money being utilzed at any given time. <BR/><BR/>The act says that the Secretary is limited to $700 billion outstanding at any one time. The bill give authority of the Secretary (of the Treausry) to<BR/>"purchase troubled assets" under the Act with "such authority shall be limited to $250,000,000,000 OUTSTANDING AT ANY ONE TIME." (caps added for emphasis). This is the initial authority. <BR/><BR/>AT ANY TIME thereafter the President may then transmit a letter to Congress increasing the Secretary's buying authority to $350 billion. Then the President has authority to request the increase to $700 billion if Congress fails to pass a joint resolution limiting that amount of at all. <BR/><BR/>"Outstanding at any one time" is defined as: "The amount of troubled assets purchased by the Secretary outstanding at any one time shall be determined for purposes of the dollar amount limitations under subsection (a) by<BR/>aggregating the purchase prices of all troubled assets HELD."<BR/><BR/>What all this means in plain English is that the Secretary has virtually unlimited buying authority to buy, sell (even at a loss) and buy again, so long as the total assets held did not exceed $700 billion. <BR/><BR/>The Secretary could buy assets for $700 billion, sell for $400 billion at a $300 billion loss and they have another $700 billion to play with. There was no limit to the number of times the Secretary could do this. And this $700 billion would have ballooned to probably a multiple of the original authority. Sure the people could have technically made a profit... when pigs flew. IF there was profit to be made, the banks wouldn't need the people's money. <BR/><BR/>To anyone suggesting that this particular bailout package was a "good deal" you are seriously confused. They would have bankrupted America and that Texan would have been dancing out of office leaving his mess for the next guy.EzMunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18320655541362238729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-17876192884295951292008-09-30T17:03:00.000-04:002008-09-30T17:03:00.000-04:00Lynne:I think most Americans who are against the b...Lynne:<BR/><BR/>I think most Americans who are against the bailout doesn't know what it means. I think their representatives have done a disservice in not explaining the the bill and if it doesn't passes that the credit market will freeze up, not meeting payrolls, layoffs, and possibly smaller banks in their communities closing. Not to too mention that people who do have good credit will not be able to borrow money, banks will reduce customers' lines of credit and it will lower their credit rating. Anyway you slice this pie, it will have a great impact on individuals no matter what.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-79954987573658513312008-09-30T16:28:00.000-04:002008-09-30T16:28:00.000-04:00None of the prior comments mentioned that most Ame...None of the prior comments mentioned that most Americans were against the bailout. Emails and telephone calls to members of congress prior to the vote were overwhelmingly against the bailout bill. Maybe sometimes our elected officials actually listen to the people.Lynne from Brooklynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14409797055791355401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-15280722124020192008-09-30T15:12:00.000-04:002008-09-30T15:12:00.000-04:00the angry independent,So they didn't do it indepen...the angry independent,<BR/><BR/>So they didn't do it independently? hehe. Didn't know that. No love lost between Gingrich and the Kleptocracy, I'm sure.<BR/><BR/>I can like compromise. I still like the idea of some skeptical conservatives dishin' on the stupider liberal ideas. Problem is: those conservatives live in Obama's camp now, and they're running things ;-) Not Kidding. Actually, that ain't no problem except if you like only Republicans to be conservative. Lincoln-style Midwestern Conservatism Lives! ... In the Democratic Party.<BR/><BR/>Just a faction, but a pretty powerful one.<BR/><BR/>Still waiting for some dish on Tip O'Neal. ;-) Something crucial he got through, anything ;-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-61572314018286968452008-09-30T14:56:00.000-04:002008-09-30T14:56:00.000-04:00Oops, I knew there was someone else who mentioned ...Oops, I knew there was someone else who mentioned the trickle up solution. Apologies kriswms2, for not giving you credit, too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-41502484520356775842008-09-30T14:54:00.000-04:002008-09-30T14:54:00.000-04:00The Carter administration was a really really long...The Carter administration was a really really long time ago. Too long ago to blame for this. Carter was one of the ones who warned us about our dependency on foreign oil, but everyone just laughed at him and his sweaters and the solar panels on the roof of the White House (which Ronnie Reagan had ripped out).<BR/><BR/>I like ladycracker's "trickle up" idea. Give every taxpayer $100,000 as another "economic stimulus package." We'll pay off the mortgage, credit cards, car payments, and college tuition, and even have some left to save. Some of it might even get to Wall Street eventually. It would still be cheaper than $1T. (I'm rounding up because we know in our hearts that it's really going to cost more, don't we?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-13833238546126885052008-09-30T14:48:00.000-04:002008-09-30T14:48:00.000-04:00What was that about Gingrich being so bi-partisan?...What was that about Gingrich <A HREF="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/30/report-gingrich-stabbed-b_n_130487.html" REL="nofollow">being so bi-partisan?</A> This was posted just today. <BR/><BR/>lolBrian https://www.blogger.com/profile/07872444863142531165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-70044537994376573002008-09-30T14:08:00.000-04:002008-09-30T14:08:00.000-04:00jibreel,so, what, man, you can't handle the heat? ...jibreel,<BR/><BR/>so, what, man, you can't handle the heat? Then stay the fuck out of MY kitchen! I keep my knives in there, and at least one is well balanced for slashing (makes a horrible chopping knife, fwiw).<BR/><BR/>I will continue to correct you about Carter's admin and the economy. <BR/><BR/>You gonna take it, or you gonna talk?<BR/><BR/>The keyboard don't bite, I promise.<BR/><BR/>[I'm hopin you're a bit smarter than constructive feedback]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23428832.post-66605393432208314792008-09-30T13:26:00.000-04:002008-09-30T13:26:00.000-04:00See: Barny "Betty" Frank committee, they had the v...See: Barny "Betty" Frank committee, they had the votes to win!Jibreel Rileyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09458884580566163332noreply@blogger.com