Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Bush Stampedes Congress to Aid Mortgage Banking Investors
washingtonpost.com — The Bush Adm. unveiled a sinister plan Sunday night rescue super-rich investor/stockholders in mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, offering to extend Taxpayer Public Debt Trillions of $$ by tricking Congress into lending them money and even buying their stock. Greedy owners of the private banking cartel monopoly The Fed glad to lend "money"
AlwaysAwake- 681 diggs
- digg it
- AlwaysAwake, on 07/14/2008, -15/+63Super-rich,mostly European Mega-Banking Investors in the wealth sucking private banking cartel monopoly The Federal Reserve/IRS are licking their lips, as Bush sets up the menu for their final feast of Taxpayer Public Debt, in a dying US Economy, and failing confidence in the worthless fiat "money as debt" US Dollar being injected as interest bearing loans to the US Government of its own "money". If this does not sound logical to us, it is because it isn't; but it is the reality since the unconstitutional 1913 Act of a corrupted and/or intimidated Congress, creating the vulture, The Fed. Now Bush is proposing one last feeding frenzy to permanently enslave the US Taxpayers in a mountain of Debt that can never be repaid. Then, as a newly created 3rd World Nation, The US Government/Taxpayers will be further enslaved by the International Monetary Fund and/or The World Bank for a further feasting on the more than 4000 "secret" capped North Slope oil wells, and our other natural resources until we are sucked dry.
- theBigStink, on 07/14/2008, -13/+1I disagree, its perfectly logical. The Fed does Fannie and Freddie a favor they can't refuse and then JP Morgan does the Fed a favor they can't refuse, everyone is happy.
- lazerus9, on 07/14/2008, -3/+16Correct!
- PeppermintPig, on 07/14/2008, -2/+12It bears little consequence where the oil goes as US citizens would not benefit by its collection. It first goes to those who own the property, or effectively claimed by the government itself and contracted to whomever they deem worthy to gather it.
Again, Bush makes blatant falsehoods by attacking Democrats in Congress for not giving in to his demands to give access to oil sources, but says nothing about the integral matter of REFINING the oil itself into something economically useful, notably gasoline. The tired argument always goes that we can't do anything with the oil, and that it would take at least a decade to make an an economic effect by drilling domestically... but these are things that people have been talking about for nearly two decades.
By limiting choice, and imposing debt onto people, liberty is destroyed piece by piece. Revolt is almost assured, but for the lack of people who see themselves as individuals foremost, as opposed to self ascribed victims and the supporters of populism, or utilitarianism. - nontoxyc, on 07/14/2008, -2/+10GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH
- theNazz, on 07/14/2008, -2/+7Careful of what you ask for... they might be all too happy to follow up on your request.
- Bannedx5, on 07/15/2008, -4/+3Please. People say that ***** alll the time without giving much thought to it. Just some catch phrase, along w/ Ron Paul or what not. Sad really. You'd cower like 90% of the rest of Americans if given that choice. You mean what you say? Then fight. Otherwise STFU
- DeFex, on 07/15/2008, -0/+8i like to hate the super rich just like everyone else, but why exactly would they want a whole country full of fat uneducated slaves? what exactly would they need them for, when they have billions over in china who are already tooled up and used to a much lower cost diet.
however if the US was turned in to a third world country at least it would be good news for the rest of the world who they are sucking dry.- nycmac247, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1false dichotomy
- locojones, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2People who are unhealthy, scared, and uneducated are easy to control, that's why. People who are healthy, confident, and educated are looked upon as troublemakers by government entities.
- didiman, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1they don't, diggers are delusional morons
- netant, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1What is the point of continuing to accumulate wealth, once you possess more wealth than you spend in your lifetime? Its not about accumulating more money; its about accumulating power. Money is merely the units used to reflect relative amounts of power.
The US at the moment, is the wealthiest nation on earth. But the "wealth" is dispersed among the populace. It is such, that at one point, the bottom 95% actually had more material wealth than the top 5% of the country. So how do you keep accumulating more power? You loot it where you can get it. If the bottom 95% is willing to be fleeced, its just a case of natural selection eliminating the weak in favor of the fittest.
Its not an issue of the super-rich making a country of fat, uneducated slaves. Its a matter of cultivating exploitable people over decades, and then cashing out when the party is over. You can look at vultures and necrotic bacteria as evil, but really, they're just doing what is their nature.
Where people get confused is the notion that money has an intrinsic value. It does not. It is merely a medium used to help transfer items of value, without the direct use of a weapon. What happens when the uber-rich finally collapse the US economy? They don't get poorer. They will still own the property which has intrinsic value. They will still control the food production, the water, and whatever manufactured good that has value. And they will still control the legislatures that pass laws to take money from you. And you will be paying for the military that will shoot you when you actually try to assert your "rights".
Or, you can wake up and realize the media called the newspapers, TV, and radio are there to mislead you. And that you need to assert your best interests before you will need to risk losing whatever you have left. You don't do that by saying "they're all crooks, and its hopeless, I won't bother voting."
- stonebear, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2"If I have a milkshake, and you have a milkshake..."
- jivatmanx, on 07/15/2008, -3/+1Then chuck Norris has more milkshake than you.
- Ostermayer, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1this starts degrading the laze faire system of government and creates a very slippery slope.
- MarkEarhart, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Time to take our country and our assets back while ridding ourselves forever of those in government who created this disaster and those they created it with.
- imacommi, on 07/14/2008, -14/+29I'm not one that usually favors this type of action, but these firms represent almost the entire mortgage market and their mandate implies a federal government backing. These are basically government firms anyway, and without this type of action if these two firms go under we are talking about a global depression like we have never seen before. I don't like the idea of potentially doubling our public debt, but the idea of letting these firms fail is equally as disastrous and probably worse. I'm not saying I agree completely with the plan, but I don't like idea of letting these firms fail especially when the government is responsible for creating these firms and a big part of this mess in the first place...
- kemp34, on 07/14/2008, -3/+21Well, these firms need to be unwound and disbanded going forward.
- imacommi, on 07/14/2008, -0/+14Very unlikely. There is a much bigger chance that these firms will be nationalized before they disband them. Whether or not you agree with the purpose of these firms, they do a great deal to help a whole lot of home owners/buyers in this country. Odds are that if you own a home and you didn't put 20% or more down that these firms are the reason you were able to purchase your home in the first place. I don't know if you own your own home or how you bought it but Fannie and Freddie represent over 80% of the mortgage market share and were given their mission by the Federal government to promote mortgage market liquidity. Without them the mortgage market in the U.S. would virtually dry up and home ownership would not be nearly as easy as it is today. While I don't necessarily think the government should be involved in most things I don't see anyone comming up with a better idea about how to promote mortgage market liquidity. While you might not agree with the reasons these firms were created in the first place, given their government mandate and backing there would be HUGE implications if these firms go under, what do you propse that we should do about it?
- kemp34, on 07/14/2008, -1/+14The thing is, if these firms had not been started in the first place, the insane credit, housing and mortgage bubble of the past 10 years would not have been possible. These firms played a huge role in blowing the bubble. The only people helped by the bubble were long term home buyers, and even many of them probably blew it by spending their unnatural equity on a bunch of BS (I am sure some have lived reasonably and done well). People who get killed by unnatural government bubbles include most normal people, i.e. those who want to buy a home, but don't want a $300,000+ mortgage hanging over their head (I live in the Bay Area, CA a $300,000 home here is pretty ***** thanks in part to Fannie and Freddie).
What I think you fail to realize is that many people benefit from home prices NOT going up 15% per year. Those who are looking to buy or who may have entered the market with more sane valuations. Additionally, how did Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "help" anyone who bought a home in 2006 and 2007 with 10% or less down who now have ZERO equity (if not negative) because the unnatural prices have collapsed? If not for these false enterprises, prices would have been more representative of reality and we would not have had this huge boom and bust.
Going forward, given that I am now a part owner and creditor of these two firms as an American taxpayer, I would like to see their positions gradually unwound in as savvy of a way as possible. I'd like to see a return to local and community banking, with real-life standards and actual due diligence, I'd like to not send mortgages to China and out-of-state pensions.
And in terms of myself, given that I graduated school in 2004 when the housing bubble was already starting, I stayed away from buying an over-priced home and burdening myself with a massive mortgage I could not afford. I have been renting since and I plan on doing such for a while until all this madness shakes out and Americans wake up to reality - a home is not a birthright.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ill conceived from the beginning, the outcome of their existence has come home to roost and they should be disbanded going forward. It is really simple. - imacommi, on 07/14/2008, -0/+8These firms were created out of the new deal (fannie was at least and freddie came about later). I don't like the idea of government interference in most anything and I agree that there is probably a better way to acchieve the same result but you didn't really offer up any suggestion on how to provide market liquidity.
Should the government interfere in the open market? Probably not. But I do agree that if you pass the proper legislation that it can help sometimes. You say that the mortgage bubble would not have happend if it weren't for these firms and you might be correct in that statement but the fault of the sub-prime bubble lays more with the mortgage insurers than these guys, and when it really comes down to it I lay the blame with the mortgage brokers and bankers for allowing these loans in the first place. Maybe a good idea for government intervention would have been to limit the types of loans that these people are allowed to loan to borrowers. Sub-prime wasn't even really around 10 and 15 years ago and the majority of the problems in this market are not with prime conforming GSE loans, it is with sub-prime loans.
I do happen to realize that people benefit from home prices not going up at 15% a year, and that type of growth is unsustainable (depending on what the growth is in terms of, Real Estate is a real asset and holds a value of its own based on it's tangibility, but growth in dollar terms in irrelevant, what is important is real growth). I don't believe that a 15% growth rate each year is either sustainable or healthy
What I AM saying is that these firms were created with a mandate by the US government and carry an implicite gaurantee from the Gov (this is not an actual guarantee but more of an assumed one); and if they fail there will be a whole lot more pain than you think. I should point out that I don't agree with government bailouts but I don't have an answer to this problem. Unwinding them going forward might be a good idea. I have no problem with putting 20% down for anyhome I might consider buying. But, the implications of a collapse in these firms would almost definitely signal a global depression and I am not very happy about that. All and all we are all ***** either way we look at it. I just think that you aren't thinking about the implications of what happens in a failure scenario.
Just so you know, I used to work at a Mortgage Insurer so I have some insight into how this stuff works. I currently work for an independent research firm in NYC. I'm not just pulling this all out of my ass. There will be problems any way we look at it. What I want to know is, what do you think is the best way to solve this problem? A simple disbanding of these firms wont work; but it seems obvious that in their current form it might not work either. So far, at the current and predicted default rates, these companies will be fine and have plenty of capital; the problem comes with the stress scenarios where you take those losses and stress them 2x, 3x, 5x, 10x. At those stress levels we will see a catestrophic failure and will certainly be in what many would consider a second great depression. My question is, how do you think this can be prevented and how would you change the GSEs and their mission? - allowners, on 07/14/2008, -2/+9I think there is much confusing of these firms and their purposes with deregulation, which allowed unlimited abuse, all part of a concerted pattern to discredit any program with any government involvement. The Republicans have been very shrewd in purposely destroying and discrediting anything associated with government, whereupon they then cry: "Look how horrible government is!"
The Democrats are now beginning to play along with this ploy, not surprising given they are cloaked corporatists. It's quite easy to confirm your story when you control the government.
It couldn't be more obvious at this point that the very purpose of the Bush administration was to destroy the people's government. People go on and on about New World Orders and such, yet it is nothing more than good old fashioned aristocracy at work spinning reality for the hoi polloi with their special blend of yarn. - rezonq3, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Damn, quality debate gentlemen. I commend all of you in this thread.
- kemp34, on 07/14/2008, -3/+21Well, these firms need to be unwound and disbanded going forward.
- CoolHandLuke70, on 07/14/2008, -4/+53Does anyone else out there getting a sick feeling in their stomachs like you are reaching the top of the hill in a roller coaster ride only to find that the backside of the track is missing?
- Rabbit63, on 07/15/2008, -1/+4That is a very good analogy actually.
Yes, the tracks after the top have been torn up and sold for scrap, sorry about that folks..........
At least you'll arrive back where you started from, a whole lot quicker this way. - Nextrix, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Ah I see you are using Bill Hicks analogy somewhere in there. Good work.
It's just a ride.
- Rabbit63, on 07/15/2008, -1/+4That is a very good analogy actually.
- kemp34, on 07/14/2008, -7/+65Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were STUPID ides from the beginning. This is a fascist/socialist endeavor to its core folks and it is another piece in the utter zapping of the American economy and the freedom, peace and prosperity of the American people.
Look, owning a home is a great thing, but trying to jigger the market via government intervention will ALWAYS, I repeat, ALWAYS end up in disaster like we are witnessing today. The government should never have floated these faulty companies. Now we are seeing the outcome that was GUARANTEED FROM THE BEGINNING.
The free individual (taxpayer) should not be forced to bail out ill-conceived government sponsored mortgage entities. Due to extreme long term government intervention (in nearly everything everywhere), we are headed to hell in a handbasket.
This trouble is the government's doing and MORE government is NOT the solution. - 2bsbc, on 07/14/2008, -4/+28These two GSEs hold a total of around 5 Trillion dollars in mortgages. The US GDP is around 13 trillion and dropping. That means Freddie and Fannie hold almost HALF of our countries total GDP in faulty mortgages. With property values dropping, and people losing jobs in a faltering economy; there will be no turn around. It's only a matter of time before we see the total collapse of the markets, and our country possibly losing it's AAA rating.
- kemp34, on 07/14/2008, -5/+17I think it is nearly a guarantee these morons have and will continue to debauch the US financial position eliminating the AAA rating and putting us ALL at risk of bankruptcy.
The Federal Reserve needs to be abolished before it pulls everyone down with the titanic.- 2bsbc, on 07/14/2008, -4/+13I couldn't agree with you more kemp.
- StingingNettle, on 07/14/2008, -2/+8The only way they will restore my confidence in the market (since that's what they are trying to do now), is if they throw all these people responsible in jail. CEO's of subprime lenders, rating agencies, hedge funds, and the crooks in the FED and government who encouraged it all.
- trendygamer, on 07/15/2008, -4/+6Uh...the US GDP is NOT dropping...where the hell do you get your information?
- 2bsbc, on 07/15/2008, -3/+4Well, first you go here:
http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp
Then you compare current guidance, with that of the past; do some simple math, and surprise; you have a forecast model that shows a GDP that's going into decline.
That's how independent minded investors do it. What do you do, wait for the market oracle, Jim Cramer to tell you?
And, before you come back with more *****; wait for a quarter and then get back to me. I'll be right and you'll be wrong. If you prove me wrong, I'll admit to my mistake.
- 2bsbc, on 07/15/2008, -3/+4Well, first you go here:
- JHB800, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3Inaccurate 2BSBC-
Freddie and Fannie's TOTAL mortgage portfolio is 5 trillion dollars. The only way taxpayers would be on the hook for that amount is if EVERY SINGLE mortgage issued by those two firms failed. Even the companies have acknowledged that that situation will not occur, and that losses would likely not exceed a few hundred billion dollars. (still a significant amount, but nowhere near $5 trillion)- 2bsbc, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3You're right. There is some value to the assets; however, it is no where near the 5 trillion. I would imagine that the majority of these mortgages are not worth more than 50% of their original amount. That still puts our treasuries in a very precarious position. And could in turn cost us our AAA rating.
- JHB800, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3True. Its not a good situation no matter how you look at it.
- digitalme, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2Also, note that GDP is the sum of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year. Mortgages are *not* included in GDP, because they aren't a final good or service -- a mortgage is just money being moved around. If Fannie and Freddy fail, it will certainly be rather bad, but it won't mean that $5 trillion of our GDP will just disappear.
On another note, there is a turnaround, it's just not a terribly pleasant one. It would mean a long and severe depression before our country got back up to speed.
- kemp34, on 07/14/2008, -5/+17I think it is nearly a guarantee these morons have and will continue to debauch the US financial position eliminating the AAA rating and putting us ALL at risk of bankruptcy.
- Truzseeker, on 07/14/2008, -2/+21because of coming lawsuits, its to protect the guilty ... http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/bracing-storm.ph ...
- StingingNettle, on 07/14/2008, -4/+41This congress is so worthless, they are going to go right along with this crap. Say hello to the U.S. peso.
- rz8472, on 07/15/2008, -2/+7Que?
- rugrat54, on 07/14/2008, -5/+13The biggest way to end them taking money from you is to end paying the Income tax.
- Chassit, on 07/14/2008, -5/+13SAY NO TO THIS TRAVESTY.
Let these irresponsible companies suffer the consequences of their poor decisions instead of hoisting it off on us, the tax payer.- brizna, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I hate to break it to you, but the failure of these companies would hurt the US consumer far worse than a 70 billion dollar bailout.
The most immediate effect of these companies failing would be at least a 2% increase in mortgage rates. On a 10 trillion dollar market, thats 200 billion PER YEAR that this would cost the US consumer. At which point house prices would further collapse, consumer spending would sharply tighten, and we would be in a recession the likes this country hasn't seen for 70 years. - Myonosken, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1***** the US economy for a minute, and look at the bigger picture. If these companys fail there will be a GLOBAL recession.
- darkened, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Actually I'm not seeing any down side to mortgage rates going up and home values falling. Oh you thought your home was an investment, too bad.
- brizna, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I hate to break it to you, but the failure of these companies would hurt the US consumer far worse than a 70 billion dollar bailout.
- Fangsinmybeard, on 07/14/2008, -3/+4Damn! I wished I saw this first before sharing that last article.
- stienster, on 07/14/2008, -3/+9I feel sick
- rrouse, on 07/14/2008, -6/+27Welfare for the rich.
- nontoxyc, on 07/14/2008, -4/+11The dominos are all toppling now.
- deleo, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4I work in investment real estate and many of my co-workers (not me) understood why they bailed out Bear Sterns, it was a leak in the boat, and the Gov't had to plug it to keep the ship afloat. But now we are seeing too many leaks - in the coming months there will be too much to plug. Around my office some folks aren't using the "R" word anymore, they're stepping up to the "D" word now.
- bobjohnsonmilw, on 07/15/2008, -2/+7So how do I cash in on this train wreck? That's what every scumbag on wall street is now thinking, right? I mean, seriously for how much longer is this mess going to continue to get worse?
- crapmatic, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Short Best Buy?
- holmesfour, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Well I suppose if you really have a negative outlook you could short the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
- oneiroi, on 07/15/2008, -4/+19Strange...it takes him forever to get anything done...New Orleans...but when it's a business he's all over it.
- CHANNELOCK, on 07/15/2008, -6/+3Kinda weird,I was at Von's and I wanted to buy bags of rice to hoard.
I'm worried that the store selves will be depleted in a financial collapse that America might be heading.
Is this an overreaction?
I mean... would 10 bags of rice make a difference?- Rabbit63, on 07/15/2008, -1/+310 bags of rice will keep you eating, until they run out.
I am steadily building up stores of basics and also getting a large collection of NON hybrid vegetable seeds. But those of us who are doing this quietly and stealthily notice we are not alone. A few more here and there like me seem to have half a shopping trolley worth of some staple, alongside the usual shopping each week. I live in Australia by the way where things are far from as bad as the USA and not likely to get anywhere near as bad in the long term either.
However here (Perth) like most cities has very limited stocks of many items on the shelves and supermarkets are emptied of the basics within 24 hours of a major transport strike for example. A major transport strike is nothing compared to what might ensue once the USA finally rolls over on her back or if she is stupid enough to attack Iran. - CHANNELOCK, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I'm in L.A and it has but a few major Highway leading into this vast hungry city,I have enough food to last about a month and that's it,I think rice would be good because it stores but it also needs water and fuel ...that's a real negative.Canned food is the best but it just takes up so much room,I'm thinking maybe a chicken broth in a can as you get water and nursment...but maybe the salt that is loaded in the can can cause dehydration?
- Rabbit63, on 07/15/2008, -1/+310 bags of rice will keep you eating, until they run out.
- chase001, on 07/15/2008, -3/+22Privatize profits and socialize losses: welcome to corpo-fascist America.
- kosser, on 07/15/2008, -2/+15When they back these companies we the people lose, the dollar loses value, the economy goes further into a rut, and it sets a precedent for other companies to do the same. Let them fail and let the market correct itself. the federal reserve is ruining this country if you haven't figured it out by now you never will. just research it.
- redwritinghood, on 07/15/2008, -12/+15Oh my God you people are so ridiculous! Would you prefer to just sit back and watch our whole economy spin into the abyss? If you've ever owned a house or planned to own a house, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae would be your best friends. Were mistakes made? No doubt. But letting our economy go to hell in a hand basket won't help. Welfare for the rich? Do you think only rich people are homeowners? Good God you people are so scary. Plenty of people who had their assets at IndyMac were not rich. Tell them about it. The majority of Diggers are young, intelligent, and lacking in experience. Knowing everything there is to know about a computer DOES NOT give you carte blanche intelligence in every other area of life! Try to see the bigger picture, for Pete's sake.
- Goldbricker, on 07/15/2008, -2/+9Yeah some of these guys are getting a little nutty in here. This is actually a good thing. I work as an appraiser and in the past 6-12 mo. I've noticed a tremendous shift towards FHA loans. These loans have a lot stricter regulation and underwriting procedures. This is a GOOD thing. Gone are the wild west days of the subprime market. It's going to take a long time to fix and it is going to hurt, but steps like this are actually positive moves in the right direction. I actually HATE Bush and I think he's finally gotten something right for a change.
- redwritinghood, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1I was a mortgage lender in Colorado for three years. I always stayed away from subprime. It doesn't take a genius to know that the "buy now...worry later" mentality will bite you (and everyone else) in the butt every time. The pendulum swings wildly, but it always has to come back to the middle, doesn't it. Thanks for your voice of reason.
- richardstaboner, on 07/15/2008, -4/+1So Ridiculous!!!!!!! OMG!! OMG!!!!!!! Abyss!
Little dramatic there buddy. My objection is that tax payers money (and A LOT of it) is going towards helping the homeowners This would be fine.... except it's everybody's tax dollars and, well, not everyone owns a home. On top of this there were quite a few home purchasers who knew they could not afford these homes, yet 'invested' anyways. Now the government is going to bail them out.- MikeFallopian, on 07/15/2008, -2/+2Some people were poorly informed, others made stupid home investments - you can argue all you want that the mortgage companies and homeowners are "getting what they deserve", but to say that the government shouldn't intervene is short-sighted. If Fannie and Freddie were to, say, go bankrupt, the impact would not be limited to homeowners who signed the dotted line on poorly considered mortgages. A ton of other homeowners would be instantly affected, and the economic ripples would end up hurting nearly everyone in the country.
- pixelguru, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3I don't pretend to know much about financial matters that are measured in trillions of dollars, so someone please enlighten me... what exactly *would* happen if Freddie & Fannie went belly-up?
What would be the impact to:
1) Those who currently have a mortgage owned by them?
2) Those who were looking for credit?
3) The nation as a whole? - richardstaboner, on 07/15/2008, -1/+0I just think there has to be some form of accountability.
- Myonosken, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1@pixelguru: It would be 4) The world economy in general
- redwritinghood, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1"Little dramatic there buddy. My objection is that tax payers money (and A LOT of it) is going towards helping the homeowners"
Taxpayers are helping homeowners? Ha! You want to talk about taxes, how about the 6,000.00 per year in property taxes I pay in Texas on a home valued just under 200,000? Who's helping me? I'll tell you who.....I am.
- Rabbit63, on 07/15/2008, -6/+4Ha ha ha. Nothing like whistling even louder as the darkness grows deeper.
So many morons with no idea what is about to hit them.
This is going to be hilarious soon. I just hope the internet stays up so we can see all these fruit loops in delusion as they realise the ***** has actually hit the fan after all and everything they have been denying is here with a vengeance and denial is no longer an option.
I am as ready as a man can be to tackle the worst that could come, but these poor bozos who think that everything is just going through a little bit of a rough patch which the clever leaders and bankers will soon get in order are just going to be a million laughs once reality bites. - donjuan571, on 07/15/2008, -2/+3Hey now it will be easier for the Government to kick people out of their homes along the midwestern corridor so they can make space for their super highway...
- zephc, on 07/15/2008, -2/+2Grab a beer and watch the world burn. Might be good for a lark.
- koft, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2Less religion please.
- sporg, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2"The majority of Diggers are young, intelligent, and lacking in experience."
Still Better than being a 45 year old menopausal woman I'll wager.
Home ownership is one of the biggest scams of all time. While the bank sits back and collects mortgage payments you must pay all costs to maintain the property and pay all of the taxes and maintain the insurance. Meanwhile if you miss a payment or two due to unforeseeable hardship they can start foreclosure and get ready to sell it all over again. People love to talk about "home ownership" rates but what they are really talking about is the number of people paying mortgages to Banks.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Home-Ownership---The-Gre ...- darkened, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I agree, I see rising mortgage rates and falling home prices to be a great thing, you know so we can go back to the days where we actually bought a house? Not sold a mortgage?
- Goldbricker, on 07/15/2008, -2/+9Yeah some of these guys are getting a little nutty in here. This is actually a good thing. I work as an appraiser and in the past 6-12 mo. I've noticed a tremendous shift towards FHA loans. These loans have a lot stricter regulation and underwriting procedures. This is a GOOD thing. Gone are the wild west days of the subprime market. It's going to take a long time to fix and it is going to hurt, but steps like this are actually positive moves in the right direction. I actually HATE Bush and I think he's finally gotten something right for a change.
- richardstaboner, on 07/15/2008, -5/+7Hey Nancy, can we impeach him yet?
- tsotha, on 07/15/2008, -2/+4What the hell does this have to do with Bush? Pelosi is more at fault here than Bush is. He was just governor of Texas when Congress was getting this ball rolling in 1999.
- richardstaboner, on 07/15/2008, -4/+0Bush is trying to tell the Wall St investors who gambled on these risky mortgages (yes, the investment banks package them and trade them as securities) that everything is cool.... while the American tax payer subsidizes their ***** up.
And tsotha.... how dare your question Richard 'Boner' Stabone. How dare you! Shame on you tsotha, shame on you!
- richardstaboner, on 07/15/2008, -4/+0Bush is trying to tell the Wall St investors who gambled on these risky mortgages (yes, the investment banks package them and trade them as securities) that everything is cool.... while the American tax payer subsidizes their ***** up.
- tsotha, on 07/15/2008, -2/+4What the hell does this have to do with Bush? Pelosi is more at fault here than Bush is. He was just governor of Texas when Congress was getting this ball rolling in 1999.
- cc1263, on 07/15/2008, -2/+4Where is an honest person in the know. I am also very concerned as to whether I need to prepare for unbridled chaos. Help.
- nontoxyc, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2you should have started getting ready in may
- chiefslady1, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Actually, we should have started preparations for the New Year at the latest.
- nontoxyc, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2you should have started getting ready in may
- diyonisia, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2Plausible deniability. That's what it comes down to with this Admin. Manipulating the truth so people won't question them. Also read about the Red Cross report recommending that Bush be tried for war crimes, stating that the techniques used in Guantanamo are "categorically" torture. www.humanrightsresearch.blogspot.com
- MikeFallopian, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2Yes, torture is very bad. But what does it have to do with offering credit lines to mortgage firms?
- diyonisia, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1You're right--not a lot. I just read that Red Cross Report and was livid and had to share. Thanks for the reply.
- MikeFallopian, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2Yes, torture is very bad. But what does it have to do with offering credit lines to mortgage firms?
- wushihao168, on 07/15/2008, -7/+0AD rigt chinadigg 80party
http://www.80party.cn - Odaecom, on 07/15/2008, -2/+8I would ask how come it took the Feds so long to do something to stop this from happening, but that would imply thought.
5 years ago I knew that it was broken when I could have gotten a loan for $500K to buy a 5 year old shoebox with a door and a window (condo listed new at $120K).and the Fed continued to drop the rate to borrow money which drove home prices up further. I guess with King George W. telling everyone the economy is great, (he only meant for those who move money). The Fed reserve listened, or just did as they were told.
The entire county fell for the Pump and Dump scam of the century.- JHB800, on 07/15/2008, -1/+5The issuing of bad loans began when Clinton signed the law the law repealing the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933, which severely regulated mortgage lenders. Since then, it has been a snowball effect, as bad mortgages spread throughout the entire industry.
Believe it or not, but Bush isn't responsible for everything wrong in the world.- koft, on 07/15/2008, -0/+5nonono, it all started when we created the federal reserve.
- Odaecom, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Yes I agree its not all Gordon Gecko um I mean not all King W's. fault. Its not only house loans but credit card loans that are compounding the problem, too many people I know refinanced to pay off credit card debt then ran the cards right back up, not only cause they weren't thinking but its too easy.
The consumer protection agency has not done its job in making sure that banks act in responsible ways.
If the banks would do the right thing and treat potential clients like they were their teenage children, they would not be giving out money so readily
- JHB800, on 07/15/2008, -1/+5The issuing of bad loans began when Clinton signed the law the law repealing the Glass-Steagal Act of 1933, which severely regulated mortgage lenders. Since then, it has been a snowball effect, as bad mortgages spread throughout the entire industry.
- patpl22391, on 07/15/2008, -2/+10Please, blame Bush all you want, all the big gov't types in Congress want it to. Say no to all of them, Republicans and Democrats alike.
- boozinf, on 07/15/2008, -2/+5The creature strikes again!
http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Feder ... - tufftugg, on 07/15/2008, -4/+6Revelations: "For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster and all the company in ships, and sailors, and many as trade by sea, stood afar off.
- Lunares, on 07/15/2008, -5/+12What do you people not understand about the fact that if those two companies go down, it basically ushers in GLOBAL recession. Not just destroying the economy of the US (which it would do most thoroughly) but also helping to bring down all the economies of Europe and Asia. Those economies wouldn't collapse like the US would, but they most likely wouldn't be better for it.
Now I don't know about most of you morons, but I like the fact that I can work, make money, and buy the things I want for reasonable prices. Even with gas prices the way they are I do not have a problem going to work, going to college, as well as some luxuries.
Not to mention both of those companies aren't in danger of going under so much as this is a precaution against them doing so.
I never understand why people are so fanatical against the government and bush. Yes they have made mistakes, everyone has. It isn't like they are evil people out to destroy the country though. No matter what you think of them, this country going down the tubes is not in their best interest. Nobody can really profit from america being destroyed. (besides crazy terrorists I guess). - donjuan571, on 07/15/2008, -3/+4"trick" congress?
- 3tcp, on 07/15/2008, -3/+3These are government sponsored institutions that are essential to the operation of the home mortgage industry. If they fail then the economy gets a hell of a lot worse.
- hivoltage815, on 07/15/2008, -2/+8Bush is a socialist for the rich. Whatever happened to true conservatism, did it die?
- splorpdotorg, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Yes. Remember, being against gay marriage is much more important than fiscal conservatism.
- cc1263, on 07/15/2008, -1/+4The problem isn't just that they've made mistakes, they have flouted their seemingly unchecked power to the real citizens of this nation. They have ignored the constitution, led us into a quagmire(Iraq), and basically given the American public a big F U. Look at the state of things. When this many Americans are getting involved in politics things must be getting bad.
- cronian, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2The whole credit creation system is ***** up. Fannie and Freddie can't be allowed to fail, because the whole system depends upon mortgage debt. We should restructure the financial system to provide more credit to small businesses, and other things. More long-term investment in clean energy technoogy might be a good place to start. Improved infrastructure would also be a good idea. Investment in high-tech manufacturing and biotech is also good. Where the payoffs are longer term, and/or capital costs are high, there needs to be more public support. Instead we just get more bubbles over-valuing investment in the same things.
- trogdor1289, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2Thank goodness there are some people showing sense on here. Sure Bush is kinda corrupt but then so are a bunch of democrats, if you want to blame anyone for this mess blame the lobbyist farce. Lobbyists are ruining the government direct your anger at them.
- richardstaboner, on 07/15/2008, -2/+0define 'kinda'.... i'm just saying ;)
- MikeFallopian, on 07/15/2008, -4/+3Words and phrases in the digg summary that do not show up in the article: sinister, super-rich, 'tricking Congress', greedy, 'private banking cartel monopoly', "money". Disagreeing with the government's bailout plan is fine; misrepresenting the article to which you link is just annoying.
- cc1263, on 07/15/2008, -1/+4We have to take to the streets and raise some hell(non-violently) if we ever expect to change anything. I would like to get the ball rolling for a rally/march on D.C. to at least let them know we're fed up. Voting and contacting our leaders doesn't seem to work very well when those in power have so cleverly divided and conquered the population at large with wedge issues. Who's with me?
- heliox, on 07/15/2008, -4/+4Buried for sensationalized title.
No where does it say Bush pushed this through.
And te two congressmen quoted are Dems...
Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an interview that he expects the thrust of what Paulson requested will be approved by the House this week ..."
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the Joint Economic Committee, also welcomed the plan."
Bush is a dim bulb, but place blame fairly. - Snarfy, on 07/15/2008, -1/+4The risks are socialized while the profits are privatized. It's complete ***** and we are all getting ripped off over this. Any bailout should result in a ridiculously high tax on those profits but we all know that won't happen. This is the exact mechanism how the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
- facttech, on 07/15/2008, -2/+5Anyone saying these companies have a government mandate and therefore should be backed by the government in failure aren't taking into account they are just private corporations. (Freddie Mac been private since inception in 1970. Fannie Mae was originally a government program but: "First established in 1938 as a government agency, Fannie Mae in 1968 became a private, shareholder-owned company [i.e. was privatized -ed] with a charter from Congress requiring the company to support the housing finance system." @ http://www.fanniemae.com/faq/faq8.jhtml?p=FAQ)
"GSE" (Government Sponsored Entity) is a very misleading label. It means only that the companies were given significant latitude and government cooperation in the form of favorable rules and regulation. In this case, those rules were too restrictive for the private shareholders' liking, so longstanding and relatively stringent requirements for loans were thrown out the window while the regulators looked the other way, so these private companies could cash in on subprime loans along with the rest of the sector. As far as I can tell, the main purpose of the name "GSE" is to confuse the debate when the companies are in trouble (like now).
Don't forget that, although Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hold $5 trillion in mortgages, not all of those mortgages will go bad. The goal in bailing them out here is to provide the money that the private shareholders *hoped* to get from those higher interest subprime loans, by having taxpayers buy up the bad loans and suffer the downside of the defaults.
It is true that shutting down the companies would wreak havoc on the greater economy, but, then again, one could always create a new Fannie Mae (maybe one that DOESN'T get privatized) to fulfill the function of creating market liquidity, saving the economy without providing golden parachutes for well-connected private investors who took a risk and don't like the results. - CaptainBukko, on 07/15/2008, -4/+4Burried as inaccurate, Bush is not stampeding congress or tricking them, FTA:
"Treasury officials said last night that they were confident Congress will be able to pass the new laws they seek by the end of the week as part of a broad housing bill under consideration on Capitol Hill."
Bush does not control Congress and signing something that both houses pass does not make it him solely responsible for the legislation. Otherwise an interesting article, next time submit it without your biased opinions.- gimpbully, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1bush does not controll congress.. that's a statement I've been mulling over for a while now. Can you please cite evidence, I'm desperate for any that might prove that statement.
- BuzzFriendly, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3This is a prime example of why you do not let the government get involved in socialist programs. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae is Government Sponsored Enterprise. They were a problem created to solve a problem. Guess what now we are creating a new problem to fix a problem that was created to solve a problem. Now just imagine the bang up job they are going to do with a national health care plan. The government should return to its basic functions and let the free market correct itself.
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1Should we just make the leap to full socialism and get it over with? We
in the middle class seem to be a nuisance to both the ultra rich and
the masses.- blipblipbeep, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0Soz but i think the middle class has more to offer than the masses.
- deathweaver108, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Whats a little more debt.....
/sigh
I want to move- chiefslady1, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Where could you move to that's much better?
- WhoWatches, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3Greg Palast said it all. We will be a debtor nation that gets sucked dry until we collapse into the next Zimbabwe.
- bdbr, on 07/15/2008, -2/+2A duplicate of earlier front-page articles, but with a description that is complete *****. Buried.
- NelsonR, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2The pigs again have a free ride for slop at the public trough. I thought an investor was one who attempted to make windfalls of profit knowing full well that risk was involved. Now our fine gentlemen of distinction in D.C. will take out that nasty fact, RISK. The rich rule and most Americans are serfs under a cronyism style of government that does not represent you.
All your representatives who oink, kowtowing to every move the Bush administration conducts with the decrepit Democratic parties approval.
They are only putting off the inevitable which is a bankrupt nation, saddled with debt for all our future generations but what the hell, today is what matters. - MrFurious2k, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3I wasn't aware that Bush wrote laws and controlled Congress. I could have sworn it was the Democrats who controlled it...
- nblsavage, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3Really, are you talking about the Senate with is evenly divided, or the House where the Democrats have a mere 37 lead?
- sdavids, on 07/15/2008, -2/+1OK, lets blame Bush about extending a line of credit to these big firms in the amount of 2.25 Billion dollars which account for owning about 1/2 of the housing debt in America. But lets not talk about the Democrat's plans of paying 300 Billion dollars to select families who could not afford the loans. No offense but I think the Bush administration is doing a lot more with a lot less money.
- 2bsbc, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1What is it with skewing the issue? Look, the government is back stopping trillions of dollars in depreciating assets, "mortgages." As these assets lose value it puts our treasuries at risk (which are being used to back the mortgages.) As our treasuries lose value, our dollar loses value. As our dollar loses value, foreign investment leaves the country. As foreign investment leaves the country the government inflates the dollar. As the dollar inflates it becomes worth less. As it becomes worth less, the government is forced to print more to pay it's debts. Eventually defaulting on it's obligations. If we default on an obligation we stand the chance that we could lose the triple a rating we have.
Can we just quit making excuses, and be honest? Lying is what got us into this situation. - Khast, on 07/15/2008, -1/+3http://www.flickr.com/photos/23752910@N06/26626776 ...
need I say more.... -
Show 51 - 68 of 68 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by