Rick Badie / My Opinion

By Stan

October 1, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this

I am 100% against the 700b bailout. You don’t solve a problem by simply throwing money at it. You have to get to the core problem and fix it.

I like the Ramsey plan. Adjust the Mark to Market rules. Extend FHA type ins. to these “toxic” mortgages. as well as a few other fixes. Then the market will straighten themselves out.

By Things that make you go hmm

October 1, 2008 6:37 PM | Link to this

Let me get this straight. When we’re pandering to the masses and sending out “economic stimulus” checks everybody’s on board and thinks it is a swell idea. No bluster from the simpletons in Congress. No objections on Main St. Hindsight being 20/20 its obvious that brain fart was nothing more than an economic growth fabrication and a bribe to the American people from Santa Bush and his little helpers.

Now as the pillars of Wall St. are collapsing all around us everybody’s got an opinion and wants to stop the government from throwing money away?

I don’t know what is more pathetic, the buffoons in Congress mugging for the camera so their dim constituents think they’re carrying out the people’s business, or the rest of us that are perfectly happy to graze at the government handout trough while the financial markets implode.

What’s the over/under on SunTrust closing up shop? 2 weeks?

By BW

October 1, 2008 7:43 PM | Link to this

Check your 401K if we need an influsion of cash into our economic system. Remember Fearless Leader gave two freebie checks to every citizen, one right after taking over and this year to keep the system afloat. We’re getting Trickle on, but it isn’t cash.

How many billions has the war in Iraq cost us so far, now they have a surplus, but I don’t see them paying us back.

Charity starts at home.

By Conservative Reparte

October 2, 2008 8:21 AM | Link to this

Badie, lets all admit that we are ignorant of the bailout. The people who could explain this bailout are all taking the fifth. I think it’s linked to the Iraq War. Foreign banks are included in the bailout. Saudi Banks. Iraqi Banks? Russian Banks? Chinese Banks?

WTF?

You and I and 300 million americans dont know if the bailout is a good idea, or if it’s allowing the GOP pirates to pilfer every last remaining penny from our treasury before the Iraq War comes home to roost.

There wasn’t supposed to be an Iraq War. That’s where historians will point when they explain the destiny we’re all headed toward, thanx to the godly voice in W’s head after 911.

God told W to invade Iraq, at least, that’s what W claims.

There wasn’t supposed 2B an Iraq War.

By Cindy

October 2, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

My thoughts are this:

You know the ol’ saying…the best way to double your money is to fold it in half and put it back into your pocket.

The best addendum that should be added to the bailout plan is to fold the entire package in half and let them take turns shoving it up their butts. Crossways. Twice.

Nothing but a bunch of lying, backstabbing, robbing us the taxpayers blind, thieving bstards.

By Michael H. Smith

October 2, 2008 10:29 AM | Link to this

Three cheers for bailing out Puerto Rican rum!

Added bailout pork included: Extending tax breaks for motor-sports racing tracks, makers of wooden arrows for children, and the rum excise tax for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.

What happened to the promise from both McCain and Obama to cut pork?

Well, we now know their names and they truly are infamous.

Bad enough we’ve been lied to, screwed to the wall and floor without adding these insults to our injuries.

By Cindy

October 2, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

not even a kiss…

By woodie

October 2, 2008 11:05 AM | Link to this

I understand the bailout completely. These companies failed. And the government wants to throw them a bunch of money even though they just demonstrated they cannot manage a business. Wall Street is crying because they hold useless stocks. I feel sorry for all of them. But the tax money is for public infrastructure. Period. End of story. Find another plan.

By Michael H. Smith

October 2, 2008 11:19 AM | Link to this

No Vaseline or even a cheap mint…

Changed my mind completely Rep. Linder… This time around in the House please don’t vote no.

Vote HELL NO!!!!!

By Cindy

October 2, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this

No kiss. No vaseline. No mint.

Reckon they’ll call to tell us how sweet we were?

By woodie, can I borrow some money?

October 2, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this

I got to make payroll on Friday and with this f-ing economy my customers are stretching out their payments. That is the ones that are still buying.

The aging on my receivables has gone from around 40 up to the mid 50s in the past few months. On top of that sales are starting to flatten out so I’m going to have to pink slip a few people. Anyway, my bank’s in a cash crunch and my CFO is trying to renegotiate a line of credit as well as looking for other sources, but I really need about $50k.

Can you help me out?

By Michael H. Smith

October 2, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this

Doubt it. That wouldn’t serve the fundamental economic “special interests” of the country.

Why is it when government tells us they are doing something for our good, we always end-up feeling so bad?

By Looks like woodie can't help me out

October 2, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this

Ok, I can’t get cash from the bank and I guess woodie isn’t going to help. I’m really in a bind because I don’t have the money to make payroll this Friday. We’ve been selling our receivables for the past few months to try to stay flush with cash and that’s just not an option anymore.

I guess I’m going to have to call the management team together and let them know that most of them aren’t going to get a paycheck this pay period. Hopefully they’ve got an emergency fund to fall back on. Of course I’ll give checks and pink slips to a few of them.

In the mean time I’ve got to make some moves to get cash flow positive. Wages is our biggest hit so I think we have to cut back on R&D costs. I’ll just take our new product development and offshore it to Mumbai, which will let us cut 40 or so jobs here. And of course I’ll have to let Joe go. I hate to do that because he’s been with us for about 15 years now but my younger managers cost less and if I cut Joe’s project it gives me a good excuse to let him go without it looking like I’m doing it because he’s older and more expensive.

We really have to look at ways to bolster our revenues, which is tough to do in a tight economy. We haven’t raised prices in about 18 months or so I we should look at a 5-7% increase across the board. Demand for our goods is mostly inelastic so we shouldn’t see too much of a demand hit and our customers can just pass the cost increases on to their own customers.

By Laurel Hutchinson

October 2, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this

I am totally opposed to the Federal Government rescuing these companies for the mistakes they have made. The Fed Government, the last time I checked, includes the IRS. The IRS has all the income data on everyone associated with these companies. Let’s tax the people who made all the money and made these mistakes.
With computer technology today, how hard would it be to sort all the IRS information to formulate a list of people who can repay the debt? Our family personally incurred the loss of a business by virtue of 2 dishonest partners. Our overall debt for this was $340,000 which for us was huge. We have put this debt on our home mortgage. We have a huge mortgage that we can just barely pay. But better that than bankruptcy. No one bailed us out. No one said oh too bad we’ll forgive this or that. Instead they told us that because these people were legally our “partners” we had no recourse financially. Our daughter who is 34, who has worked since she was fourteen, who is now 33, became disabled because of a back problem that is still not solved. Her disability, which amounted to very little, ran out after a year. There is no state money for training. Our family is doing all we can to support her & her three children financially. While child support is not being paid and the agency responsible for that has done nothing.
No one has bailed us out or her out on this. Ours is a very common situation today. No one is bailing us out of anything….Got Hope…No!!!!!!!!Can we get hope?Yes..if we do the next right thing. I am furious that we are even thinking of doing this.

By Stan Transue

October 3, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this

Junkies in Washington

Addicts run our Federal government. The same way a drug addict seeks a temporary good feeling at the expense of their health, our national leadership seeks to maintain the illusion of economic growth at the cost of long-term sustainability. One of their recent big binges took the form of the Neighborhood Renewal Act that forced lenders to make high-risk mortgage loans to low income families – all in the name of boosting the housing market and the illusion of economic growth. Now withdrawals have set in. Ask any drug user – a crash follows every high. With the national debt nearing ten trillion dollars, just like a panicky addict, the government is trying to score an even bigger rush with a trillion dollar fix. Inevitably, every junky takes a lethal dose. The public has a choice: To order rehab now or be pallbearers soon. Just say NO to the bailout and to government intervention in the economy.

Stan Transue

By Lies, Lies, Lies, GET OUT

October 3, 2008 12:13 PM | Link to this

Are you kidding?

I think you might be referring to the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 since this is the only recent law that in any way references neighborhoods and recovery. This law would cost $4 per American over the 2008-2012 period according to the CBO.

In no way does it “forced lenders to make high-risk mortgage loans to low income families”

This Bill has no references to lenders at all.

You want an example of maintaining the illusion of economic growth at the cost of long-term sustainability?

Exhibit A: The Economic Stimulus package passed earlier this year sent checks of $600 to individuals and $1200 to couples (both of which are MUCH larger amounts than $4 per American spread out over 4 years).

Or doesn’t that count because we were all able to run out and buy new TVs thanks to the federal government?

By Stan Transue

October 3, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

Excuse me, Lies, Lies, Lies, GET OUT. The actual name of the bill was the “Community Reinvestment Act.” It was passed under Jimmy Carter in 1977 to encourage mortgage loans in low income (high risk) neighborhoods. The bill in its original form help precipitate the Savings and Loan Meltdown in the 80’s. Then in 92 under George Bush Sr., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created (Government Sponsored Enterprises) to act as guarantor of high risk securities. Meanwhile shady organizations like ACORN were filing suit against lenders who still chose to operate according to sound policies by lending money to those with the means to repay them. (ACORN is in bed with Obama). This increased the overall exposure of taxpayers to high risk debt guaranteed by the government. When government FORCES lenders to make bad loans, naturally, the most sleazy kinds of lenders get ahead through Predatory lending practices that make loans they have little confidence will be repaid, then selling them in bundles to investors willing to gamble on a profit. In an article for the New York Post, economist Stan Liebowitz wrote that the CRA encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry despite warnings of default. Banks were allowed to loan to consumers who were not credit worthy with “no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant’s ability to make payments; no down payment.” He notes that the Fannie Mae Foundation singled out Countrywide Financial, whose commitment to low-income loans had grown to $600 billion by early 2003, as a “paragon” of a nondiscriminatory lender who works with community activists, following “the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted.” The chief executive of Countrywide is said to have “bragged” that in order to approve minority applications, “lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit.” You may recall that Nationwide recently went belly up, swamped by a sea of red ink. The entire housing bubble that precipitated the current banking insolvency was precipitated by the government to benefit bankers who were smart enough to get their profits and get out before the house of cards fell. Now they intend to saddle the public with another trillion dollars borrowed at interest from the Federal Reserve which is a private lending institution funded by and profiting a private international banking cartel. You are right about one thing, ANT economic stimulus or bailout or whatever sweet sounding name they give it is wrong. It is poor economic policy, it is unconstitutional and it is an immoral abuse of the public trust. The only difference between what is happening now and George Bush’s economic stimuluus package is the size and the beneficiaries. Bush’s plan simply restored stolen money to victims. The current plan steals almost a trillion dollars from the victims and pays it to the partners in crime: Speculators who were stupid enough to be left holding the bad loans when the crash came. Dick Armey said it best. Instead of pumping almost a trillion dollars into financial markets without knowing whether it will actually help, first, lets fix the policies that cause the problem in the first place and see how that works. This bailout is being driven by fear and will end up only benefiting the same people that the last scam did. Stop the madness!

By Jais

October 3, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

No, the real madness is watching career politicians act like we’re idiots everyday on television. What’s crazy is the laws, the people running the show, and the ignorance of people just like you.

By Stan Transue

October 3, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

Educate me Jais

By Michael H. Smith

October 3, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

The Community Reinvestment Act

The junkies in Washington D.C. regrettably have an unending supply of lobbyists, the pushers, who are ever present to offer that next fix the power hungry addicts in Congress await.

Maureen Downey, for the [AJC] editorial board

A myth gaining traction on talk radio is that the Community Reinvestment Act — enacted 31 years ago — is somehow to blame for today’s Wall Street meltdown. But government pressure to lend to poor people didn’t cause lenders to make cold calls to hundreds of homeowners or to team up with home repair firms and persuade elderly property owners to refinance their homes to patch their roofs. It was greed.

A hungry and growing band of mortgage brokers circled borrowers with complicated loans offering payments that started low but quickly escalated, saddling homeowners with payments they couldn’t afford. Along with subprime loans, brokers hawked interest-only and negative-amortization loans. They offered no-money-down, no-documentation, no-job loans, anything to cinch the deal and entice their prey to the closing table. [That was fraud]

~

The enticing “lazia faire” notion, free of government intervention, is “purely liberal” and “truly prefect”. Unfortunately, no such perfection exists nor has it ever been present in the free market. Otherwise the market would have been known as the prefect market. In a prefect market undo manipulation and fraud could never restrain nor deny the invisible hand justly working the advantage to all. For this reason the imperfect free market must in all regards remain policed by the tethers of governance; as government is so mandated in the constitution to promote the general welfare, contrary to a controlled market wherein monopoly is better served by allowing undo manipulation and fraud.

Simply said, Government must interfere and intervene with a bold presence in law. Not in so much to protect the stupid prey or to reward the deft predator but rather to promote and preserve the integrity of the free market justly enforced.

In citing Justice Scalia, there is no unlimited right. As such is the case there is no unlimited freedom not even in the free market.

By Michael H. Smith

October 3, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

Excuse my obtuse misspell of the word perfect.

By Lies Lies Lies GET OUT

October 3, 2008 2:12 PM | Link to this

Stan, To quote your original post:

“One of their recent big binges took the form of the Neighborhood Renewal Act that forced lenders to make high-risk mortgage loans to low income families – all in the name of boosting the housing market and the illusion of economic growth”

I don’t believe a law passed in 1977 can be considered on of the “recent big binges”.

By Lies Lies Lies GET OUT

October 3, 2008 2:17 PM | Link to this

Stan,

You cite economist Stan Liebowitz’s opinion on the impact of the CRA on the current mortgage mess.

I don’t know why Stan’s opinion is being cited so often now since the housing and lending markets aren’t his area of specialty. On Stan’s web site he indicatesh has

**Two Major Research Areas

· Intellectual Property/File-sharing

· Network Effects, Path Dependence, Lock-in, Microsoft Case **

I guess the economics of intellectual property and networks aren’t very sexy these days so Stan’s branching out to get a little pub.

However, Stan’s opinion on the CRA and the mortgage mess is about as credible as asking a divorce attorney what he thinks about a high profile drug case. He may have a better frame of reference than John Q. Public, but he really doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

By Michael H. Smith

October 3, 2008 2:25 PM | Link to this

The deed has been done. The bailout has passed and President Bush will sign it into law. It is truly regrettable that special interests was rewarded while the welfare of the country was at stake. The lobbyists have won, the politicians will win again and it is the little people who will lose.

By Lies Lies Lies GET OUT

October 3, 2008 2:27 PM | Link to this

University of Michigan law professor Michael S. Barr testified to Congress that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky.

He noted that approximately half of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA.

Twenty-five to thirty percent came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates.

He stated that *institutions fully regulated by CRA made “perhaps” one in four sub-prime loans. * Referring to CRA and abuses in the subprime market, Michael Barr stated that in his judgment * “the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight”. *

Professor Barr’s area of specialty is the study of financial services on low and middle income households. (Unlike Professor Liebowitz)

By Lies Lies Lies GET OUT

October 3, 2008 2:48 PM | Link to this

The following from a paper on the CRA published by Ben Bernanke (Bush’s chairman of the FED) in 2007

The Evolution of the CRA

Enacted in 1977, the CRA affirmed the obligation of federally insured depository institutions to help meet the credit needs of communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operations.

…Bankers were also gaining experience in underwriting and managing the risk of lending in lower-income communities. After years of experimentation, the managers of financial institutions found that these loan portfolios, if properly underwritten and managed, could be profitable. In fact, a Federal Reserve study found that, generally, CRA-related lending activity was at least somewhat profitable and usually did not involve disproportionately higher levels of default.

…changes in the structure of the financial industry have resulted in many financial transactions that fell under the CRA umbrella in 1977 having become increasingly the province of nondepositories not subject to CRA,

By Lies Lies Lies GET OUT

October 3, 2008 3:16 PM | Link to this

In conclusion, if you were to do a bit of reading up on CRA you would see that in its current state it is not nearly the same law that was passed by Congress during the Carter administration.

If you were to do a bit of reading up on the neocon spin around the housing crisis you’d be ill-informed in your conclusion that it was government regulation (CRA) and not greedy market forces that caused this mess.

Don’t believe everything you read. Particularly if it is coming from right-wing or left-wing nutjobs.

By Stan Transue

October 3, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this

I am a Libertarian Nutjob.

By "Spank" the monkey

October 3, 2008 6:17 PM | Link to this

Lies, Lies, Lies Get A Life!

By Cindy

October 4, 2008 8:08 PM | Link to this

Michael,

We were waiting on our kiss. What we got though was a KMA. :(

At least we still have Fritos, right?