login
This may be callous but.... (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2008-05-15 1:18 PM in reply to: #1404896 |
Expert  1060   Weymouth, MA |  Subject: RE: This may be callous but....sesh - 2008-05-15 2:16 PM For the record, I'm not saying this is how we should do it, if it's right or wrong, fair or unfair, or anything. Just noting the situation of failing corporations and it's potential impact on the economy. That is why these bailouts were proposed, not for compassion to the individual who lost their home. This housing mess is the potential powder keg with some very large macro-economic consequences. I'm not sure there is any tax money involved here. The way I would assume it works is these defaults are crammed down to a reasonable value with the banks charging off the difference, the rate lowered, and the loan reamoritzed. The corporations still take a bath, but not such a crippling one, and some people are able to get back into a home. Fair to those of us who never skip a beat no the payments? No. Good for you and me in the grand scheme of things if it keeps a few companies with trillions in assets from failing? Most likely. Well said. |
| 2008-05-15 1:24 PM in reply to: #1403866 |
Expert 3974   MA | Subject: RE: This may be callous but.... Well said but entirely impossible. The corporations won't take that bath - the politicians won't allow it because those same corporations are the ones that fund campaign warchests. The corporations will be protected at pretty much all costs while the politicians pay useless lip service to our best interests as individual citizens. |
| 2008-05-15 1:24 PM in reply to: #1404897 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: This may be callous but.... rcberto - 2008-05-15 1:16 PM newleaf - 2008-05-15 2:07 PM mr2tony - 2008-05-15 2:02 PM rcberto - 2008-05-15 12:00 PM Where does it end. So let's say the auto industry is going down the tubes, and that means tens of thousands will lose their jobs, do we jump in and bail them out. Oh, wait, we did that already. OK so what about the farmers -- if crop prices go through the floor are we supposed to spend our taxpayer dollars on helping them!? Oh, another bad example. Hmm ... basically in this country it IS OK to fail because the government will save you. When's the `newspaper bailout?' Newspapers are losing money hand over fist these days and laying of thousands of people each year. Why not give them a subsidy or a bailout?Please re-read Sesh's posts. The point of the bailout isn't to help people who messed up and give them a free ride. It's to help everyone. If these enormous banks and mortgage backed securities investors are not partially made whole this entire mess of an economy is going to get much much worse. There will be many more corporations like Bear Stearns laying off tens of thousands of people and there we go circling down the toilet. Take a break from patting yourselves on the back for being so smart. If we don't help inject some capital into these industries people (yes even those with 30-year fixeds) will lose ultimately lose their jobs and be defaulting as well. Let's have a little compassion. Yes, a few spoiled it for all of us but let's not cut off our nose to spite our face. (I just wanted to use that saying). Don't forget the airlines. I think they've been bailed out multiple times, and still continue to lose money. But we should have "compassion." By all means, let's bail them out again. Regarding the compassion comment, I'm not advocating we all send Hallmark Cards to the Bear Stearns executives. We are all spouting off about how smart we are and how we are living below our means. My point is that everyone who is being affected by this mess didn't sign up for a one-year arm and cry foul. People are getting screwed by the fallout and you may be next. I suspect you'd be singing a different tune if you were. BTW, I'm in a 30-year fixed living "below my means" too. But if I lose my job because the economy completely tanks my means dramatically change as I'm sure yours does. If I were to lose my job today, I wouldn't expect the government to bail me out. I think this is a reaction to a bigger problem. People are getting fed up with all teh bailouts, which is the point I was trying to make. We bail out everybody now and taxpayers, in a time when taxes are already extremely high, are getting sick of seeing their money go to people who made bad decisions and banks that failed at the hustle, all in the name of keeping afloat an economy that was already hobbling from poor economic policies. |
 2008-05-15 1:29 PM in reply to: #1404918 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2008-05-15 1:32 PM in reply to: #1404918 |
| Master 2808 , Minnesota | Subject: RE: This may be callous but.... Yepper. Let 'em fail. The economy goes in the crapper, everyone loses their job, we all lose tons of $ in our 401ks and our houses are worth nothing. Those of us with no debt, cash in our matresses and the means to protect ourselves will be sitting dandy. mr2tony - 2008-05-15 1:24 PM rcberto - 2008-05-15 1:16 PM newleaf - 2008-05-15 2:07 PM mr2tony - 2008-05-15 2:02 PM rcberto - 2008-05-15 12:00 PM Where does it end. So let's say the auto industry is going down the tubes, and that means tens of thousands will lose their jobs, do we jump in and bail them out. Oh, wait, we did that already. OK so what about the farmers -- if crop prices go through the floor are we supposed to spend our taxpayer dollars on helping them!? Oh, another bad example. Hmm ... basically in this country it IS OK to fail because the government will save you. When's the `newspaper bailout?' Newspapers are losing money hand over fist these days and laying of thousands of people each year. Why not give them a subsidy or a bailout?Please re-read Sesh's posts. The point of the bailout isn't to help people who messed up and give them a free ride. It's to help everyone. If these enormous banks and mortgage backed securities investors are not partially made whole this entire mess of an economy is going to get much much worse. There will be many more corporations like Bear Stearns laying off tens of thousands of people and there we go circling down the toilet. Take a break from patting yourselves on the back for being so smart. If we don't help inject some capital into these industries people (yes even those with 30-year fixeds) will lose ultimately lose their jobs and be defaulting as well. Let's have a little compassion. Yes, a few spoiled it for all of us but let's not cut off our nose to spite our face. (I just wanted to use that saying). Don't forget the airlines. I think they've been bailed out multiple times, and still continue to lose money. But we should have "compassion." By all means, let's bail them out again. Regarding the compassion comment, I'm not advocating we all send Hallmark Cards to the Bear Stearns executives. We are all spouting off about how smart we are and how we are living below our means. My point is that everyone who is being affected by this mess didn't sign up for a one-year arm and cry foul. People are getting screwed by the fallout and you may be next. I suspect you'd be singing a different tune if you were. BTW, I'm in a 30-year fixed living "below my means" too. But if I lose my job because the economy completely tanks my means dramatically change as I'm sure yours does. If I were to lose my job today, I wouldn't expect the government to bail me out. I think this is a reaction to a bigger problem. People are getting fed up with all teh bailouts, which is the point I was trying to make. We bail out everybody now and taxpayers, in a time when taxes are already extremely high, are getting sick of seeing their money go to people who made bad decisions and banks that failed at the hustle, all in the name of keeping afloat an economy that was already hobbling from poor economic policies. |
| 2008-05-15 1:34 PM in reply to: #1404937 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2008-05-15 1:41 PM in reply to: #1404917 |
| Champion 5117 Brandon, MS | Subject: RE: This may be callous but.... chadtower - 2008-05-15 1:24 PM Well said but entirely impossible. The corporations won't take that bath - the politicians won't allow it because those same corporations are the ones that fund campaign warchests. The corporations will be protected at pretty much all costs while the politicians pay useless lip service to our best interests as individual citizens. Well, they kind of already are. Stock prices have fallen off the cliff and there is a SEVERE capital crisis at most of the largest financial institutions. Some of the classified assets ratios (for example: problem loans and other real estate as a percentage of capital) are absolutely shocking. But yes, the politicians are definitely trying to protect these institutions. However, they are not trying to magically get these corporations back to where they were two years ago. They are simply trying get them back to basic operations. Then, they are going to watch them like hawks. I've already seen the backlash from examiners and I work at a bank with barely the slightest fraction of some of the institutions assets, yet also the slightest fraction of their issues. I still don't know how much I agree or disagree with the entire idea, but I realize the goals of this. I mean, given the choice, I'd rather not see trillion dollar companies that shape our economy go down the crapper. Edited by sesh 2008-05-15 1:43 PM |
| 2008-05-15 3:33 PM in reply to: #1403866 |
| Elite 3221 the desert | Subject: RE: This may be callous but.... Relevant to the discussion, but a little off topic.... My sister's house is still for sale in Denver. Well below what they paid. When it does sell, they'll be coming to the table with $$$. It's been on the market for almost a year. They live in Flagstaff now, but at least have a renter for the summer. If anyone knows anyone..... |
| 2008-05-15 7:18 PM in reply to: #1403866 |
| Master 1662 Flagstaff and Phoenix, AZ | Subject: RE: This may be callous but.... Also slightly off topic but related: One way to stabilize prices or get the market to bottom out would be if more houses sold, right? You'd also think that the banks would want to sell all those properties they own now instead of seeing their value fall further by the week. I'm trying to buy a condo in Phoenix and, sure, my offers are low-ball, but what's happening is not that the banks reject the offers or make high counter-offers but their agent comes back and says, oops, condo was listed way too low, now we want more for it than the listing price! WTF? Happened to me twice already. And they take weeks and weeks to tell you that. And these were REOs, not short sales! My realtor says that most people working with these cases in the banks are so new and have no training/background that it's happening all over the place. Again, it's the (big) banks messing up (WaMu in one case). They don't even train their people. I totally agree with the OP, by the way, but for different reasons. When things are all dandy, people credit the free-market economy, then it goes out of hand and, help!, let the government figure it out. How about a few more rules and restrictions in the first place before things (predictably) go wrong. When taxes are not raised but "redistributed" (as for a bailout) it always hurts the poorest. Can you tell I grew up in a high-tax European country?  I live here for a reason. What irks me though is the hypocrisy of those who scream the loudest for a bail-out now. |
| 2008-05-15 7:25 PM in reply to: #1405778 |
| Subject: ... This user's post has been ignored. |
| 2008-05-16 11:06 AM in reply to: #1405786 |
| Member 1699 | Subject: RE: This may be callous but.... I don't like the bailouts. I am not sure which is worse long term, rewarding poor risk taking or letting a major company like Bear Stearns fail. I agree that we are on the brink of a depression, and my fear is that higher taxes and more regulation for government intervention is exactly what will push us over the edge. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK