Bailout Alternative???

[jpp]

jpp, give it a rest. The horse is dead. Enough with the flogging.

Fine. Then put the Republican talking points to sleep. Since you're the prime offender here, and never miss an opportunity, I trust you'll set a good example.

 

[number6]

Fine. Then put the Republican talking points to sleep. Since you're a prime offender here, and never miss an opportunity, I trust you'll set a good example.

Your trust is well placed.:holloween:

 

[Adrian Sims]

Ramblings of a disgruntled taxpayer: I'm simply scratching my head at the situation here in the UK at the moment. For years the banks have been loaning money to taxpayers and the taxpayers have been paying hefty interest on these loans. The banks demanded a free market, got greedy, mis-managed and now the taxpayers (via the British Government) are forced to loan half a trillion pounds to the banks and taxpayers get to pay interest a second time on the money that must be borrowed to fund the bailout. All so the banks can loan taxpayers money back to taxpayers, so taxpayers can relish the burden of paying interest a third time. Just seems like Robin Hood in reverese to me. Surely this can't go on forever ... when does the house of cards collapse?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

This has gone on too long, but if folks here don't understand why McDonalds, by virtue of its size and power, has special social responsibilities, I won't convince you.

I don't think we're looking to be convinced. I just want to know why you say that. At what point does a company suddenly become obligated to a higher level of social standards and responsibilities? What is this based on? Net profits? Gross revenue? Number of locations? Ability to advertise the crap out of the shit food they sell? Or is it just popular uber-liberal opinion that labels large companies, primarily corporations, as the evil hell-spawn that fleeces the American people? I detest McDonalds and Starbucks because of their crap product, but obviously a great many people gladly spend their money there and enjoy it.

The liquor store analogy is an interesting one, to which I have no answer, other than that selling liquor is, by custom, socially acceptable. And it's a product whose sole purpose is to induce intoxication, which is why people buy it. I doubt McDonalds patrons buy coffee to get scalded.

No, but people buy coffee to enjoy a hot beverage, which in itself carries risks. Same as people buying alcohol to inebriate themselves. Both are socially acceptable by custom... Hot beverages have been enjoyed ever since mankind learned how to make fire. So why is alcohol and its effects accepted socially, but the drinking of a hot cup of coffee becomes a seriously idiotic idea with widespread social and legal ramifications?

For corporate privileges under the law, I'd refer doubters to, appropriately enough, a documentary called "The Corporation". One might also ask Jay why, if there aren't special privileges, he chose to incorporate, since a small corporation can be costly to open and sustain. But that's neither here nor there.

I'll have to go look at "The Corporation". I think I have read it before, but will look to make sure. Seeing how I have two companies that are formed as corporate entities, I have a fair bit of knowledge as to the advantages and disadvantages of such. It is common misconception that a corporation gives a lot of the free reign or special privileges. Most of the negative light on "corporations" these days occurs just because the companies who get themselves in big trouble and are big enough to merit a spot on the national news, are typically corporations. It's very hard to grow any other type of business to a large size... Corporations are the only sort of business that allows for both public stockholders and management that can be independent of ownership and elected by the stockholder base. But when it comes to liability, protection of ownership from legal ramifications, tax considerations, etc.. a corporation actually offers little to nothing more than a business would get if they were a Limited Liability Company or Partnership.

The last company I formed as a corporation was merely for image. It's no more expensive or different to run than an LLC (or at least not compared to the LLC considered for comparison) and I will probably convert it to an LLC next year or so when I get some more time to work with such things. The image part was to carry more weight with a domain name and trademark dispute... It worked. For some reason, the court wasn't so inclined to take XXXXXX, LLC seriously, even though it was the trademark holder. But as soon as I filed the state paperwork to make it XXXXXX, inc., that trademark suddenly had meaning. No different laws apply in that regard, it was a matter of perception in the eyes of the DA and attorneys involved. ...Whatever.

I know that all our problems, according to you guys, are caused by government. There's some degree of truth to that -- Alan Greenspan could have instantly stopped subprime lending, instead of going on TV to promote it, and GWB's Dept. of Treasury actively prevented states from regulating subprime lending -- but I doubt that's the kind of government you're referring to.

Actually, that's exactly the kind of government I'm referring too.

Finally, this whole "personal responsibility" line doesn't go down well, because its loudest proponents are the biggest whiners in the country.

Listen to 3 hours of Limbaugh? I'd rather get kicked in the nuts...

Who's fault is it? It's your fault. It's my fault. It's the fault of everyone in this country of legal age to have a say in how this country operates. It's the fault of all those generations before us, who allowed everything to get this bad. Why do we sit here and hotly debate the outcome of some old lady who spilled her coffee nearly 25 years ago? Probably because it's a round-about way of discussing current issues or how we perceive them on the surface. No one really discusses the true problems that affect our country. It doesn't seem socially and politically acceptable to just stand up and say that every generation since our founding fathers has faltered in some way, some more than others, they and we fucked up, the system is broken and enough is enough.

Our government is an assembly of the people of this nation. Composed of elected officials, appointed by the people. As a nation, we have the right to tell our government and elected officials they're all fired and we're starting over. Our country's constitution gives us this very right. IMO that is what needs to be done at this point, because I frankly don't see any major improvements happening within our currently broken system. The founders of our nation came together and created one of the most impressively conceived documents in the history of man, perhaps the greatest document ever. The foundation of our society is within the words of that document and so is the power to reinvent our governing body and how it works and oversees our daily lives.

The problem we have today is there are far too many laws, programs and policies that are haphazardly put in place to change or fix an issue with a previous law, program or policy. Too much extra baggage, too much pork in the beans.

I think the change we need in Washington is a major housecleaning. Start from the ground up and rebuild all federal laws, regulations, programs, budgets, etc.. from scratch. A new government for a new age. Hell, let's make an event out of it that we could repeat every 100 years or so.

But we won't get this... We're going to get 4 more years of the same old shit, regardless of who gets elected to office. Because, let's face it, at this point you're not voting for the man. You're voting for the party that backs him and their underlying policies. Neither of which serve Middle America in a best-interest sort of way. We get to cast a vote to shuffle tax burden from one group of rich elite to another while middle to upper middle-income americans, who account for most small business ownership, continue to get raked over the coals. And low-income families are continuously denied basic services they should be guaranteed in a society like ours, while welfare and other government aid funds are misappropriated and squandered.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

What established "parameters" of "acceptable borrowers"? These guys lent to anyone -- regardless of income, and with no proof required of any claims on the application, and no due diligence performed by the lender. And why? In order to collect origination fees and then sell the mortgage to a third party.

Yes, some did go that far. But look at the majority of lenders on a national whole. A great many of them did the due diligence, many borrowers did check out and many still faltered.

"Didn't scrutinize carefully"? You mean to say they really thought these people could pay the mortgages, and it was just a lack of scrutiny which did them in? That's why, for instance, they offered ridiculously low teaser rates? No chance they were trying to deceive the borrower into thinking that he could carry the mortgage?

I never said any of that. I never even got into the slimy business practices aspect of it. I was pointing out that over the past 2+ decades, changes were made at various times to federal policies, HUD policies, operations of Fannie and Freddie, etc..

For a guy who's big on personal responsibility, sounds like you're making a lot of excuses for people who not only should have known better, but did in fact know better. In fact, it sounds like you're trying to defend fraud.

WTF? I am making no excuses for anyone. You want to know what my personal thought is on the bailout? I wish the government let it go. I want AIG to crash into a flaming heap. If it takes our economy with it, then so be it. I'm not making any excuses, I'm pointing out isses on a federal level that helped set the ball in motion for all of this to come crashing down. 30 years ago, the sub-prime mortgages and predatory lending didn't happen to the extent we have seen over the past 10 years, too many restrictions on loans, no federal lending polices.

There's absolutely nothing on the books which forces lenders to give mortgages to unqualified buyers, whatever their race. This is pure Republican talking points, blaming the crisis on the victims.

ONCE AGAIN, WTF? No, there is nothing that "forces lenders to give mortgages to unqualified buyers". But the Truth in Lending Act swings both ways, FHC policy and Fed EOL policies dictate acceptable credit score ranges, income and debt burden benchmarks, etc.. These are all parameters by which lenders can scrutinize or judge applicants. When applicants apply for a loan and their credit score is (arbitrarily) something like a 620 and FHC allows for anything above a 600 to be considered for approval for that type of loan, this applicant fits within an established parameter. If the lender were to deny that applicant such a loan and claim their credit score were too low, they can face reprisals from a multitude of sources. In the case of a large lender or underwriter who does this on multiple occasions, they can begin to lose business from subscribing banks and mortgage companies that offer their lending products. They can face discriminatory fines from the FHC. I was saying that this was additional motivation for their carelessness and failure to adequately approve potential borrowers. Slimy business ethics and the sub-prime, interest-only loans aside, there's plenty of "legitimate" loans out there that factor into this financial crisis too.

Since you're going to start pasting labels, I can do that to. Dems like to focus solely on the dishonesty and the sub-prime, interest-only, fuck the borrower loans; issued by mortgage companies and other lenders who were not only dishonest in their practices, but could even be considered truly manipulative and evil. However, we shouldn't forget that there were many, many loans that were given in good faith because all the numbers checked out. Not sub-prime or interest-only loans, but legitimate loans for homes or business or a multitude of purposes that should not have been given. Would not have been given 25 years ago, all things being equal. And many of those loans are junk now too. We're talking hundreds of thousands of bad pieces of paper to be compensated for with the $700B bailout package, consisting of all sorts of loans of all shapes and sizes, only half of which can be accounted for with predatory lending practices. But if you want to insult me and label me a Republican, go right ahead. Because on that note, I'm done with this. And this is why I don't usually get involved in such discussions.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Ramblings of a disgruntled taxpayer: I'm simply scratching my head at the situation here in the UK at the moment. For years the banks have been loaning money to taxpayers and the taxpayers have been paying hefty interest on these loans. The banks demanded a free market, got greedy, mis-managed and now the taxpayers (via the British Government) are forced to loan half a trillion pounds to the banks and taxpayers get to pay interest a second time on the money that must be borrowed to fund the bailout. All so the banks can loan taxpayers money back to taxpayers, so taxpayers can relish the burden of paying interest a third time. Just seems like Robin Hood in reverese to me. Surely this can't go on forever ... when does the house of cards collapse?

I'm not so sure that other nations are learning from our mistakes, or at least not as quickly as they should. The writing is on the wall right now with the activity in global exchanges. There is a housing bubble in Europe, similar to what we experienced in the USA -- I'm looking at you, Spain.

The global economy we all share in today is dependent on all of us. If the US economy falters, we won't go down alone, the Euro stands to lose a lot. And it works the other way too...

I think the global economy is in for a rough ride over the next year.

 

[Joel Kaye]

I think the change we need in Washington is a major housecleaning. Start from the ground up and rebuild all federal laws, regulations, programs, budgets, etc.. from scratch. A new government for a new age. Hell, let's make an event out of it that we could repeat every 100 years or so.

I agree with you that's what it's going to take. I think it was Jefferson who thought the Constitution should be thrown out and rewritten every 50ish years.

But what if elections were being stolen? That's my biggest fear. I think there's evidence they have been. It might take 100 million people in the streets to change anything.

Definitely check out the documentary "The Corporation". I'm a CEO capitalist pig myself (yes, of an actual "Inc.") - it's a very educational doc. I'd like to get my hands on the extended version but haven't yet. The movie is not a liberal diatribe.

 

[number6]

Fine. Then put the Republican talking points to sleep. Since you're the prime offender here, and never miss an opportunity, I trust you'll set a good example.

Sorry jpp... I release you from your agreement to stop flogging the horse. Continue as you will.

 

[Joel Kaye]

But which of them do? They`re politicians...

Kucinich, Ron Paul, Kaptur, Burgess.

It is a mistake to simply say all politicians are bad so I'll just bury my head in the sand. The Bush administration is nothing like we've ever seen before. A petty thief is not the same a mass murderer. Are they both crooks? Yes. But to lump them together as being the same is dumb. No offense, but it's such a typical smear tactic and it keeps people from thinking.

What's up next?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya9WnONk9Fw&feature=related

 

[Priyesh P.]

JPP, I don`t think our points are that far from each other. Actually I share quite some of yours, but I don`t belong to the "black or white" painters (or like the "you`re either with us or against us" POTUS).

 

[Priyesh P.]

Kucinich, Ron Paul, Kaptur, Burgess.

It is a mistake to simply say all politicians are bad so I'll just bury my head in the sand. The Bush administration is nothing like we've ever seen before. A petty thief is not the same a mass murderer. Are they both crooks? Yes. But to lump them together as being the same is dumb. No offense, but it's such a typical smear tactic and it keeps people from thinking.

What's up next?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya9WnONk9Fw&feature=related

Your point is right, but it`s so terribly frustrating to see that the exact same people who attack those in comand change their minds in the matter of seconds as soon as they`ve got the power. I`ve seen it so many times here in Germany. Leftist greens that turned into rightwinged conservatives or neoliberals or socialists that turned into conservatives. I could go on and on...

 

[jpp]

Sorry jpp... I release you from your agreement to stop flogging the horse. Continue as you will.

But I don't release you from your side of the contract. So one hopes we'll hear no more from you on economic or geopolitical matters(?)

For the rest, there's nothing further to say. The facts are out there, any interested party can determine who's responsible for this unholy mess and exactly how it occurred, and who profited from it. Follow the money....

 

[Andrew Walker]

The only way things are going to change is by another bloody revolutionary war for some kind. These people in power will be voted out...only to be replaced by a carbon copy asshole. The greedy and corrupt will never stop as it is shown to be the way to act...monkey see monkey do. So people need to be shown that those people don't get a golden parachute of some kind and get to live like kings when they retire. Instead we need to bring back the guillotine or something scarier than that because it seems to be the only thing people that have no sense of what's right or wrong can understand. You fuck-up, we fuck you up.

 

[number6]

But I don't release you from your side of the contract. So one hopes we'll hear no more from you on economic or geopolitical matters(?)

For the rest, there's nothing further to say. The facts are out there, any interested party can determine who's responsible for this unholy mess and exactly how it occurred, and who profited from it. Follow the money....

No, I wasn't going to rejoin the discussion here. Just wanted you to have the option to defend yourself, even though your positions are indefensible:usd:

 

[Joel Kaye]

I`ve seen it so many times here in Germany. Leftist greens that turned into rightwinged conservatives or neoliberals or socialists that turned into conservatives. I could go on and on...

Which is why people need to be smart enough to evaluate ideas on their own and leave personalities and political parties out of it. But that's asking for people to be informed and rational. Right now they are scared and irrational... so like sheep, they'll follow the leader of their side right off a cliff.

America needs additional political parties in the system. I'm convinced both Dems and Republicans would lose most of their support.

 

[Steven M. Bailey]

As a business owner and a member of the I'm losing my house club. I have to admit that the problem is both my fault and the fault of the mortgage lenders. Like Jeff stated It is better to do all of your business that you can in cash. I should have backed out when the middle man investors made that impossible.

I borrowed against the income that I had coming in at the time. That was three years ago. A lot can happen in three years. The housing market in my area is completely destroyed. I had as traditional a loan as you can get, and still I only made it for three years.

Any one who believes in job security, in any field, for any reason, is fooling themselves. The only sure thing is that you can't be sure of anything. Hedge your bets, pay in cash if you can.

In the end, after doing everything in your power, if you still fail, it is your fault. If for no other reason than not being powerful enough. Life is not fair nor will it ever be. oh well.

One of the policy's that I tried to implement on my construction crew was this; I don't care who screwed up let's just fix the damn thing. Its faster to fix most problems than to sit around arguing about who's f*&! up it is.

About the coffee thing, I can't believe anyone would try to hold someone else responsible for spilling something in their own lap. Something that is traditionally served hot.:gun: I could see a suit if it melted through the cup and burned her. My 2 year old knows if its too hot you blow on it. Don't poor it on your privates.

 

[Priyesh P.]

Any one who believes in job security, in any field, for any reason, is fooling themselves. The only sure thing is that you can't be sure of anything. Hedge your bets, pay in cash if you can.

well spoken, steve. and this is not a U.S. specific situation...

 

[Alex Coelho]

Which is why people need to be smart enough to evaluate ideas on their own and leave personalities and political parties out of it. But that's asking for people to be informed and rational. Right now they are scared and irrational... so like sheep, they'll follow the leader of their side right off a cliff.

America needs additional political parties in the system. I'm convinced both Dems and Republicans would lose most of their support.

We have 3rd parties. Ralph Nader is running as an independent and has my support. We only have to look back in 1999 when the Gramm-Leach-Biley act was enacted that stripped away the protections under Glass Stegall act of 1933. It passed a Republican congress and signed by a Democratic President. The 2 party system has become 1 corporate party.

 

[Curran Giddens]

We have 3rd parties. Ralph Nader is running as an independent and has my support.

I hope you aren't wasting your vote in one of the swing states.

 

[ericyoung]

I agree with you that's what it's going to take. I think it was Jefferson who thought the Constitution should be thrown out and rewritten every 50ish years.

But what if elections were being stolen? That's my biggest fear. I think there's evidence they have been. It might take 100 million people in the streets to change anything.

Definitely check out the documentary "The Corporation". I'm a CEO capitalist pig myself (yes, of an actual "Inc.") - it's a very educational doc. I'd like to get my hands on the extended version but haven't yet. The movie is not a liberal diatribe.

Are you sure he thought it should be thrown out and rewritten as opposed to revisited to make sure subsequent legislation hadn't lost or diluted the original intents? (I'm guessing, as I'm not from the US!)

"The Corporation" is actually very balanced. It reminds us that a Corporation originated as an instrument to enable large expensive projects to be funded and organised, and is actually very useful when in the service of improvement to a community. Originally, once the project was completed, the corporation would be dissolved.

IMHO, where it all went wrong was when, beyond a certain size, corporations were allowed to become ongoing autonomous entities with the sole purpose of making profits for themselves. The tiny percentage of their income that they allocate to "greenwashing", so-called social responsibility, and community projects is subservient to that purpose. Acruing political influence likewise. And being sued for environmental, and other crimes is a business expense as long as the cost of settling is less than the cost of not committing those crimes.

Some might say they are accountable to their shareholders - yes, but the majority shareholders are usually people or entities that have got financially richer under business as usual, and will veto any real attempts to take back control of corporations to redirect their power for the greater good.

Accountable to the government? Well only to an extent. Multinationals can dodge full accountability by various means. Threatening to take their business abroad if regulated, outsourcing their pollution, buying government insiders, etc.

So now large multinational corporations truly are monsters, with no moral conscience, only slightly affected by external forces and not really even under the control of any of it's employees. Any one of it's employees, even the CEO, is subservient to the great idol of increasing profit above all else. You and I, the little fish, haven't got a chance. :help:

In some ways, the global financial crisis hitting unheard of lows, with the immense misery and suffering that will entail, may be the only way that corporate grip on society is weakened sufficiently for an healthier alternative to emerge. But of course, no sane person would wish for such pain!