What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
227 Comments
- sammiches, on 07/14/2008, -5/+116Hurray privatized gain and socialized loss!
- richmomz, on 07/14/2008, -3/+82So much for "free markets." "Socialism for the Rich" would be a better description of our economic philosophy.
- m4532v, on 07/14/2008, -4/+80Bail them out with what? More debt backed dollars? Print more money so the tax payers can foot the bill and while we are at it, debase the dollar even more? Borrow more money from China? Make no mistake about it, this bailout doesn't help home owners. This bailout will help the Banks and Wall St.
- richmomz, on 07/14/2008, -2/+55Great - U.S. taxpayers get to foot the bill for bad lending practices and predatory/fraudulant mortgage loaning instead of the crooks who were responsible. So much for capitalism, free markets and economic justice.
- edstate, on 07/14/2008, -2/+49They did all this KNOWING the Government (aka you and me) would bail them out. They were Gvt GUARANTEED, so they don't have to practice the same kind of discipline as other businesses. As opposed to Bear, et all, who merely made a calculation that they would be (and were, sortof), if they became "too big to fail".
It's gonna hurt, but we cannot, cannot, cannot let either the big banks or the idiot individuals get away with being this fiscally irresponsible. - laserdog, on 07/14/2008, -0/+47I say we garnish their profits for the next 20 years until they pay it back.
- pintomp3, on 07/14/2008, -1/+41i wonder if the US taxpayer would mind helping me out with my recent losses at vegas.
- bsmeteronhigh2, on 07/14/2008, -1/+38Astounding that houses built with 2x4's, chicken wire and drywall; thrown up for the most part by migrant workers; and sold by gals driving leased luxury imports could spell the downfall of our economy. When I think of it that way....it's funny stuff. Yep, those bankers are smart.
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -3/+38Dear Fed,
While you're at it please print me up a couple million too.
Sincerely,
Joe Fixit - PhantomRogue, on 07/14/2008, -2/+24How I long for the day of when people are held accountable for their actions. You make bad investments, you lose your savings. You sign a 30% ARM, you lose your house. Its called being smart and responsible... People have forgotten what that word means.
Its about time I refuse to pay taxes. My money should NEVER be going to bail out privately held companies. They made bad investments, they reap what they sow. It should never be left up to the people to bail out privately held companies. - inactive, on 07/14/2008, -1/+23Its like paying an overdue credit card with money borrowed from a loan shark, not paying him back, then getting your knees broken and paying the hospital bill with the credit card. I'm just wondering when people are gonna start calling in their debts. America is bankrupt.
- bdbr, on 07/14/2008, -4/+24I realize this is Digg so its a lot to ask, but did anyone actually READ the article? Both companies are very liquid & have far more capital than required by law, and they won't likely need to access the federal funds. This is not a bailout; its just a move to sooth investors.
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -13/+32***** THE CIA, THE RIAA, THE NSA, AND FANNIE MAY!
- pintomp3, on 07/14/2008, -1/+20screw the gold standard. let's trade in goats and virgins.
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -1/+19How about starting with the current CEO who was paid $12M last year. Or the CEO before him, who was forced to resign after overstating profits by $12B from 2000-2003 yet was allowed to keep his $114k/month pension for life.
- Ellipsys, on 07/14/2008, -1/+19So basically its another bailout, where these businesses socialize their risks and have nice cushy gov't safety net, and privatize their gains. How about something a little different- every time there's a gov't bailout of some private industry, treat it like a hostile takeover. MY tax dollars bailing you out? Guess what, you work for me now. The gov't assumes control of these industries and uses their resources to regulate and expunge the debts incurred by these criminal lenders being completely fiscally irresponsible. Can't practice responsible capitalism? You don't deserve it.
- derek20la, on 07/14/2008, -1/+18which used to be the requirements to buy a house in the first place........
it used to be that the total cost of your mortgage (PITI) could not be more than 3x of your income, that you needed excellent credit, and 20% down.
and guess what, back in those days short of some catastrophic life event, people were ABLE TO MAKE THE MONTHLY PAYMENT!
most people who bought a house in the last decade had no business ever buying a house. - drlha, on 07/14/2008, -1/+18Those of us who know that Fannie Mae is basically a nickname from "Federal National Mortgage Association", and the same with Freddie Mac which derives its name from "Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation".
- edstate, on 07/14/2008, -2/+18Freddy and Fannie are "Government-backed" agencies. They were designed to give loans to people who would normally never, ever qualify for loans: ie people who either have NO credit (like students), or BAD credit (like many current homeowners in foreclosure). Both of these pose greater-than-normal risk. Hence the "backing".
The problem is, in both cases, they cause market anomalies. And bad ones. For education loans when you freely give huge amounts of cash out with less-than-normal requirements, you don't "give more people access to college" as the Fannie's tagline would tell you. Instead it just makes college more expensive. For everyone.
The same thing happens with mortgages. When you slut out large chunks of cash without applying time-proven standards, you don't allow "more people to buy a house", you merely allow people to buy MORE HOUSE.
Add to that Freddie and Fannie have none of the usual "private sector" checks and balances. Since they're "Government backed" they KNOW they can take on even more risk. And if their bets don't pan out that they'll get bailed out by us. The taxpayers. The profits go into their pockets. The losses come out of ours.
Say what you want about Bear, and IndyMac. They played their "too big to fail" card, and shame on them. Hopefully Paulson and Co. will craft some decent regulations to keep entities like that from abusing the system. ...But the real evil here is Freddy and Fannie, trotted out to make financial life "fair" for everyone. Bending the rules and twisting economic truths to score political points. Then stealing the upside, and dumping us with the downside. For shame. - inactive, on 07/14/2008, -13/+29not surprising obama supports this plan
- devnulluk, on 07/14/2008, -7/+22Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, how can anyone take companies with those names seriously
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -0/+14And they call it free market capitalism......***** this socialist bs
- EntropyFan, on 07/14/2008, -19/+33OK, I'm in on saving them. To let them fall would be like allowing your town to burn down because you feel the cost of water is too much and it is not your problem anyway. All well and good until you want the roads fixed...
Having said that, I'm also willing to chip in and make sure a whole bunch of these ***** go to jail. There needs to be risk to offset the rewards, and I'm willing to to provide them. - inactive, on 07/14/2008, -0/+13so if the company goes ***** up...who gets a free house!
- richmomz, on 07/14/2008, -1/+14We're screwed either way, our only choice is how we want to take it. If we bail them out the taxpayers end up paying for the malinvestments of the crooks who were responsible and our national debt goes through the roof. If we don't bail them out, the mortgage market crashes and interest rates will go to double digits overnight, putting millions of people out of their homes and home ownership out of reach for millions more.
- morgino, on 07/14/2008, -2/+15The Mexicans are going to be coming over to America to shop pretty soon cause ***** will be cheaper here, dollar is gonna be worth less than a peso
- zacharytelschow, on 07/14/2008, -3/+16Who's ready for the national debt to increase by $5 trillion?
- andy314159pi, on 07/14/2008, -2/+15This bailout seems like it might be a little reckless; are they going to put our debt "over the top" to where it can't be paid? I sort of felt like the national debt we have is essentially insurmountable. Will bonds that the government issues maintain value if they sell as much as they are planning to prop up these failing institutions? And will our currency keep credibility? I am genuinely confused as to why this is happening.
- orangefly, on 07/14/2008, -1/+13let them die and make room for companies that know what the hell they're doing....
- laserdog, on 07/14/2008, -1/+13Can anyone describe what would happen if we just let them fail?
So far the most nuanced opinion I've found on the MSM is that it'd be "bad".
/I thought you said *not* to cross the streams? - paulot, on 07/14/2008, -1/+13I'm glad we've got plenty of money to afford these government bail outs.
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -1/+11Put Freddie Mac after the NSA and before Fannie May, and you have one hell of a good tag line.
Jealous. - rlbond86, on 07/14/2008, -5/+15Cue the calls for the gold standard in 3... 2... 1...
- Shivetya, on 07/14/2008, -2/+12Basically this is how Congress found a way to take over the mortgage industry to further invade our lives. Eventually they will pass laws dictating what these agencies can do because if the Federal Government is an investor is has special rights that others do not.
In other words, your tax dollars have found a new subsidy, mortgages for groups who vote "right". - humanerror, on 07/14/2008, -2/+11WHERE'S YOUR FREE MARKET NOW
- brickbat, on 07/14/2008, -1/+10Let me guess what the plan is. Print even more money and give it to the banks.
- chuckDontSurf, on 07/14/2008, -1/+10"The reason that people are losing their homes is that in an average U.S. family both parents now work jobs that pay $14.00 an hour"
And people like these took out mortgages for $400k. Individual fiscal responsibility plays just as much a role. To quote the SNL skit: "Don't buy stuff you can't afford." - fluoro, on 07/14/2008, -1/+9"They did all this KNOWING the Government (aka you and me) would bail them out. They were Gvt GUARANTEED, so they don't have to practice the same kind of discipline as other businesses."
But as the previous poster pointed out, this is why they should be held criminally responsible for their actions. If the companies go under then everyone loses, but if the US is going to try to bail them out then they should try to set a precedent by prosecuting them. A precedent that says, "if we have to bail you out to keep the country running, your ass goes to jail." - vexingmodstwo, on 07/14/2008, -3/+11"While they now have access to the Fed funds, the companies likely won't need to use the privilege at this time, said Art Hogan, chief market analyst at Jefferies & Co. in New York. But the move will give investors additional confidence that Freddie and Fannie can tap the pool of liquidity backed by the federal government."
Do people read the articles anymore? - snotrokit, on 07/14/2008, -0/+8from NPR this morning, they pretty much summed it up as a majority of consumer lending would completely freeze, and the interest rates that banks offer consumers for what loans they could get would skyrocket. The guest did not even want to guess at what the rates would be.
From what I understood, essentially, only people with a credit score of 780+ could get a home loan for 20%+. - MindStalker, on 07/14/2008, -3/+11No, its about encouraging bad behavior. If you set the standard that large companies when they make a profit will be allowed to keep their profit, but when they have losses the government will bail them out, will cause more reckless behavior. Protect the loans, sure maybe, but the company should be folded and discarded. The major investors shouldn't be expecting their money back, I'm sorry.
- DjOverEZ, on 07/14/2008, -3/+10Hehe, you said Fannie.
- chuckDontSurf, on 07/14/2008, -2/+9"A temporary freezing of the housing market wouldn't do ***** all to me."
Yeah, until you lost your job because of the far-reaching effects such a move would have. Not everything is deemed good or bad solely on how it effects you. - omgstfu, on 07/14/2008, -2/+9More than a hundred banks are projected to fall within the next year. The bailout is just another short term fix in an effort to avert a market crash. The IndyMac buyout was announced just after the market closed on Friday - no conincidence. The market was set to open VERY low before the Fannie/Freddie bailout announcement. And even that "relief" only lasted an hour or so as the market is in negative territory - again. Be prepared for many more months of bank failure announcements, mergers and bailout legislation.
- dcbebop, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7I couldn't have said it better myself.
- lukemann, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7Interest rates would skyrocket for new loans. Fix rate loans are fixed, arms are tied to the treasury notes. Anyone who had a fixed rate loan would be set. The issue would be they wouldn't be able to sell their house because no one would have money to buy it at 15% interest. At that point home prices would collapse.
- SouthsideIrish, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6And there is something wrong with just turning the presses on and printing more greenbacks. Just start printing those 1,000, 10,000 and 100,000 dollar bils. No problem. Print as much money as you can, while you still can. If the greenback isn't worthless now, it will be.
- cswift1, on 07/14/2008, -1/+7"Free Market" is an hypocrisy. It's only free when we pay for it. They screwed it up. Let *them* pay for it. It is nothing short of outrageous that the hard-working taxpayers of this country will be bilked for cash to prop up ill-managed and corrupt financial institutions. Outrageous. And Congress, as usual, will kowtow to their masters - big business and big government - in sanctioning the largest expansion of the role of the Federal Reserve Bank since 1917. Outrageous. Make no mistake - the federal government is predatory, and they suck us dry at every opportunity. Nothing short of a revolution is called for. The Constitution mandates it. It has now gotten to be simply too much.
- ren1999, on 07/14/2008, -3/+9The reason that people are losing their homes is that in an average U.S. family both parents now work jobs that pay $14.00 an hour with a $.50 raise every 6 months if they even get a job review. After 2 years they get laid-off and have to start a new job at $14.00 an hour. These parents also must pay the majority of taxes. This is the college educated, highly skilled, white-collar poor with families, who often earn less than blue-collar factory workers.
Rescuing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not going to solve the problem. - swizz, on 07/14/2008, -1/+7at least quote businessweek when you say it ;-)
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/conten ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 229 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is