The Rope has SNAPPED

I do believe that the rope has finally snapped. The repurcusions will be global and are on the way. They are jumping out the windows here at my brother-in-law's. Maybe airline prices will be headed south soon.

I'm sure Wes will start a new thread "over there".

Hold on.

marketwatch.com/news/story/lehman-falls-80-firm-readies/story.aspx?guid=%7B8E886D48-E3C7-4CE2-95F4-7099CE1A49DB%7D

[rincondog]

The beginning of the first great depression of the 21st century. Even though Bush and McCain claim the fundamentals are sound or prosperity is just around the corner.

Are you quite sure, Arnold, that you haven't made such postings before? I remember...a year ago...the dolllar was "tanking" and all the farang at the swimming pool were saying "You just don't know where to put your money any more!" and others were saying "Buy gold and a shotgun and head to the hills" -- amazingly enough, while living in Chiang Mai.

I would just remind you of the basic economic truth -- BLASH. "Buy low and sell high."

I'm, for some reason, completely out of the market right now. And it's difficult to call the market -- in fact, impossible. But when things look their worst, when "blood is running in the streets" -- that seems to be the time to BUY.

Just another right-wing wacko!

Henry

It may be tempting to buy when the blood in the streets is at ankle level. But who's to say it's not going to rise above your knees?

A French guy was due to start his new job this morning as a trader for Lehmans at UK 45k per year, not only did he not actually make it to his desk, when he did come over from Paris last week, he had major problems due to the chaos surrounding the Channel Tunnel problems last week which are still continuing; he also took a six month lease out on a flat.

By the time consolidation takes place over the next few months, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are going to be the only ones standing.

By the time consolidation takes place over the next few months, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are going to be the only ones standing.Which one will be head-hunting you for your inimitable talents?

[rincondog]

Wait until AIG folds and thousands of retirees pensions and workers future pensions and annuities evaporate. Better check your travel insurance if it is from AIG.

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

30 years of reducing government controls over corporations and "drowning big government in the bathtub" ( while expanding the useless parts of it by zillions)..and this is what you get..carpet baggers and Robber Barons who are bringing the US to it's knees.

Get used to it..Socialism is on the comeback and my comrades will rule again !. Be nice to me..I'll put in a good word for you at the show trials (if we bother having trials). One word from me and you could be up against the wall !. And we'll be bringing The Colonel out of retirement.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709

Your guys will only make things worse, but I think that you actually don't care.

if we bother having trials.

Well, now I know where you stand.

You were the guy who started up the thread about "Cuba -- the new gay paradise." No?

trader for Lehmans at UK 45k per year

Must be basic before bonuses. Last night the BBC was reporting Lehman's average annual salary as almost US$300,000. Where I have had insight in that industry, traders were pretty important honchos, earning significantly more than that.

So he'll lose on his rental contract and have to buy his own ticket back to Paris. Didums.

Did you know there are about 300,000 ordinary British holiday makers stranded, some sleeping in airport lounges because following the XL collapse? Sir Richard Branson wonders why the aircraft are grounded in view of the obvious need - and so do I.

City traders are the last folk I'll shed a tear for.

City traders are the last folk I'll shed a tear for.Don't they study sociology at the LSE?

City traders are the last folk I'll shed a tear for.Don't they study sociology at the LSE?

I suspect they do when their redundancy pay covers their fees, but I've really no way to know for sure.

According to CNN, the guys in the background here were bankers consoling each other.

Looks like trade to me

Take a peek (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=adb_1221494431)

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709

Your guys will only make things worse, but I think that you actually don't care.

America's greatest era of prosperity was ushered in by the likes of me by fellow traveller and class traitor ( but only to his) ... the greatest of US president's
FDR !.

Capitalism with liberal doses of socialism-the surest way to success !

But then the Reagenites came along and had to dismantle it..but only for those at the lowest end..corporate welfare bloomed out of all control..under Bush it has became an epidemic. We all know what the Iraq War was ( just as all wars are about money)..even Pat Buchanan has called it the "greatest handover of public money into private hands the world has even seen"

and you dare to point me to an editorial by an unnanmed person on an "investors" website that is still blaming Hillary ?

where is The Colonel ?..bring me my little black book..I want Henri Cate's name ( and it sounds foreign )marked down as an 'enemy of the common man'. We'll deal with him at the appropriate tiime.

viva la revolution !

Wait until AIG folds and thousands of retirees pensions and workers future pensions and annuities evaporate. Better check your travel insurance if it is from AIG.

They are just announcing (Tues eve.) AIG has just been bailed out by the government.

AIG Bailout (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080917/ap_on_bi_ge/aig)

....
I would just remind you of the basic economic truth -- BLASH. "Buy low and sell high."

I'm, for some reason, completely out of the market right now. And it's difficult to call the market -- in fact, impossible. But when things look their worst, when "blood is running in the streets" -- that seems to be the time to BUY.


Oh great.
The guy who a month ago was arguing there was no "Recession" now tells us the thing he couldn't see is over.
And after extolling the virtues of "buy and hold" saying he bought S&P 4 years ago at 1094 (recent close 1192) he now admits he's "completely out of the market" for "some reason".

Henry, you're starting to trip all over your own Republican Party "Talking Points".

(edit: reference www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/what-has-happened-to-petrol-prices-in-los-t15270-15.html (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/what-has-happened-to-petrol-prices-in-los-t15270-15.html)

If a diehard Republican like Henry has capitulated, maybe it is time to buy!


Or maybe not..... :dontknow:

[rincondog]

Who is going to bailout the taxpayers?

I have stated more than once that I am not a Republican but an independent. Some 30 percent of Americans classify themselves this way.

Yes, "for some reason" I am completely out of the market as of yesterday. As of this evening, I am buying mutual funds. It seems to me that investment decisions are completely independent of slinging the BS about politics.

And, no, I still don't see a recession. I see a huge capital crisis, which was at least partially brought on by government regulation.

When the economy goes into negative or zero growth for two consecutive quarters, I will surely agree that this is a recession. But right now I only see a stock-market panic, with the S&P 500 hitting levels it has not seen for five years.

BLASH.

[guyforguy]

Surely you mean the lack of govrnment regulation.

G

[quote="Henry Cate":2vdzlcl4]http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709

Your guys will only make things worse, but I think that you actually don't care.

America's greatest era of prosperity was ushered in by the likes of me by fellow traveller and class traitor ( but only to his) ... the greatest of US president's
FDR !.

Capitalism with liberal doses of socialism-the surest way to success !

But then the Reagenites came along and had to dismantle it..but only for those at the lowest end..corporate welfare bloomed out of all control..under Bush it has became an epidemic. We all know what the Iraq War was ( just as all wars are about money)..even Pat Buchanan has called it the "greatest handover of public money into private hands the world has even seen"

and you dare to point me to an editorial by an unnanmed person on an "investors" website that is still blaming Hillary ?

where is The Colonel ?..bring me my little black book..I want Henri Cate's name ( and it sounds foreign )marked down as an 'enemy of the common man'. We'll deal with him at the appropriate tiime.

viva la revolution ![/quote:2vdzlcl4]

FDR presided over an era of prosperity! Give me a break from this nonstop nonsense!!!! (Or my Operatives will Seize You.)

FDR was a great president, and everyone says so. But his years in office can be easily divided into (a) The Great Depression and (b) WW II.

Then he Kicked the Proverbial Bucket, but not before handing over Eastern Europe to his buddy Joe Stalin. What a great idea that was!

After FDR was in his grave, and WWII was won (due to his policies) Truman and Eisenhower presided over one of the biggest economic booms America has ever seen.

I once had a Friend In The CIA, who pointed out something Quite Interesting. When WWII was over, Europe and Russia lay in ruins, and America could have simply conquered the world. But it didn't.

This postwar boom came to an end, until Ronald Reagan was elected. Despite Massive Booing From The Democrats, he initiated the greatest peacetime expansion of the American economy ever seen. And, in the meantime, ended the Cold War.

Socialism, my dear fellow, is Yesterday's Answer. You may go on defending it to your heart's content, but that would only happen If You Enjoy Being Wrong.

So tell me, Dear Old Chap: which Socialist Country has created more jobs and more prosperity than the USA?

"I Pause For Your Reply", and I don't want to hear anything more from Pat Buchanan, Thank You Very Much.

[Bob]

Henry, even your buddy McCain is quoting Teddy Roosevelt lately (that unfettered capitalism breeds corruption) and McCain (along with Obama and both Republicans and Democrats) are calling for more and smarter regulations.

For example only, 20 years ago there was a rule that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (two government created institutions that hold or guarantee 95% of the mortgages in the entire US) would not guarantee any mortgage where the borrower's monthly payment was more than 25% of his/her gross income (thus, if their gross income was $3000.00 per month, their monthly mortgage payment couldn't be higher than $750.00 per month). That rule - along with the previously intelligent rule that a bank wouldn't loan more than 80% of principal) - were tossed out the door largely due to Republican claims that poor old business suffers if the government regulates them at all (thus forgetting what Teddy Roosevelt said).
For 10-15 years, I've known of people who borrowed 95-100% of appraised value and whose mortgage payment was 50% or more of their gross income (some times as much as 70% of their take-home income). And then we end up with a major problem? Duh!
You can call it whatever makes your heart go pitter patter - socialism, communism, or a duck - but inadequately regulated anything (capitalism, communism, and whatever-the-hell they call it in Southeast Asia) leads to excesses and corruption.

P.S. And you're blaming what's happening on a stock market panic? Think maybe the stock market is reacting to something else (heard of the housing crisis and the credit crunch)? Given what's been happening (Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman Brothers, issues at Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch, not to mention the government bailout of Fannie and Freddie), I'm only surprised it hasn't been a crash yet.

[rincondog]

From HEnry/HEnri Cate

Yes, "for some reason" I am completely out of the market as of yesterday.

The only market you have been in or out of is the supermarket.[/quote]

From HEnry/HEnri Cate

Yes, "for some reason" I am completely out of the market as of yesterday. The only market you have been in or out of is the supermarket.If you go back and review Henri's famous claim to investment expertise you'll see that he says he was in the market for a longish period of time and managed an annualised return of something like 10% - not exactly something worth boasting about. He gives the exact figures so you can work the return out

[Lunchtime O'Booze]

"FDR was a great president, and everyone says so. But his years in office can be easily divided into (a) The Great Depression and (b) WW II."..neither caused by him but solved by him.

"Then he Kicked the Proverbial Bucket, but not before handing over Eastern Europe to his buddy Joe Stalin. What a great idea that was! " Indeed it was (not that he had a choice)..a balance ensured we didn't have a George Bush on the rampage for decades and cleverly left it to Russia to re-build East Europe.

"After FDR was in his grave, and WWII was won (due to his policies) Truman and Eisenhower presided over one of the biggest economic booms America has ever seen. "..well yes..with FDR's policies. Ike was a Commie compared to those who came after.

"I once had a Friend In The CIA, who pointed out something Quite Interesting. When WWII was over, Europe and Russia lay in ruins, and America could have simply conquered the world. But it didn't." Oh really ?..and you believed him ?. It's certainly been trying ever since.

"This postwar boom came to an end, until Ronald Reagan was elected. Despite Massive Booing From The Democrats, he initiated the greatest peacetime expansion of the American economy ever seen. And, in the meantime, ended the Cold War." And today we are seeing the results.

"o tell me, Dear Old Chap: which Socialist Country has created more jobs and more prosperity than the USA? " China-it owns the US dollar. :salute:

"Do tell me, Dear Old Chap: which Socialist Country has created more jobs and more prosperity than the USA? " China-it owns the US dollar.I was thinking, in relative terms, Vietnam - which also had to recover from America's attempt to destroy it. Besides, all those jobs the US has created - aren't they being carried out by "illegal" immigrants from Mexico? There's a fascinating analysis in the latest Speccie of the new jobs supposedly created by Blair and Brown in the UK since "New Labour" came to power. This analysis by the way was done by someone who declares he is pro-immigration. Apparently they've mostly been taken up by immigrants to Britain - skilled Brits are running away in droves to the Colonies - http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine ... lems.thtml (http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/2075031/brown-has-exploited-immigration-to-hide-from-deep-problems.thtml)

Henry, even your buddy McCain is quoting Teddy Roosevelt lately (that unfettered capitalism breeds corruption) and McCain (along with Obama and both Republicans and Democrats) are calling for more and smarter regulations.

For example only, 20 years ago there was a rule that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (two government created institutions that hold or guarantee 95% of the mortgages in the entire US) would not guarantee any mortgage where the borrower's monthly payment was more than 25% of his/her gross income (thus, if their gross income was $3000.00 per month, their monthly mortgage payment couldn't be higher than $750.00 per month). That rule - along with the previously intelligent rule that a bank wouldn't loan more than 80% of principal) - were tossed out the door largely due to Republican claims that poor old business suffers if the government regulates them at all (thus forgetting what Teddy Roosevelt said).
For 10-15 years, I've known of people who borrowed 95-100% of appraised value and whose mortgage payment was 50% or more of their gross income (some times as much as 70% of their take-home income). And then we end up with a major problem? Duh!
You can call it whatever makes your heart go pitter patter - socialism, communism, or a duck - but inadequately regulated anything (capitalism, communism, and whatever-the-hell they call it in Southeast Asia) leads to excesses and corruption.

P.S. And you're blaming what's happening on a stock market panic? Think maybe the stock market is reacting to something else (heard of the housing crisis and the credit crunch)? Given what's been happening (Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman Brothers, issues at Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch, not to mention the government bailout of Fannie and Freddie), I'm only surprised it hasn't been a crash yet.

Bob, John McCain is not my "buddy." You call him that because you want me to look bad. I also have serious disagreements with Sarah Palin, but, speaking frankly here, Bob, if I were to wait for a Presidential candidate who agreed with me on every little thing, I would die waiting.

I HELD MY NOSE and voted for Bush, Bob. John Kerry seemed unacceptable to me.

And, in the same way, I will HOLD MY NOSE and vote for John McCain. It's not so much that McCain seems like a terrific guy, but that his opponent is so bad. Obama is a corrupt Chicago machine politician, period. He mades lovely speeches, and screams "racism" whenever anyone contradicts him. He is also attempting to stifle free speech and conduct American foreign policy, when he hasn't even been elected.

But, of course, screaming "racism" whenever a non-Democrat appears, is hardly a new thing -- in the world or on this board.

I am patiently waiting to be called a "Nazi."

Obama has been elected just as much as John McCain has.

And I would like to know where you get the "corrupt" bit from. That is a serious allegation. Surely you have facts, or at least some gossip, about Obama being on the take?

[rincondog]

Yes, Henry and John McCain is a corrupt Arizona politician, remember the Keating 5!!!!!!!!

..... Obama is a corrupt Chicago machine politician, period. He mades lovely speeches, and screams "racism" whenever anyone contradicts him....
Uh, I think you might be confusing him with Al Sharpton, or maybe Jessie Jackson?


..... He is also attempting to stifle free speech and conduct American foreign policy, when he hasn't even been elected....

Huh? :scratch: As if the first quote wasn't baffling enough....


..... But, of course, screaming "racism" whenever a non-Democrat appears, is hardly a new thing -- in the world or on this board....
Well, when someone professes that "all black people hate him" one might be tempted to conclude that person has a few issues regarding Race that he hasn't quite worked out yet.

[Wesley]

the pesco is doing great here, the baks here set aside money an d assetes to cover the losses if there are any, the Bail out by the taxpayers will likeley settle up like the savings in loan debackle did in 80, they actually made money on that deal with Taxpayers money. maybe they can do it again ,

I would love to start a a new thread but I have nothing unimportant to talk about Mr. Arnold.

Wes

[quote=Henry Cate]..... Obama is a corrupt Chicago machine politician, period. He mades lovely speeches, and screams "racism" whenever anyone contradicts him....
Uh, I think you might be confusing him with Al Sharpton, or maybe Jessie Jackson?


..... He is also attempting to stifle free speech and conduct American foreign policy, when he hasn't even been elected....

Huh? :scratch: As if the first quote wasn't baffling enough....


..... But, of course, screaming "racism" whenever a non-Democrat appears, is hardly a new thing -- in the world or on this board....
Well, when someone professes that "all black people hate him" one might be tempted to conclude that person has a few issues regarding Race that he hasn't quite worked out yet.[/quote:zcuz9caw]

That would be Jesse Jackson, wouldn't it, not Jessie? I guess you haven't heard about Obama and his followers trying to stifle a radio station that was reporting on the trove of Obama-Ayers documents that were FINALLY released, or about his agents organizing ranks of callers to radio shows, or about his attempt to discuss the schedule of American troop removals when he was in Iraq. But I really can't be your news reporter for you, kenc. First of all, you don't trust me, and second, I am not a news reporter. Try looking at Instapundit or Little Green Footballs from time to time, just to get an idea of what "the other side" thinks. Isn't that what independent thinkers are supposed to do?

Or, if I may ask a personal question, have you ever voted anything but the straight Democratic ticket?

Alternatively, do you believe that the Democrats "own" your vote because you are gay?

As for the current US crisis, it is basically caused by just one thing: a housing bubble which went POP! Who to blame, who to blame? Hmm...let's blame the banks....let's blame the government and politicans....let's blame Bush. What the fuck, let's blame ANYONE BUT OURSELVES, who kept buying more and more expensive houses with less and less credibility, all in the belief that we could "flip" the property at the opportune moment, and move on to an even MORE expensive house. It was a bubble. It popped.

The whole thing reminds me of a classic P.J. O'Rourke statement about political hypocrisy -- in regards to the education system and its failings. He said, approximately, "So our school system is failing because of politics....because there is not enough money....because there are not enough good teachers. Excuse me, Mr. and Mrs. America. The educational system is failing because of YOUR KIDS." (Ouch!)

Imagine trying to win an election after a statement like that!

[rincondog]

As usual Wesley doesn't know what he is talking about, just another blithering idiot.

From Wesley's previous post:

the Bail out by the taxpayers will likeley settle up like the savings in loan debackle did in 80, they actually made money on that deal with Taxpayers money. maybe they can do it again

The full article is here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26790568/

The nutshell of the article referring to the RTC costs is:

The original RTC took on some $225 billion in junky S&L assets and eventually sold them for $140 billion, so the hit to taxpayers was $85 billion.

[Wesley]

Actually, if they got anything back at all it was better than a fiul bail out with no return. I am often wrong, one of the few that admit it.

Wes

As for the current US crisis, it is basically caused by just one thing: a housing bubble which went POP!What a profoundly ignorant statement. It was caused by hot-shot financial "engineers" who decided they could slice and dice securities including mortgages in several different ways to feed the buyers' appetite for risk. The derivatives they sold were lacking in transparency, so that when the underlying secutities began to default which straightforward banking could have managed, no-one could work out where the true securtiies price lay. In such an atmosphere of uncertaintly, banks and other financial institutions found the easiest thing to do was not to lend to one another. Certainly an underlying cause was borrowing by people who were outside a bank's prudential guidelines, but the lending was driven by commission-hungry brokers who simply lied on behalf of their clients. Warren Buffett told us all in 2002 that financial derivatives were an accident waiting to happen, well before ths latest mortgage lending frenzy. Buffett has proved himself to be a Republican traitor in some peoples eyes I guess by supporting Barack Obama.

.... It was caused by hot-shot financial "engineers" who decided they could slice and dice securities including mortgages in several different ways to feed the buyers' appetite for risk. The derivatives they sold were lacking in transparency, so that when the underlying secutities began to default which straightforward banking could have managed, no-one could work out where the true securtiies price lay. In such an atmosphere of uncertaintly, banks and other financial institutions found the easiest thing to do was not to lend to one another. Certainly an underlying cause was borrowing by people who were outside a bank's prudential guidelines, but the lending was driven by commission-hungry brokers who simply lied on behalf of their clients. .....

I've become so exhausted trying to exlain this whole mess to people who don't get it.
The real estate downturn is a symptom, not the cause of what is essentially a classic banking panic caused by panic selling of securities. And now we're caught in a negative feedback loop where the credit crunch adds to the real estate downturn, which adds to the panic sale of CMO's and CDO's, which adds to the pressure on the banks, which further fuels the credit crunch.


Thumbs up Curious :thumbright:

[Bob]

I've become so exhausted trying to exlain this whole mess to people who don't get it.
The real estate downturn is a symptom, not the cause of what is essentially a classic banking panic caused by panic selling of securities.


Well, maybe you need some more rest as you've got it absolutely backwards. The downturn in values of real estate (which began in my area of the country 4 years ago) caused the financial securities (the myriad of varieties that Warren Buffett called extremely dangerous and ill-advised since 2002) to become much less valuable. Bear Stearns and Lehman's balance sheets contained a lot of that crap and, when the value of the securities went south, so did Bear Stearns and Lehman. For AIG, they insured a lot of these now-worthless (almost) securites. The holding of these subprime interests by the financial outfits is almost exclusively the reason the stock market took as deep of a plunge as it has and, but for the current plan (the Treasury or some new arm of the US government proposing to buy most of these worthless securities - and hope they can recover most of that if/when real estate values increase in 7-15 years), we'd start seeing bank failures ala 1929 (or as close as we've come to that since then).

I've become so exhausted trying to exlain this whole mess to people who don't get it.
The real estate downturn is a symptom, not the cause of what is essentially a classic banking panic caused by panic selling of securities.


Well, maybe you need some more rest as you've got it absolutely backwards. The downturn in values of real estate (which began in my area of the country 4 years ago) caused the financial securities (the myriad of varieties that Warren Buffett called extremely dangerous and ill-advised since 2002) to become much less valuable. .....

Well, I would argue that real estate, though stalling, wasn't falling until last year. What touched things off was the resetting of the low teaser rates on variable mortgages which started people to default. I would contend that that was the trigger. So many variable rate loans and "negative amortization" loans were being made it was only a matter of time that the resets would reach critical mass and suddenly tip the whole market.

We may be arguing "chickens and eggs" though.

Edit: What has surprised me about this whole mess has been how widespread the holdings of these "toxic securities" were and how rediculously "leveraged" our financial institutions were.

[Bob]

Edit: What has surprised me about this whole mess has been how widespread the holdings of these "toxic securities" were and how rediculously "leveraged" our financial institutions were.

Exactly right.....and heads ought to roll over it. But they won't, unfortunately. Hell, around here, they give hundreds of millions of bonuses to a CEO for totally fucking up a company. Ain't America great? (not)

Edit: What has surprised me about this whole mess has been how widespread the holdings of these "toxic securities" were and how rediculously "leveraged" our financial institutions were.

Exactly right.....and heads ought to roll over it. But they won't, unfortunately. Hell, around here, they give hundreds of millions of bonuses to a CEO for totally fucking up a company. Ain't America great? (not)

And they will even bail out individual PEOPLE who were absurdly over-leveraged! And I get to pay for it!

I can actually cite you ONE example, a gay man I know who (nobly) devoted his life to working for free.

He had a friend, and when he described this friend to me, I was inwardly recoiling. "His friend Tom" worked his whole life as an English teacher, lived in the cheapest possible lodgings, NEVER bought new clothes but always shopped Goodwill, NEVER in his life bought a car or a motorbike but always rode the bus, picked up all the aluminum cans in his neighborhood every morning, and -- not surprising -- saved a lot of money. He gave it all to GreenPeace and such.

Now, my friend was getting old. He had no retirement future, aside from Social Security. So his friend Tom called him in one day and said exactly that: you have not provided for your retirement. You're heading up a non-profit that is losing money. So here is a check for $30,000 -- it is a restricted gift to your tax-free organization, in that it may only be used to increase your personal salary, and THUS enable you to qualify for a mortgage when you buy a condominium (in Hawaii, where they both lived).

So my friend signed up for the condo, and his friend Tom died, and then one day the value of his condo plunged from $350,000 to $250,000 -- virtually overnight.

And this all happened BEFORE the burst of the housing bubble.

I guess I don't have to mention that both guys were fervent Democrats. It may be apparent to the sharper readers of this forum that they were perpetrating an act of fraud to get into the housing market, or the condo market.

Now that the housing bubble has popped, I imagine that this ultra-liberal friend, who WAS "waiting for the price to go back up," may be faced with the problem called being "upside-down" in his condo (that is, his equity is less than the amount he owes), and that he is struggling to make the mortage payments on something which has negative value for him. (His friend Bob is now among the angels.)

So -- does that mean that, when he walks away from his condo, and the bank suddenly has to become the owner of that condo -- that I should be legally required to pay for it?

Well, it's already happening, so I guess "Happy Renter" is going to be screwed by "home-owners" once again. (I'm already paying for their mortgage interest.)

And the political reality in America comes round to "Voting For Dollars" once again.

They're doing us all a big favor by the bail-out, not the opposite.

I don't think you'd like to contemplate the consequences for all of us otherwise.

[rincondog]

Chao Na

They're doing us all a big favor by the bail-out, not the opposite.

I don't think you'd like to contemplate the consequences for all of us otherwise.



Remember this is the Bush administration which doesn't have a very good record of getting anything right in eight years.

Their dire warnings of the imminent threat of Iraq and the swift action that was needed turned out to be so right on?????????? Everything they touch turns to shit, and I don't think this plan does anything other than transfer a lot of money to the financial sector. Of course the devil is in the details of the plan.

Paulson is a former Goldman Sachs exec and in four months out of a job. I'm sure he wants to have a nice cushiony position to return to, and what better way than propping up GS with billions.

There are other ways to stimulate the economy, especially if you have 700 billion to spend.