feature requests

A trillion dollars

  • Lifetime Member

    dough boy | Male | 42 years old | Kansas City

"Why do today what you can put off 'til tomorrow"

Programmer by day, comic nerd by night. My official job title is "Director of Janitorial Engineering"

November 2019

SuMoTuWeThFrSa
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Archives

Tags

A trillion dollars

2087 views • Sep 22, '08 • (12) Comments

I am adamantly against the bailout (was on Friday when everyone else was for it...now you are all on my bandwagon after having a weekend to think about it).

But here is why they say we need it.  The loan markets have basically dried up...they are not loaning people any money because they are saddled with debt.  People that need to sell their house cannot because no one can buy.  They lower their price, and the cycle continues.

It is thought that if the debt was no longer on the banks books (they sell the debt to the Gov't for pennies on the dollar) that they will then be free to loan more money and thus restarting the housing market somewhat.

But you know what...if I am a bank and I was just "saved" from having to billions in writedowns on these "assets" I wouldn't do a damn thing.  Sure the Gov't could eventually sell the debt and make some more money but that will take years, if not decades.

Sure we can blame the banks for the lending practices...but you know what...I blame the home owners.  It is a simple thing called budgeting.  I was once approved for a home loan (shocked, but still approved).  I was excited and told my wife.  I then calculate our income and our bills and realized that I could not afford the payments...SO I DIDN'T take out the loan.

I am sorry for those that are losing their homes...truly am.  Hopefully next time they will learn to budget properly.  I am not sorry for the banks/firms that are losing their shirts.

I am also kind of sorry for Obama.  He is in a no win situation.  If he opposes it and it does not go through, then the Democrates are to blame.  If it goes through then the Republicans can be the "saviour".  Sad...really sad.

Of course if it does go through and he still wins he loses because he has to deal with this burden for a long time

  • Sep 23, '08 by Kree_Boy's avatar Kree_Boy
  • No Matter what the we are going to have to sholder it....but the banks and the shareholders that have been making money hand over fist for the last 15yrs.......(due to handing out loans to people that should have never got them in the first place)........ should not have the slate whiped clean IMO.....they should be held to the same standards as if they were filling bankrupcy and have the activities of thier actions after the bailout monitor'd for some time....the money should not just be thrown in a pot and handed out.........bad buisness is bad buisness.....but if we have to pay for it....there should be oversight to keep it from happening again in another 20yrs......
  • Sep 23, '08 by Kree_Boy's avatar Kree_Boy
  • WOW....that was a ramble of thought....sorry Sad
  • Sep 25, '08 by joshschr's avatar joshschr
  • Don't apologize. I think I might beat you here:

    The banks that made bad loans can eat a dick. Mortgage brokers and banks that told people what they could afford without looking closer at borrowers assets can too. They are financial experts, and all of this was predictable. If I write a $10k check to play craps or Keno and don't win anything, I can't ask anyone for $10k without expecting them to make some money off the deal.

    The people who lied on their mortgage applications, or got many mortgages they couldn't afford while planning to flip the houses for a profit can also suck a fat one, along with people who borrowed heavily against the over-inflated value of their homes for shit they didn't need.

    People who took on bad loans because they trusted their advisers and didn't know to crunch the numbers themselves should probably lose their homes, yeah, but they shouldn't be punished the same as the people who lent them the money.

    And the people who did crunch the numbers, lived within their means by either buying smaller or not at all? They shouldn't have to deal with the rise in taxes or the possibility of losing their jobs and/or buying power due to the crap economy. I'll end my rant here, but I think there's a lot more to be said about this.
  • Sep 25, '08 by evlthecat's avatar evlthecat
  • What I find funny is the Republican Party. They want government out of big business, but seem to want the bail out worse than the Democrats. On top of it the greedy don't want any CEO concessions.. What the hell is up with that?? If they are the people who put the companies in financial turmoil then why should they get compensated for poor speculations... commonsense would dictate this..
    • Sep 25, '08 by joshschr's avatar joshschr
    • Agreed. Capitalism involves risk. They took too much risk and now it's time to pay the house, not the other way around.
  • Sep 25, '08 by Kree_Boy's avatar Kree_Boy
  • I mean this with no disrespect with what im going to say joshschr....but do you have any idea about what is being discussed here..."Eat a Dick"....hmmm...if these finacial institutions fall....or even flounder to the point of bankruptcy.....your current way of life is pretty much over....maybe not with in this year....but you will certainly feel it within the next. While i do agree with you about "Who Should Eat the Dick"...i dont agree with your points about "Making Them Eat the Dick" and basically just letting it go down the tubes....

    and evilthecat....if you paid close attention to the last few days...its been the republicans that have been rasing cain over the deal to begin with, i.e. goverment has no place in the private sector.....the only reason the democrats are being focused upon for holding anything up is bcause they want to add more to the bill.........

    I'm just waiting for this to be all put on Bush.....like he runs the Treasury Department and sets the rules over there......his hands are clean....most of the laxxing laws for homeloans and refinacing were set in place under Clinton....to buy votes for his second term....thats why home purchases were up under his administration...and the economy did so well....there was alot of money being spent and borrowed in the marketplace...thats why everything looked good durring the 90s...and started to collapse 5yrs later....he patched the problem steming from the late 80s with gum and ducktape....The only thing bush has on his head are the current war...and energy concerns...

    The Finacial structure of this country did go down hill when Bush became commander and chief...but it was only after he inherited it from Bill...
    who inherited it from "a" Bush...
    who inherited it from Regan...
    anyway back to Bush...like handing a claculus paper to a jock thats been hit one to many times....Bush didnt even see it comming because his yes men just kept saying everyting was fine...thats what happens when you "right hand men" keep using the same hand to give you a stroke job every now and then....

    Hope that last line isnt out of place...but thats how i see it...and ive put in quite a few days of research..
    • Sep 28, '08 by evlthecat's avatar evlthecat
    • If you don't believe Bush has blame in this you have lost your mind.. No he doesn't run the Treasury Department but he is their boss.. If you choose to run the country then its your head on the stick, you better know what the hell is going on. Everyone sticks their head in the sand while the numbers are nice, but as soon as the poop hits the fan everyone starts pointing fingers. Th buck stops with the president...

      You are right about Clinton though! This crap did start with him!

      I hate to break it to you Kree_Boy but the Republican party is a house divided. Part want the bail out, and the others, kissing up to Newt Gingrich, don't. We already know why Newt wants government out of his business, because he is a crook. As for the Democrats they are along for the ride..

      That 700bill isn't going to cover the whole cost of the trillions that this debacle is going to cost. It is meant as a band aid till the next poor slob gets to be President.

      This isn't over with the 700bil and the American people are the ones going to suffer and unfortunately it is our own damn fault.
    • Sep 29, '08 by joshschr's avatar joshschr
    • Were I able to write it over, I might take out the vulgarity, but the sentiment would remain. They took the risk, lost, and now because no one was saying "hey, maybe you guys should slow down because if you fail, you'll drag the whole economy down," we're on the hook.

      If it weren't for Iraq, I might believe that Bush is just trying to deal with a mess someone else handed to him. I'd have my doubts, but I could swallow it. Now, with no WMD's, New Orleans, and the economy, I just don't believe it. Hi smoke, where's fire? He's a Harvard MBA, we've been in a credit crunch for over a year, and all of the sudden we have to come up with a solution in a weekend? Something stinks.
  • Sep 29, '08 by evlthecat's avatar evlthecat
  • My prediction is that Pelosi will have to apologize for her comments, and the President will have to fire Paulson and then the House Republicans will pass the stupid bail out package.

    Hahahaha.... can anyone say "when pigs fly". I need a beer.
  • Sep 30, '08 by Rocket2600's avatar Rocket2600
  • The gov't (president) didn't get the banks into trouble, so the damn gov't shouldn't be the ones to get them out of it. If I open a comic shop and in 3 months start to go under because of the way I ran it, well hell I can not just run to the mayor of my city and ask for say $10k to smooth things over until I can get on my feet.

    I don't feel sorry for people that got in over their heads. They can move to an apartment or smaller house that they should have been living in the first place. If they lied or con themselves (not the bank) into thinking "they could make it" and now are sinking. Oh well. Time to swim or sink.

    Some people and businesses need to grow up and stop looking for hand outs anytime they get into trouble.
  • Sep 30, '08 by dough boy's avatar dough boy
  • I heard an interview with the Don today (Donald Trump for those not in the know). He made a good observation. The whole point of the bailout is to remove debt from the industry's books so they can lend again.

    All along we have talked about the Government buying up the bad debt, but why not buy up the good debt instead? It has the same effects for the banks (frees up capital), and a lot less downfall for the people.
  • Sep 30, '08 by joshschr's avatar joshschr
  • http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/stock_market_posts_record_point?utm_source=onion_rss_daily
    "Congress really let the American people down, or really stood up for them. Honest to god, I got no fuckin' clue anymore."
World Community Grid Logo
ComicBookRealm.com: 54 years, 24 days, 15 hours of Run Time
Help projects like: Smash Childhood Cancer, OpenZika, Help Stop TB, FightAIDS@Home - Phase 2, Outsmart Ebola Together, Mapping Cancer Markers, FightAIDS@Home
Join World Community Grid today!
  • Newest
  • Timberwolf Entertainment's 321: Fast Comics TPB # 1
  • Marvel Comics's Amazing Spider-Man Issue # 664b
  • Monsters From The Vault's Black Stars Above Issue # 1
  • DC Comics's Detective Comics Issue # 1015b