Another "New Deal" needed?

Very well then.

All I know is what I read and hear.

I have been having computer/server problems.

Dell says it's the server and citinet says it's dell.

So I did not know you had already dealt with the subject.

So do you think my posted link was just made up by someone?

You just caught me at a bad time. I had just finished Gary Zuckett editorial "It Will Take Another New Deal to Rebuild" and I happen to believe that all the New Deal accomplished was to make the Depression worse. I think it took the War to the Depression. Maybe we ought to just stay in Iraq...

Well OC I do not personally remember the Hoover days.

But my parents did and they told me about it.

And when things get that bad the gvt. better step in and do something or there will be an uprising.

Listen, this is a crisis because the government is involved in the economy. How bad do you want it to get? What did Paulson say on Sunday? He said that credit markets are collapsing and smaller financial institutions were lining up to get in on the bailout. Have you been to the bank lately? There is no run on banks. Newspaper website have advertising from banks. I sit on the board of a local credit union. We only give loans to people we know can pay it back. If you really need a loan, you better go somewhere else.

The only part of the economy that's crashing is the part that is run by the federal government - the commercial banks. Yes, if the GSEs fail the mortgage market will be much, much smaller. Maybe it should be.

Oh, and your link? It is CBS repeating Hillary Clinton. Of course, Hillary loves the New Deal. She's a democrat, too.

I meant the link saying the zero down loans were a bush adm. creation.

And they were explicitly warned about the default rate that was anticipated and did it anyway.

In 2004 and 2005, when your guys were firmly in control of all three branches.

Not under Clinton.

Or Carter.

Course the link could be wrong but that's what it says.

That would presume that loans since 2004 at the earliest were at fault for the credit crisis. Is that what you are saying? Only the zero down loans are failing? You think there are $700 billion of four-year-old CRA loans out there?

sodbuster wrote:And when things get that bad the gvt. better step in and do something or there will be an uprising.

Who's going to up rise here? The billionaires that are losing millions?

I'm not taking a hit. My 401 is somewhat but as I got another 20 years to draw from it, I think it'll bounce back nicely.

You're not taking a hit. The federal and state governments will continue to meet their obligations.

Banks are not taking a hit. 98% of commercial banks are fine and dandy and in no trouble.

The biggest obstacle to you and me is that the current crisis is creating a cash flow problem and will likely lead to less lending over the next year or so and that is the governments reasoning for proposing this bailout.

That and the fact that the big boys that are losing money left and right are running to the congressmen (both parties) they've bought and paid for over the years and crying foul because they're now reaping what they've sown. This is a paper loss amongst them and can be attributed to years of bad investments and over stated profits they've claimed.

Personally, I say, let them fail. The strong will survive as they always do and in the end, we'll be a much stronger country for it. And I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the one company that won't receive government aid, Lehman Brothers, doesn't come out on the strong side as their main problem, like others, is cash flow and bankruptcy has protected them from that problem. With a year or two to of not having to pay all of their creditors and some time to group their assets and find out exactly where they stand, they very well could come out the biggest winner in all of this mess.

Paulson started crying Sunday night about the imminent collapse. I've haven't seen any long lines at the bank...

ohio county wrote:Paulson started crying Sunday night about the imminent collapse. I've haven't seen any long lines at the bank...

Of course he did and it wasn't for the average American or the local bank, or even the corporate bank. It is for is people and his way of life as they are the ones hurting.

Motive answers tons of questions and I think his is clear. Congress needs to stand up an say NO, WE WON'T BAIL YOU OUT.

But we know that's not going to happen.

He joined Goldman Sachs in 1974, working in the firm's Chicago office. He became a partner in 1982. From 1983 until 1988, Paulson led the Investment Banking group for the Midwest Region, and became managing partner of the Chicago office in 1988. From 1990 to November 1994, he was co-head of Investment Banking, then, Chief Operating Officer from December 1994 to June 1998; eventually succeeding Jon Corzine (now Governor of New Jersey) as its chief executive. His compensation package, according to reports, was US$37 million in 2005, and US$16.4 million projected for 2006. His net worth has been estimated at over US$700 million. Paulson has personally built close relations with China during his career. In July 2008 it was reported by The Daily Telegraph that: "Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has intimate relations with the Chinese elite, dating from his days at Goldman Sachs when he visited the country more than 70 times."

ohio county wrote:That would presume that loans since 2004 at the earliest were at fault for the credit crisis. Is that what you are saying? Only the zero down loans are failing? You think there are $700 billion of four-year-old CRA loans out there?

Dammit OC you are getting as bad as the others on the right sometimes.

I know you said you are having a bad day but still...

Like I said before, I was responding specifically to this challenge from Stephanie about who instituted the zero down deal. I will again post the challenge:

"You don't believe me? Check out the facts. You go and dig up who slashed down payment requirements..."

I did not say only zero down loans were defaulting, nor did I say there were $700 billion of them.
I was merely responding to a direct challenge.

I doubt there are $700 billion altogethor. But that is irrelevant.

"You're not taking a hit."

Well Aaron how would you know if I am taking a hit or not?

It is an educated guess based on what I know about you S.

Your retirement is solvent and being paid. As that retirement is is a defined benefit from the state and has never been a 401 (K) plan, you're getting your check each month.

As is your spouse, whether she's working or retired. If her retirement was in the new style 401 style retirement plan, then she's likely working for another year or two until she can get coverted to the defined state plan. If she stayed on the state plan, then her retirement is intact so no matter here employment status, she's safe as well.

You both have defined pension plans that are not subject to the paper losses happening on Wall Street.

Either you and/or your wife could be contributing to an IRA plan that could be taking a hit but I doubt that due to your needing disposable income for college.

Like I said, it's an educated guess.

So am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong.

But I guess it was a good educated guess.

No harm, no foul.

Aaron wrote:

ohio county wrote:Paulson started crying Sunday night about the imminent collapse. I've haven't seen any long lines at the bank...

Of course he did and it wasn't for the average American or the local bank, or even the corporate bank. It is for his people and his way of life as they are the ones hurting.

Motive answers tons of questions and I think his is clear. Congress needs to stand up an say NO, WE WON'T BAIL YOU OUT.

But we know that's not going to happen.

He joined Goldman Sachs in 1974, working in the firm's Chicago office. He became a partner in 1982. From 1983 until 1988, Paulson led the Investment Banking group for the Midwest Region, and became managing partner of the Chicago office in 1988. From 1990 to November 1994, he was co-head of Investment Banking, then, Chief Operating Officer from December 1994 to June 1998; eventually succeeding Jon Corzine (now Governor of New Jersey) as its chief executive. His compensation package, according to reports, was US$37 million in 2005, and US$16.4 million projected for 2006. His net worth has been estimated at over US$700 million. "

And one has to ask, ...... just where does Paulson have that $700 million invested?

Betcha a BIG CHUNK of it is invested in one or more of those companies that he wants to bail out with that $700 BILLION.



.

sodbuster wrote:Well good for ron Paul.

But no one said he was the culprit.

"That's the position of the Bush administration, which conceived the zero-down program primarily as a way to promote homeownership among minorities and immigrants."

But the question now is how to extricate ourselves from this mess.

Or should be.

Not how to blame it on the previous administration.

This zero down deal was incorporated when the rep's had control of all three branches of gvt.

(although no doubt with dem. collution admittedly)

Sherm,

Yesterday we did the Mary Ingles thing over in Winfield. We were there nearly 6 hours. When I got home and read this, I was beginning to respond when a neighbor's out of control dog came into my yard and attacked my puppy with his owner hot on his heels. When I ran outside to get Belle, I stepped off of my porch into a hole that little she-devil dug right at the foot of the porch steps, spraining my ankle pretty badly. I'm now slightly high on percocets so forgive the delay and all the typos etc.
You can try to recreate the history of this debacle all you like, that doesn't change the facts.

Andrew Cuomo lowered the downpayment requirements to 3%. Shortly after that he incorporated programs to help with the new, meager downpayment requirements. He nearly immediately increased the maximum amount of a loan to $235,000. Cuomo also issued the ruling that allowed the YSP's to brokers. Judges are calling this a "kickback", not me.

I researched this for two weeks before I posted anything about it. I did my homework. This all happened under Clinton. Did Bush or Congress do anything to fix it? Absolutely not, but that doesn't alter the fact it is Clinton's baby.

Check it out. What Bush & Congress did after the fact doesn't alter what Clinton and Cuomo did. This was a recipe for disaster Clinton & Cuomo cooked up. Am I angry with Bush for his participation? You betchya, but that doesn't mean I'm going to give the Clintons or the Democrats a free pass. They engineered this crisis.

Very well then Stephanie.

Have you read the book "Follow the River"?

The author's last name is Thom I am pretty sure.

The Mary Ingles story.

It is very inspirational and puts this so-called "crisis" we are arguing about in a whole nuther context.

So back to our "debate" neither you nor OC have refuted the source I referenced above which says it was in fact the Bush Administration that was responsible for zero down loans and including even closing cost in said loan.

Do you believe that is wrong, irrelevant, or do you think I just made it up?

Admittedly the 3% down you attribute to Clinton might be low, but at least it's something.

When you include closing cost that would require maybe $5K up front money.

Compared to zero in the Bush plan.

(if you dont want to discuss it further that's ok by me too)

Do you have a crutch or are you able to hobble?

Sherm,

What I'm saying is, whatever Bush did 3 or 4 years ago, is basically irrelevant. The zero down loans to a large degree already existed, Clinton and Cuomo created them.

Lowering the downpayment to 3% and creating programs to help with closing costs and the mere 3% downpayment means little to nothing down. That was Cuomo, on behalf of, or at the very least, with the blessing of Clinton. Now Mrs. Clinton wants to point the finger at Bush.

Look, I don't think you're stupid. I do think it causes you some sort of pain to acknowledge the Democrats, even Bill Clinton, had a large role in this nightmare. You need to consider who did what and when.

These low income borrowers, they had little to no income verification. Another rule issued by Cuomo. I remember many years ago, when I was about 18 or 19 my friend Cilla getting one of those loans. I used to babysit for her and we became good friends. She was a widowed mother of one, working as a waitress and collect SS for her fatherless son. She described the process as a financial colonoscopy. She actually didn't include expenses like her pack a day cigarette habit, because she knew they'd deny her. I kind of get the feeling Cilla wasn't reporting all of her tips you see.

So that was in 1982 or maybe 1983. In 2000 my then 22 y/o single boyfriend who had just relocated to a new state one year prior and had a brand new job was preapproved for a $200,000 mortgage. We were living together at the time, but not married. We discussed it and knew there was no way we could afford those payments, and I was working at the time.

So we could have been in this mess. We resisted the temptation, and it was tempting, Sherm. Back then we could have gotten a pretty nice home in RI for that kind of money. We didn't want to be slaves to the house. We wanted time, and a little cash, for things other than the mortgage payment, taxes & insurance. Like we wanted to be able to keep the lights on and our home heated during those cold New England winters.

sodbuster wrote:Yes you are wrong.

But I guess it was a good educated guess.

No harm, no foul.

So how are you taking a hit from this current economic crisis?

Because I have stocks and other assets (such as my house) that are losing value and at risk of losing more.

I liked it better when the value of my house was going up and the stock mkt. was going up.

(Like it was before Bush.)

btw.......I have read Follow the River. I have crutches, or I think my husband would have had to take the day off. It is agony to put any weight on it at all. Poor Katie......I am far from thin and that poor little girl had to haul my butt up off the front yard and get me in the house. The neighbor had to get that dog away from me and my poor dogs who were tied up. My son had to keep Belle off of me because I was in her reach.

It's a shame. It's a pretty little dog. Not sure what in the hell it is, but it's a really good looking animal, I'm guessing probably only weighs about 30lbs or so but he is obviously extremely aggressive. He sort of looks like a very small black husky with white markings on his chest and paws. He's absolutely adorable.

As far as the value of your home is concerned, I know in my parents' case their home is still worth many times more than they paid to have it built. I also know that the home I sold out on to my exhusband is nearly double the value it was 8 years ago when he bought me out. The price has come down some, but the value is still nearly double what it was under the Clinton years.

How long have you been in your house, how much did it appreciate and how much has it depreciated as a result of this crisis?

And if you sold it today, would it be for more then you paid for it or less?

Well that is irrelevant how much I paid for it 30 years ago.

For one thing I have doubled the size, added vinyl siding and windows, added a blacktop driveway, etc.

So it is comparing apples and oranges.

The question that matters is whether it is gaining value or losing value now.

And the ans. is houses are not moving now even at cut-rate prices.

And if they dont straighten out the current mess it will be worth even less next year.

Likewise with IRA's and 401K's, equity holdings, etc.

No, it's perfectly relevant Sherm. If the house sells for MORE then you have invested in it (purchasing price + additions) then you're not taking a hit. Just because someone said similar houses were worth X dollars 2 years ago and now they are not doesn't mean you're taking a hit. Espcecially if the value of similar houses was inflated beyond it's true value.

I disagree.

To me, if the house was worth $100K last year and it is worth $90K now, then I have lost $10K in equity.