Government Bailouts.

[Gromgor]

Originally posted by Salimar
One cannot blame these companies but the lack regulation. If it was not allowed to give away money to insolvent customers, then this wouldn't have happened.

This here is EXACTLY the wrong way of thinking about accountability. Companies should have taken the initiative and NOT given out these loans. Government should NOT have to regulate, nor bail out companies because they have done something so stupid. I wish more people would stop thinking that the government has to regulate everything and instead start personally holding those companies who do shitty accountable by not giving them money. Not using their services. Not allowing them to continue to make foolish deals.

The problem with this is that the Jones Family down the street has a new BMW and an addition added to their garage...gotta go get that loan.

[Sebboe]

Originally posted by kestra
I was actually considering this route with an investor, as I don't have 10% to put down. Can this still be an option with a fixed rate? It's definitely a buyer's market up here in Alberta. I don't want to go with a 0% down option, as my hands would to tied with shitty interest rates.

If you can get a 0% loan at this point I'd be surprised. They have really decided to only give safe loans. They probably are going to want to see about 5% down.

You can get a fixed rate but you will have PMI (Personal Mortgage Insurance) which will probably be between $100 - $300 /month depending on what you borrow.

Once you get to 20% equity in the house you can typically get PMI waived.

I had PMI on my 2nd house and after about year and a half the value of the house when up and they dropped it at my request.

[Sebboe]

Originally posted by Salimar
One cannot blame these companies but the lack regulation. If it was not allowed to give away money to insolvent customers, then this wouldn't have happened.

Doing the research to trust the people backing your loans is part of the due diligence process. Part of due diligence is analyzing risk.

This falls on three parties..

1. People who spent beyond their means.
2. Companies that lent money foolishly
3. Companies that insured loans that they couldn't truly back.

[Kraxe]

DENIED!

I really didn't see that coming.

Still, motion to reconsider comes next. I'm sure it will go to another vote, and then who knows.

[Malacasta]

One of the things I read was a suggestion that instead of giving wall st the 1 trillion, to use that money to set up a bank that would do short loans and low risk loans, to cover college borrowing, payrolls, good house loans etc etc, so that there is liquidity in the market without the toxic debt, and to just let the chips fall where they may with the credit swaps etc.
I mean, I know it's not going to happen, but I like the idea of walking away from wall st. They demanded no oversight or regulation, they sneakily functioned under these outrageous profit making bullshit schemes. They created nothing, no jobs, no wealth.

[Dorain]

Originally posted by Gromgor
This here is EXACTLY the wrong way of thinking about accountability. Companies should have taken the initiative and NOT given out these loans.

I'd appreciate if someone could clarify this better for myself and others, but I am under the impression that these bad loans were forced upon the banks through the likes of Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and the National Black Caucus in order to continue expanding and doing business.

It now seems the ones who caused this problem are wanting to throw my money at the problem, pretend that they were not complicit in the scam then feign disgust at those they deem easy targets to lay the blame on. Soon they will parade out and endless supply of 'poor souls' who are going to lose their homes if we don't do something now. Bullshit. I'd say it looks like there are going to be a lot more people renting out there. Pay your bills like I pay mine and keep your hands out of my wallet. The fucking ones who are going to hold 'hearings' and 'investigate' into the whos, whats, and whys this problem came to pass are the VERY ones who need to be investigated. I'm certain there is plenty of blame to go to the peoples running these companies but they aren't the only ones at fault. There have to be hundreds of VPs, CEOs and highly paid employees from the likes of Fannie and Freddy that need to have all their assets frozen and seized in order to pay for some of this. Obama's former economic advisor alone raked in over 90 milllllllllllion dollars in 6 years over at Fannie Mae. So I am sure there is plenty of others out there that need to be led down the 'perp-walk', but it will never happen. So we see what happens when the government gets involved in something as seemingly inconspicuous as home loans. Then we are told on a weekly basis by our press that we want and need socialized medicine. Ha! Ha!

[Ilusan]

Originally posted by Fynn
I was quite upset about the freeze on short selling since that was a lot of what I was doing.

Too bad, man. The short-selling ban though necessary is as bad as the bailout. The one stock i couldn't get to in time on Friday, BBT- down 9.45 or 23.36% (of course, I can't short that stock, I just wanted to sell it.) Thats the stuff billionaires are made of not to mention the following:

As of the close, SEPTEMBER 29th

DJIA -777.68, or 6.98 percent
S&P 500 -106.85, or 8.81 percent
NSDQ -199.61, or 9.14 percent
RUSS2k -47.07, or 6.68 percent

Oil down over 10, almost 10 percent

And the cure-your-woes Gold, up over 23. Fucking Gold.

[Jyn]

Question: How practical would it be to establish a bank that all it does is hold your money? It would be federally started and funded, but not federally controlled. A non-profit of sorts. You open an account with them and store your money there, and that's it. You don't accumulate interest or anything because the bank isn't making a profit or investing in anything. All it does is hold your money like a public vault of sorts.

[Darion]

Originally posted by Jyn
Question: How practical would it be to establish a bank that all it does is hold your money? It would be federally started and funded, but not federally controlled. A non-profit of sorts. You open an account with them and store your money there, and that's it. You don't accumulate interest or anything because the bank isn't making a profit or investing in anything. All it does is hold your money like a public vault of sorts.

To what end? Buy a safe for your house and you've just done the same thing.

[Ilusan]

And just in case your curious., here's a list of how all the reps voted. Who's got that lame-ass Weller as a rep here who skipped it?? hehe

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/stor...ory.aspx?guid={F86698AA-97E3-4F4F-B5FF-FE8753D34363}&siteid=yahoomy