Good to see you're concerned about the effects on taxpayers of the $700 billiion bailout/rescue/giveaway.
But, what proof do you have that YOUR plan will work? Some of it seems like nationalizing financial markets. Some aspects of it I liked, but those measures won't work now. For example, forcing mortgators to renegotiate mortgage terms would have been great were it done about 18 months ago when this problem first started unraveling. That's what my brother tried to do with his home, but no, they wanted their interest rate increase. My brother ended up losing the home to the bank, which sold it to another bank for about 2/3 of what my brother owed and was willing to pay. That bank ended up auctioning off the home for about 1/2 of what it paid. I don't recall if I mentioned here on this list, but I pushed for Congress to enact a law that would prevent lenders from initiating foreclosure proceedings against anyone that made payments equivalent to, say, 40% of their income. I don't think such a law would help in the current crisis, but it might be a good law going forward from here. I'm not yet convinced that we'll be any better off with the bailout than without it. In fact, it could make things worse by devaluing the dollar. I suppose it all comes down to what they're buying (mortgages, mortgage backed securities, "troubled" assets, or all of the above.) If it's mortgage backed securities only, it is possible that the taxpayers could reap some benefit after time, but only if those securities are sufficiently discounted. If the treasury buys them at face value, then the taxpayer will surely lose. If they can buy them at the deeply discounted rates suggested by Bush in his speech last night, then there's an opportunity to make a buck for the taxpayer. That's a lot of IFs, and I don't trust anyone on the matter right now. I'm willing to take my chances no government invention at all (except vigorously prosecuting those responsible for this massive fraud) and letting wall street crash and burn. On Sep 25, 2008, at 11:35 AM, Bruce Johnson wrote: > > > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
