ExiledInIllinois Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Granted... I am all for being generous, but why should anyone trust Bush? We bought the farm when he sold us the Iraq War... We needed to act fast back then because "Iraq possessed WMD's" we were told. We didn't find a single weapon. Why should we trust Bush's bailout plan? Bush is a pathalogical liar. His father painted himself into a corner with "read my lips." Now we have Jr. acting the quintessential "Boy who cries wolf." Do we let the wolf eat him... Can the American people trust their President? I am all for a plan if there are some serious consumer and taxpayer protections added in... I want all the burden to be borne away form the consumer/taxpayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 The American people can't trust anyone inside the beltway and it's been that way for a very long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLiveRalph Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I trust myself that I will be working my ass off for another 30 years to be able to retire comfortably. That's about it. Who gets elected, who is giving the speeches, who is writing the legislation, REALLY doesn't matter to me. I pay $2,000 more in taxes? Sucks bad, but here's your check. I pay $3,000 less in taxes? Sweet, I'll sock that away. To me, everyone who gets worked up about their politics seems like they just really want someone to blame. Every election year they convince themselves that their **** is better than the other party's ****. Pretty funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 It's very simple: you can't trust either party. Bush is not to be trusted either economically or in matters of safety, neither is McInsane. Obama and the "Friends of Fannie" aren't to be trusted either. They are all in bed together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I trust me. And as I see it, the bailout plan as communicated makes reasonable sense. I hate it...but it makes reasonable sense. Don't care who's it is...only care about the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I trust me. And as I see it, the bailout plan as communicated makes reasonable sense. I hate it...but it makes reasonable sense. Don't care who's it is...only care about the plan. As long as the plan has checks to ensure we arent funding CEO parachutes, company bonuses, personal debt and payback requirementsensure that it goes back to the taxpayers versus into general funds that can be raped I can support it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 I trust me. And as I see it, the bailout plan as communicated makes reasonable sense. I hate it...but it makes reasonable sense. Don't care who's it is...only care about the plan. How will anyone outside of Paulson know whether he's buying securities that actually have mortgages explicitly tied to them or not? For example, if he buys the worst of the tranches from a packaged CMO and the higher rated tranches are still out there, then who actually has claim on the underlying mortgages backing all of the tranches? Will the government be stuck with something it can't ever sell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Please explain why the name "McCain" appears in the subject line. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 How will anyone outside of Paulson know whether he's buying securities that actually have mortgages explicitly tied to them or not? For example, if he buys the worst of the tranches from a packaged CMO and the higher rated tranches are still out there, then who actually has claim on the underlying mortgages backing all of the tranches? Will the government be stuck with something it can't ever sell? The CMOs are tranched based on payment priority. The CMO has a claim on all the mortgages in the pool, not on individuals. I'm guessing that the goal is to buy the higher rated pieces and leave the equity tranches behind. It would indeed be absurd to buy the lower rated tranches and leave the higher ranked stuff behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 Please explain why the name "McCain" appears in the subject line. Thanks. You are a pretty smart dude... Even know it took 8 replies to get to that little nugget I intentionally interjected. McCain's gotta stay in Washington to get this thing passed... No muti-tasking... Seems he is towing the line for the Bush (and yes, really Paulson) plain. Seems like McCain is the numebr one cheerleader for it, why not use his name? This is a public PPP forum, I am very well aware that many are reading... Hearts and minds Blue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 How will anyone outside of Paulson know whether he's buying securities that actually have mortgages explicitly tied to them or not? For example, if he buys the worst of the tranches from a packaged CMO and the higher rated tranches are still out there, then who actually has claim on the underlying mortgages backing all of the tranches? Will the government be stuck with something it can't ever sell? Didn't say perfect sense, said reasonable sense. It provides capital reserves to the banks that desperately need them, and helps liquidity in the capital markets. If they don't do that, the government will be stuck with something it can't sell anyway: Treasuries. That's also why I don't want to see homeowner bailouts, CEO salary limitations, or any other pet issues thrown in to this. This isn't just a Wall Street problem...I've heard two stories today of car dealerships shutting down for lack of credit. We're starting to see the local implications of illiquidity. If they waste time arguing in DC about foreclosure protection for the lower middle class, it'll be a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Please explain why the name "McCain" appears in the subject line. Thanks. Because EII likes to poke at Republicans with a pointy stick. Duh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Didn't say perfect sense, said reasonable sense. It provides capital reserves to the banks that desperately need them, and helps liquidity in the capital markets. If they don't do that, the government will be stuck with something it can't sell anyway: Treasuries. That's also why I don't want to see homeowner bailouts, CEO salary limitations, or any other pet issues thrown in to this. This isn't just a Wall Street problem...I've heard two stories today of car dealerships shutting down for lack of credit. We're starting to see the local implications of illiquidity. If they waste time arguing in DC about foreclosure protection for the lower middle class, it'll be a moot point. Heard this yesterday. More of them will close. http://plantcity2.tbo.com/content/2008/sep...rships-nationw/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 Didn't say perfect sense, said reasonable sense. It provides capital reserves to the banks that desperately need them, and helps liquidity in the capital markets. If they don't do that, the government will be stuck with something it can't sell anyway: Treasuries. That's also why I don't want to see homeowner bailouts, CEO salary limitations, or any other pet issues thrown in to this. This isn't just a Wall Street problem...I've heard two stories today of car dealerships shutting down for lack of credit. We're starting to see the local implications of illiquidity. If they waste time arguing in DC about foreclosure protection for the lower middle class, it'll be a moot point. Agree. Yep, what he say! ^^ It is not Palin personally (well, there are issues with me... But, that is really immaterial) with me... For me she is a worse version of Bush... We would really be in some serious mess if McCain wins and then passes on... Ten fold than what we have with Bush now. She is just a wacko that has sex appeal, especially with the desparate white, christian housewives in disturbia. A wackier "Sportsman for Bush" scenario. Totally out of touch. Did you catch the video of her pastor laying hands on her and banishing the witches? I no doubt believe that she believes she is on a "mission from God" as as Bush believes. Here is still hoping she pops up on LA's sig site... I will have to tell me wife: "Sorry honey, I getting me a mailorder!"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 The CMOs are tranched based on payment priority. The CMO has a claim on all the mortgages in the pool, not on individuals. I'm guessing that the goal is to buy the higher rated pieces and leave the equity tranches behind. It would indeed be absurd to buy the lower rated tranches and leave the higher ranked stuff behind. Isn't it about getting the "toxic stuff" off of the balance sheets? And I raise that issue because of this: DBank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Heard this yesterday. More of them will close.http://plantcity2.tbo.com/content/2008/sep...rships-nationw/ His "credit problems" are a function of his inability to sell trucks and SUVs. It's a bit disingenuous to blame this on the credit crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted September 25, 2008 Author Share Posted September 25, 2008 Because EII likes to poke at Republicans with a pointy stick. Duh. I can't stop laughing... I am at home today (daughter is under the weather and not in school)... Hope I don't wake her! Hey... You should see me witht he wasp nests around the homestead... "We don't need no stinking Raid!" While all the neighborhhood children run for thier lives! Keeps the sanity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Isn't it about getting the "toxic stuff" off of the balance sheets? And I raise that issue because of this: DBank It is, but I'm guessing that the equity tranches have been written down to zero and no one expects to get a recovery on those, and thus they wouldn't be part of the program. The big issue are the more senior pieces which are performing, but for which there's no market. The article highlights an operational problem. The mortgage servicer should have the mortgages that back the CMOs. Pretty ridiculous response by DB attorneys, IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 Didn't say perfect sense, said reasonable sense. It provides capital reserves to the banks that desperately need them, and helps liquidity in the capital markets. If they don't do that, the government will be stuck with something it can't sell anyway: Treasuries. That's also why I don't want to see homeowner bailouts, CEO salary limitations, or any other pet issues thrown in to this. This isn't just a Wall Street problem...I've heard two stories today of car dealerships shutting down for lack of credit. We're starting to see the local implications of illiquidity. If they waste time arguing in DC about foreclosure protection for the lower middle class, it'll be a moot point. On the flip side of that coin, why would banks extend (mortgage) credit in markets where housing prices are still falling? No one knows if a mere $700 billion is enough to bail out Wall STreet. In each case the bailout Bandaid gets bigger and bigger. As long as housing prices continue to fall, and delinquencies and foreclosures increase, you haven't solved the root of the crisis. Despite the attempts to blame democrats, republicans, lax lending standards, or the push for increased homeownership, the blame for this crisis lays at the foot of Wall Street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 25, 2008 Share Posted September 25, 2008 His "credit problems" are a function of his inability to sell trucks and SUVs. It's a bit disingenuous to blame this on the credit crisis. Almost. I think this is a perfect example of the ripple effect. The big concern is not companies that are solid and will survive no matter what, or the deadbeats that will die off no matter what. It's the thousands of companies that are barely scraping by and need a shot of capital or short term credit to get them over a crisis. In the past week, those companies' calls to their local banks have not been returned, and it will get worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts