On Sep 25, 2008, at 10:17 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I see BRUCE IS SHOUTING AGAIN. For some reason he prefers to > criticize early verions of a bill as it makes its way through the > legislative process as though it were the final piece of legislation. > Yes, I am shouting again, as I am calling my congress critters. The initial bailout proposal was such a massively baldfaced money- grab, and now appears to bhave been in the works for some time, it's an opening gambit to make us feel like the final ass-reaming we're going to get on this is worth it. NO one , I mean NO ONE in charge is offering any data to back up their dire predictions of doom, and yet they all seem to be in perfect agreement that this bailout is vitally necessary. We, the taxpayers are being asked to: BUY questionable assets at inflated prices with no real plan of what to do with them at all, other than transfer a gigantic amount of wealth from the Treasury to private hands. How about this as a real bail-out strategy: The holders of these mortgage-backed securities immediately renegotiate the mortgages, to enable the majority of the people owing money to continue paying. This will mean longer-term mortgages, without adjustable rates, more than likely and a lower rate of return than originally promised, BUT it will slow the housing market hemorrhage from foreclosures. NOw of course all those MBS'es arent worth as much as originally promised. Now they have to re-rate their securities to reflect the REAL risk and payouts, take the relatively smaller losses on that actions, which will spread the pain around, but will likely cause it to be only a nasty recession instead of a recession-verging-on-depression that we're TOLD we're heading into. Then we fine the ratings companies to within an inch of their lives, just so they FUCKING DO THEIR JOB like they were supposed to in the first place. If these MBS'es had been given the 'junk' rating they properly deserved, then this wouldn't have been a crisis...there also wouldn't have been nearly as much of a bubble, either. Then we tell these banks that before they can offer any new sort of exotic financial instrument it has to be vetted by independent expert examiners and a retired grandma from Omaha so the risk can be properly identified and quantified. The ratings companies MUST note that this new security type is an untested instrument. Then, at least, no one can say they weren't warned. Remember, however, we're being told there dire warnings by the same people who told us this whole paper mansion was sustainable in the first place, by the same people who 'couldn't see this coming', by the same people who TOLD us that Iraq was armed with WMD. I'm not taking their assertions of doom at face value...how does the saying go? "Fool me once, shame on me, fool me twice...won't get fooled again" ? > FWIW, I have no problem with limiting the benefits of CEO's that > unload their "troubled assets" on the federal goverrment. I don't want them doing this at all. Screw that...make this a straight debt for equity swap. We'll step in and provide liquidity, but we own your fucking ass. You want your company back...pay us back. In the mean time we say how you're going to run things. -- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technology Group Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/StrataList-OT?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
