By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Another $800 billion to buy mortgages

FishyJoe on 25 November 2008

This seems crazy the way they are spending money like no tomorrow. This plus the previous $700 billion is $1.5 trillion so far. That's like $5000 for every man, woman and child in the USA. 

I have a very bad feeling that people will cheat the system just like they did before. Seriously, they are betting our future in these overnight deals and we don't even know exactly where the money is going.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081125/credit_crunch.html

Feds unveil plans to unfreeze consumer debt market
Tuesday November 25, 10:52 am ET
By Jeannine Aversa and Martin Crutsinger, AP Economics Writers

Feds unveil 2 programs to provide $800 billion to help unfreeze market for consumer debt WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has introduced a pair of new programs that will provide $800 billion to help unfreeze the market for consumer debt which Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson calls vital to supporting the economy.

Paulson says key markets for consumer debt such as credit cards, auto loans and student loans essentially came to a halt in October. He says the new programs are aimed to get lending back to more normal levels.

Paulson says all the government programs have been aimed at supporting the lending that is vital to the economy.



Around the Network
psrock on 25 November 2008

where are they getting this money from?




 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
SamuelRSmith on 25 November 2008

^Bonds.



Faxanadu on 25 November 2008

nice, good job being socialist.

Taking the debts and risks of a few and distributing them evenly across the whole nation.



Any message from Faxanadu is written in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by Faxanadu except where provided for in a written agreement signed by an authorized representative of Faxanadu. This message is intended for the use of the forum members only.

The views expressed here may be personal and/or offensive and are not necessarily the views of Faxanadu.

FishyJoe on 25 November 2008

The problem is that these money won't be going to the whole nation. It will make a few deceitful people rich and will leave the nation holding the bag.



Around the Network
psrock on 25 November 2008
Faxanadu said:
nice, good job being socialist.

Taking the debts and risks of a few and distributing them evenly across the whole nation.

 

you make it sound like a bad thing.



 Next Gen 

11/20/09 04:25 makingmusic476 Warning Other (Your avatar is borderline NSFW. Please keep it for as long as possible.)
Soleron on 25 November 2008
psrock said:
Faxanadu said:
nice, good job being socialist.

Taking the debts and risks of a few and distributing them evenly across the whole nation.

 

you make it sound like a bad thing.

It is. The banks took on the risk when they made the mortgages - and have profited considerably up until now from doing so. Now that the risk actually becomes real losses, the government takes all responsibiloity away from the banks. The underlying problem is an irresponsible attitude in the banking industry - which will not go away if the government lets them know they can do what they like and still be bailed out.

If I took a risk worth several times my cash deposits, the government wouldn't bail me out...

 



akuma587 on 25 November 2008

This wouldn't be so bad if we hadn't had ridiculous deficits during the years where the economy actually wasn't on life support.



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

SamuelRSmith on 25 November 2008
Soleron said:
psrock said:
Faxanadu said:
nice, good job being socialist.

Taking the debts and risks of a few and distributing them evenly across the whole nation.

 

you make it sound like a bad thing.

It is. The banks took on the risk when they made the mortgages - and have profited considerably up until now from doing so. Now that the risk actually becomes real losses, the government takes all responsibiloity away from the banks. The underlying problem is an irresponsible attitude in the banking industry - which will not go away if the government lets them know they can do what they like and still be bailed out.

If I took a risk worth several times my cash deposits, the government wouldn't bail me out...

 

 

 The sub-prime mortgaging was down to the comission based system that the retail agents worked on. ie - the more houses they sold, the more money they got - I doubt they stopped to think about possible consequences from selling houses to people who couldn't pay for them, I'm pretty sure they thought that it wouldn't affect.

Also the difference between you and a bank is that if you took a risk and lost out, it wouldn't cause the world's economy to crash.



Faxanadu on 25 November 2008
SamuelRSmith said:
Soleron said:
psrock said:
Faxanadu said:
nice, good job being socialist.

Taking the debts and risks of a few and distributing them evenly across the whole nation.

 

you make it sound like a bad thing.

It is. The banks took on the risk when they made the mortgages - and have profited considerably up until now from doing so. Now that the risk actually becomes real losses, the government takes all responsibiloity away from the banks. The underlying problem is an irresponsible attitude in the banking industry - which will not go away if the government lets them know they can do what they like and still be bailed out.

If I took a risk worth several times my cash deposits, the government wouldn't bail me out...

 

 

 The sub-prime mortgaging was down to the comission based system that the retail agents worked on. ie - the more houses they sold, the more money they got - I doubt they stopped to think about possible consequences from selling houses to people who couldn't pay for them, I'm pretty sure they thought that it wouldn't affect.

Also the difference between you and a bank is that if you took a risk and lost out, it wouldn't cause the world's economy to crash.

So thats why people will losse their jobs and fortunes. Because some incentive system was broke. How sad is that.

 



Any message from Faxanadu is written in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by Faxanadu except where provided for in a written agreement signed by an authorized representative of Faxanadu. This message is intended for the use of the forum members only.

The views expressed here may be personal and/or offensive and are not necessarily the views of Faxanadu.