What is Digg?164 Comments
- marabout40, on 09/06/2008, -4/+42Silver State Bank (based in Nevada) went under this afternoon. http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=8962050
The depositors are being transferred to Nevada State Bank, and the normal disclaimers apply - debit cards and check transactions will still be honored.
Apart from the obvious "another-failed-bank" why is this important? Well, John McCain's son, Andy, served on the board until late July when he left for "personal reasons."
"A week after Mr. McCain's departure, the Henderson, Nev., company reported a loss of $62.7 million in the second quarter and said its capital -- the bank's cushion to absorb losses -- had eroded significantly. At the same time, Silver State announced the resignations of its chief executive and chairman." http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121876461747243159 ... - duggdowncatisad, on 09/06/2008, -2/+39This sucks, now I'm going to have to listen to all the Ron Paul goldbugs saying "I told you so"
- King0007, on 09/06/2008, -3/+34This Financial Disaster is just starting to play out......
- chmcarro, on 09/06/2008, -2/+28Damn right you are.
- future15tbd, on 09/06/2008, -0/+23Whoa.... It's going to be a fun day Monday when the markets open. At least the executives finally get the boot for running the organizations into the ground. How many millions do you think they'll get?
- stainedworld, on 09/06/2008, -13/+34All coming to us from the policies of Bush/McCain/Gramm. Thanks for another economic disaster.
- enantiodromia, on 09/06/2008, -4/+21step 1: create disaster
step 2: profit
step 3: give the Democrats the Whitehouse
step 4: blame Democrats for the mess
step 5: profit
step 6: wait 20 years for peoples memories to fade
step 7: do the exact same thing
step 8: repeat repeat repeat - afruff23, on 09/06/2008, -5/+21You people promoting social democracy really ought to make up your damn minds. When private lenders wouldn't give loans out to many black people (who happened to be low-income and risky investments), you cried "racism!" and fought for government mandates and regulations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now that the ***** has hit the fan because of these mandates and regulations, you cry "deregulation!". Make up your damn minds.
- omgwtflawl, on 09/06/2008, -10/+26What on earth are you talking about? Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are both agents of government meddling in the economy, socialism in action.
They created the bubble. Republicans should have gotten rid of them entirely, or cut them loose from the government entirely. - cfdude, on 09/06/2008, -0/+15I really liked this comment from another website:
What model ! Privatize the profits, and socialize the loss ...Welfare state for coroprations and tough love for middle class and below . This bailout is nothing but a massive transfer of wealth from the US taxpayers to astronomically rich private investors and foreign governments. The biggest foreign holders of Freddie and Fannie's debts are China, Japan, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, and Belgium. Do you want to bail them out with your tax dollars? Think this needs to change? - afruff23, on 09/06/2008, -8/+22Are you kidding me? The lending market is far from deregulated. There are housing acts for practically every few years; many of which force lenders to give loans to people they otherwise would not have given loans to. And what do you know, these groups were black people with a large percentage of low-income families. In the name of fighting racism (which it was not), this led to big problems.
So, put 2 and 2 together: forcing lenders to give subprime loans + borrowers unable to make payments = defaults. Not to mention the fact that some mortgage companies made it through this crisis unscathed; if lending was regulated further, it would have all come crashing down at once. Also, a bail-out is the antithesis of deregulation. - MrButthead, on 09/06/2008, -0/+13"As politicians call for taxpayer bailouts and a government takeover of troubled mortgage lenders Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, FreedomWorks would like to point out that a bailout is a transfer of possibly hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars to sophisticated investors and governments overseas."
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/chinese-gove ... - inactive, on 09/06/2008, -7/+20What? As if they are deregulated in the first place.
- inactive, on 09/06/2008, -2/+15Fail
- ChessPieceFace, on 09/06/2008, -23/+36FTA: "It is not possible to calculate the cost of any government bailout, but the huge potential liabilities of the companies could cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and make any rescue among the largest in the nation’s history."
So, deregulation of the financial markets turns out to be a not so good policy after all.
Ecce Republican! - gotamd, on 09/06/2008, -5/+18Maybe the government shouldn't have created these guys in the first place, eh?
- theblt, on 09/06/2008, -3/+15"WASHINGTON -- Democrats need “to wake up and smell the coffee,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) told his Senate colleagues today.
Since the Democrats took control of Congress, Hatch added during his speech on the Senate floor, “the price of energy has skyrocketed, our housing market has deteriorated, and the unemployment rate is on the rise. Across the nation, we are feeling the effects of a crumbling economy.”
“It is no wonder why the Congressional approval ratings are at an all time low of 12 percent. Congress has failed to act when Americans need them most,” Hatch continued. "
Don't get me wrong, Bush has done a number on our economy, but our Democratic congress hasn't done anything to help us out. Try and think of a single significant accomplishment with Ms. Pelosi's name on it.
Both sides have ***** up pretty badly. And I haven't heard a single solution from either side that doesn't involve essentially a bailout from the tax-payers, whether it's labeled as a bailout or not. - chubbybubba, on 09/06/2008, -1/+11Mr. Fan, meet Mr. Sh!t.
- audomatix, on 09/06/2008, -0/+10Oh really? Gee Mr. FED I though they had plenty of capital to sustain.... LIE.
- SSPink, on 09/06/2008, -1/+11Just remember, it is not a bailout, Bush said so. Henry Paulson said it is a 'liquidity backstop', which is entirely different.
- Photokon, on 09/06/2008, -1/+10Let me guess, the Obama bots will come out and say Obama would never do this. WRONG. Obama has already said he would bailout Fannie and Freddie. Everyone but Ron Paul would, but that's what happens when the government can't balance a budget and depends on foreign investors to cover deficits.
McCain and Obama are both the enemy. But, what choice does America have, none. One of these two will be President, a new real estate trust will be created to offload all the bad loans onto the tax payer, meanwhile investors will buy at firesale prices on the tax payers dime. Guess 20 years is enough time to repeat the greatest schemes in history. - afruff23, on 09/06/2008, -0/+8@BradHAWK
With more government control of a business comes more strings attached. But in any case, mistakes are completely natural economic events. What is not natural is something on the scale of the subprime crisis. Something collapsing on that large of a scale would be near impossible without some form of outside control (e.g. government control, propaganda, etc.). And if a large-scale collapse occurs naturally, that serves to correct behaviors for the future. Bail-outs prevent these corrections from taking place. - Mizzike, on 09/06/2008, -0/+8Hey, we told you.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. - forgiste, on 09/06/2008, -2/+9You don't think that maybe all of this is part of the plan? They're trying to ruin small fortunes to seize more power for themselves! By They, I mean the big bankers. The BIG big bankers.
- ImaPwner, on 09/06/2008, -2/+9Happy to report the slush fund is intact. Joe Mainstreet and his buds will be picking up the bill, just like in Days of Yore when the House of Cards came crashing down courtesy of John McCain and the Keating Five.
- ronaldst, on 09/06/2008, -2/+9Shhh... Diggers need not know of another fine example on central planning (aka socialism).
- harlowsmonkeys, on 09/06/2008, -0/+6You are rather confused. It's not a bailout of people who signed up for irresponsible loans. Those people are just as screwed after this as they were before.
The purpose of this is to keep it so that responsible people can continue to get loans, so that the housing market won't collapse. - species, on 09/06/2008, -4/+10You are sadly misinformed about economics. The policies of Bush/McCain are not what has caused the financial problems we are in today. The thing that has caused the economic problems that we are facing today is the federal reserve. We have a system that allows the government to create money whenever they need it which inflates the money supply. If you honestly think that Obama's policies will help this country you are sadly mistaken. The policies that Obama supports have been tried before and they put us into a worse financial situation than we are facing now. Ever heard of Jimmy Carter? Obama has almost identical policies as him, and he was arguably one of the worst presidents in history. Creating new government programs that will increase spending and taxing the people who give people jobs in this country will not help the economy. We need to get rid of the federal reserve, cut government spending, and cut taxes. We need to encourage businesses and not discourage them like Obama wants to do. I am by no means a big fan of John McCain, but all you people who think that Obama has change in mind, really need to study history. Obama's proposed policies have been tried and almost destroyed this countries economy. Creating new taxes (even on the rich) is a HORRIBLE idea. Who do you think start businesses that give jobs to the middle class? You should really consider the implications of putting Obama in office.
I'm personally writing in Ron Paul. - RossDuprey, on 09/06/2008, -0/+6Neighborhood banks lent money to people with bad credit. Mortgage lenders then packaged the bad debt into good looking packages and sold them on the market. The housing bubble burst and house prices dropped. The packaged debt is worth way less then advertised, and now the big lenders are left trying to make up the slack. The problem is so large that the government is forced to take on the debt. This is a problem because in a free market, those banks who make the bad deals will die, instead we have socialism where the tax payer pays the debt.
- pdurod, on 09/06/2008, -1/+7The transfer of wealth continues with the GOP. Ordinary tax payers bailing out the wealthy. In the meantime the $12 trillion in offshore accounts balloons.
- cien750hp, on 09/06/2008, -0/+5you can't just blame bush. its been going downhill since 1913.
- camipco, on 09/06/2008, -1/+6Ah, corporate socialism.
One of the great ironies of the US today is that many of it's economic problems are caused by a lack of free markets. Specifically, CEOs are rewarded huge amounts of money regardless of the quality of their performance. Corporate profits are protected from failure by the government using taxpayer money. And it's the right which most enthusiastically supports this fundamentally anti-capitalist economics.
One of the reasons communism collapsed in the USSR is that there were no consequences for economic fraud and failure. There were factories churning out TVs that exploded, but the people running the factories were protected by their friends in the Kremlin, so the exploding TVs kept coming. The Republicans have replicated this delightful system for CEOs in the US. - mehan, on 09/06/2008, -2/+7you are annoying.
- species, on 09/06/2008, -2/+7Deregulated? You call deregulation where their money supply is controlled by the federal government? That doesn't sound like deregulation to me. If banks were truly opened up to free market we wouldn't have these kinds of problems. It is inherently caused by the system that we have forced upon the banks. Government regulation != good systems. Name one government agency that you honestly think is run well.....
- allendy, on 09/06/2008, -0/+5Yep, it looks like my reward for buying a modest house in a modest neighborhood that i could actually afford is to pay to bail out the people who bought houses way out of their price range and didn't bother to research their terms.
- Prosequi, on 09/06/2008, -5/+9You're exactly correct (you knew that though) - these two organizations are government-sponsored enterprises that purchase mortgages from the banks who originate the loans. Without these two embodiments of government intervention in private markets the banks would not have made such risky loans leading to this total government take over. Hopefully this turns out better than Social Security, Medicare, Department of Ed and all of the other sinking government ships.
- inactive, on 09/06/2008, -0/+4The up side is Gold being stupidly cheap right now. It's not too late to prepare, but the time is coming....fast.
- frankidadio, on 09/06/2008, -0/+4I don't know about you, but I'd REALLY like leaders smarter than me taking care of stuff like this....
- ChristPissed, on 09/06/2008, -4/+8There goes the illuminati slush fund . .
- zerries, on 09/06/2008, -0/+4I don't know a lot about these companies or how they got this far into the trouble they are in. Although it seems like it is a result of lending out money that they don't have? I understand that they loan money with the intent of gaining interest on the sum of money that they lent out, but at what point do these people think that when you're already in the hole by billions of dollars that it is still okay to keep lending out money? I agree that it a flawed system from the get go, but dear god how did we let it get to this point?
- cswake, on 09/06/2008, -0/+4Don't kid yourself, the democrats push this as much as the republicans all in the name of helping whatever they can use to sell this nonsense.
- gotamd, on 09/06/2008, -0/+4Stagmire, how do you think people owned homes before the 1940's? It must have been impossible!
- gotamd, on 09/06/2008, -1/+5As others pointed out to you, Fannie and Freddie are by no means examples of deregulation. Fannie was created *by the government* in 1938 and Freddie followed in the 70's. Deregulation my ass.
- BradHAWK, on 09/06/2008, -1/+5"Republicans should have gotten rid of them entirely"
lol - you must be confusing Republicans with Libertarians. - JohnboiWaltune, on 09/06/2008, -1/+5They are too big to fail, and you are too small to matter
- V1ncent, on 09/06/2008, -0/+4Quit your jobs now and the bailout won't cost us a f-ing thing!
- jaybol, on 09/06/2008, -0/+4I appreciate the Proper Noun as well.
- SilverBlade2k, on 09/06/2008, -2/+5Gee, What did the banks think would happen once they started to offer mortgages to people who, they (the banks), damned well knew couldn't pay it off? Did they think that those lenders would 'magically' start making more money? Did the lenders think that the Adjustable mortgage rate would decrease? What the ***** were they thinking?
I watched a news clip a few years ago, about how 'visible minorities' were (allegedly) being 'unfairly' denied the chance to own a home because they couldn't afford it.
No, they weren't unfairly being denied due to them being a minority, they were being denied because they flat-out could NOT afford it. But they all cried 'racism!' anyways. So the banks had to give out these loans so they wouldn't appear to be racist!. And now the U.S is in this mess and nearing the edge of economic collapse!.
Why should the government bail out/take control of banks that made this mistake? (with tax-payers money). Why shouldn't those owners be foreclosed? They signed the documents, which basically said that the bank has the legal right to do so if the lender couldn't afford payments. If you don't/can't agree to the documents, don't sign. PERIOD. -
Show 51 - 100 of 176 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is