If we were using the same formula we were using during the Great Depression,you'd have to add in a good 3 million "moderately" disabled and discouraged workers to the 9 million already unemployed- and probably also another 5 million underemployed. 17 million unemployed would rival depression-era standards though, so you'll never see the Bush Admin admit to it.
Is why everybody is talking the Paulson Plan, a supply side bailout, when the obvious answer is a huge DEMAND side bailout.
In other words, don't give the $700 billion to the Treasury. Give the $700 billion to HUD. Let the banks fail, while HUD buys up the riskier mortgages at fire-sale prices, forecloses, and turns the properties into rental units to the same people who originally tried to buy them.
A few of the higher-income families who got overdrawn, might be given the choice to refinance instead- and buy their mortgage from HUD so that HUD can buy some poorer person's mortgage.
Offer Wall Street 50 cents on the dollar for any mortgage held by somebody with a credit rating below 600.
And those banks that survive, do so. Those banks that still fail when getting half their money back probably shouldn't have been banks to begin with.
She needs to point to a specific bill number and title.
I wrote earlier about her. What is astounding is it appears she was on this over a year ago and it appears she's the one with the real well thought out plan.
I just posted a couple of bill numbers sponsored by Hillary but could not find one which spelled out a HOLC.
It's clearly in her Presidential policy plans, which unfortunately the website removed (great, how many links did that break?)
I'm not saying they aren't setting themselves up for the bailout. Just that, afterward, I'm thinking that they could just be back to their old tricks, just not on the same scale as before.
what you don't need is manipulation. I think energy futures are one of those commodities, that while it's given that there is a market, should be extremely regulated.
commodity futures and speculators manipulating the markets?
I know there is about 9 bills trying to stop this but I don't know which one plain repeals the Enron loophole.
I cannot believe Congress man, they have done nothing on a host of issues which are glaring, the data is there and nope, they are busy talking to their corporate constituents and doing nothing.
nice rigged game going on. I wonder if the hedge funds are the next to fall like Dr. Doom. Is this large institutional investors causing the 10% pop? Love how they are so concerned on how this all effects the rest of the economy...
just battle of the gambling gangs.
although I also wonder if it's a legitimate bet that the dollar is going down due to the massive debt being taken on.
Read Only the Shadow Knows in the Instapopulist. It's pretty clear they did this because they need access to the coming bailouts. So, changing your registration, corporate entity, corporate structure overnight was a way to do this.
That's another issue is that corporations can easily change their location, entity and so forth with one simply piece of paper and a registration fee.
From all sides out here in the real world, on that bill, so there appears to be, but the real issue is what should be there in it's place.
They should stop f**king around here, introduce a bill, say this is what you get and pass it.
I was just looking in the Congressional record but it appears to be power play on the hill and as we know, there are Democrats who are just as in bed with Citigroup/Goldman Sachs and so on as Republicans.
Hey, I wrote something about Hillary's plan and most are acting like it doesn't even exist. I read it and while it seemed so doomsday during the campaign now it looks like a very good solution.
I'm not sure where the legislation is or bill number.
I just looked in the Congressional record and found S.2310 but this is from 11/07 and I was under the impression she reintroduced something recently.
S.2310 is A bill to establish a National Catastrophic Risks Consortium and a National Homeowners' Insurance Stabilization Program
so, where is HOLC specifically I'm not sure. I don't think a bill has been introduced, maybe someone else has.
She also has S.2114 which amends the mortgage Truth in Lending Act.
Unfunded CDO (Collateralized Debt Obligation) means if there is a default, only then does the issuer have to pay up. Funded means they have to pay up front.
So, (and trust me, this is a lay person's blog so if I'm wrong, someone correct me), it appears to work like this
These CDOs an investor gets a premium amount (like you pay an insurance company your premiums) when they buy one of these.
But, if there is a default on the underlying or associated security these things are supposed to insure, the investor has to pony up the funds in that case.
So, this is saying they created methods so the investor didn't have to pony up any funds while getting premiums for insuring bad debt (in so many words) and didn't have to pay up until an actual default occurred.
Fitchratings has a pretty good paper on their website that comes somewhat close to English in explaining these.
Calvin has a lemonade stand that charges $15.00 per glass — and only Susie comes to it, and then again, only to wreck it. Here is the dialogue on Calvin's rip-off lemonade:
Susie: "15 bucks a glass?"
Calvin: "That's right! Want some?"
Susie: "How do you justify charging 15 dollars?"
Calvin: "Supply and demand."
Susie: "Where's the demand? I don't see any demand!"
Calvin: "There's lots of demand!"
Susie: "Yeah?"
Calvin: "Sure! As the sole stockholder in this enterprise, I demand monstrous profit on my investment! And as President and CEO of this company, I demand an exorbitant annual salary! And as my own employee, I demand a high hourly wage and all sorts of company benefits! And then there's overhead and actual production costs!"
Susie: "But it looks like you just threw a lemon in some sludge water!"
Calvin: "Well, I have to cut expenses somewhere if I want to stay competitive."
Susie: "What if I got sick from that?"
Calvin: " 'Caveat emptor' is the motto we stand behind! I'd have to charge more if we followed health and environmental regulations."
Susie: "You're out of your mind. I'm going home to drink something else."
Calvin: "Sure! Put me out of a job! It's you anti-business types who ruin the economy!"
Calvin scowls, abandons his stand and tells his mother, "I need to be subsidized."
The only thing I could think of that could be so terrible as to shut up congressmen for 15 mins is that china wants their money back.
And on the Sullivan/Klein clip - Sullivan isn't even in the same league as Klein, and doesn't deserve to share the same stage - she towers over him intellectually, and he proves once again how morally bankrupt "free" market ideology has become
the Administration is able to change the scope of the bailout at whim (different securities, foreign banks OK), but the Congress is forbidden to change even one tiny little comma lest it cause the End of the World.
I'm not kidding, he just looked at the Camera, told him to shut up and then called him the 3 P's!
He has a poll up on it.
I imagine they are just another creditor now who has to get in line to get some percentage on the dollar.
That must suck, years and years of litigation and then...whamo, guess what that house of cards imploded.
That none of these plaintiffs are still actually in business affect the outcome?
If we were using the same formula we were using during the Great Depression,you'd have to add in a good 3 million "moderately" disabled and discouraged workers to the 9 million already unemployed- and probably also another 5 million underemployed. 17 million unemployed would rival depression-era standards though, so you'll never see the Bush Admin admit to it.
Is why everybody is talking the Paulson Plan, a supply side bailout, when the obvious answer is a huge DEMAND side bailout.
In other words, don't give the $700 billion to the Treasury. Give the $700 billion to HUD. Let the banks fail, while HUD buys up the riskier mortgages at fire-sale prices, forecloses, and turns the properties into rental units to the same people who originally tried to buy them.
A few of the higher-income families who got overdrawn, might be given the choice to refinance instead- and buy their mortgage from HUD so that HUD can buy some poorer person's mortgage.
Offer Wall Street 50 cents on the dollar for any mortgage held by somebody with a credit rating below 600.
And those banks that survive, do so. Those banks that still fail when getting half their money back probably shouldn't have been banks to begin with.
but there are 9 different bills before Congress and I know many of them pretend to do something but actually won't.
I don't know which one is the "good" one, although I suspect anything Bryon Dorgan authored is probably a good place to start.
(gotta love how one gets 9 bills supposedly addressing the same thing yet 8 of them are Trojan horses).
She needs to point to a specific bill number and title.
I wrote earlier about her. What is astounding is it appears she was on this over a year ago and it appears she's the one with the real well thought out plan.
I just posted a couple of bill numbers sponsored by Hillary but could not find one which spelled out a HOLC.
It's clearly in her Presidential policy plans, which unfortunately the website removed (great, how many links did that break?)
I'm not saying they aren't setting themselves up for the bailout. Just that, afterward, I'm thinking that they could just be back to their old tricks, just not on the same scale as before.
what you don't need is manipulation. I think energy futures are one of those commodities, that while it's given that there is a market, should be extremely regulated.
commodity futures and speculators manipulating the markets?
I know there is about 9 bills trying to stop this but I don't know which one plain repeals the Enron loophole.
I cannot believe Congress man, they have done nothing on a host of issues which are glaring, the data is there and nope, they are busy talking to their corporate constituents and doing nothing.
nice rigged game going on. I wonder if the hedge funds are the next to fall like Dr. Doom. Is this large institutional investors causing the 10% pop? Love how they are so concerned on how this all effects the rest of the economy...
just battle of the gambling gangs.
although I also wonder if it's a legitimate bet that the dollar is going down due to the massive debt being taken on.
Read Only the Shadow Knows in the Instapopulist. It's pretty clear they did this because they need access to the coming bailouts. So, changing your registration, corporate entity, corporate structure overnight was a way to do this.
That's another issue is that corporations can easily change their location, entity and so forth with one simply piece of paper and a registration fee.
From all sides out here in the real world, on that bill, so there appears to be, but the real issue is what should be there in it's place.
They should stop f**king around here, introduce a bill, say this is what you get and pass it.
I was just looking in the Congressional record but it appears to be power play on the hill and as we know, there are Democrats who are just as in bed with Citigroup/Goldman Sachs and so on as Republicans.
Hey, I wrote something about Hillary's plan and most are acting like it doesn't even exist. I read it and while it seemed so doomsday during the campaign now it looks like a very good solution.
I'm not sure where the legislation is or bill number.
I just looked in the Congressional record and found S.2310 but this is from 11/07 and I was under the impression she reintroduced something recently.
S.2310 is A bill to establish a National Catastrophic Risks Consortium and a National Homeowners' Insurance Stabilization Program
so, where is HOLC specifically I'm not sure. I don't think a bill has been introduced, maybe someone else has.
She also has S.2114 which amends the mortgage Truth in Lending Act.
maybe she just gave a floor speech and simply
Unfunded CDO (Collateralized Debt Obligation) means if there is a default, only then does the issuer have to pay up. Funded means they have to pay up front.
So, (and trust me, this is a lay person's blog so if I'm wrong, someone correct me), it appears to work like this
These CDOs an investor gets a premium amount (like you pay an insurance company your premiums) when they buy one of these.
But, if there is a default on the underlying or associated security these things are supposed to insure, the investor has to pony up the funds in that case.
So, this is saying they created methods so the investor didn't have to pony up any funds while getting premiums for insuring bad debt (in so many words) and didn't have to pay up until an actual default occurred.
Fitchratings has a pretty good paper on their website that comes somewhat close to English in explaining these.
is the government starts acting in the national interest. Pipe smokin' I know.
Calvin has a lemonade stand that charges $15.00 per glass — and only Susie comes to it, and then again, only to wreck it. Here is the dialogue on Calvin's rip-off lemonade:
Susie: "15 bucks a glass?"
Calvin: "That's right! Want some?"
Susie: "How do you justify charging 15 dollars?"
Calvin: "Supply and demand."
Susie: "Where's the demand? I don't see any demand!"
Calvin: "There's lots of demand!"
Susie: "Yeah?"
Calvin: "Sure! As the sole stockholder in this enterprise, I demand monstrous profit on my investment! And as President and CEO of this company, I demand an exorbitant annual salary! And as my own employee, I demand a high hourly wage and all sorts of company benefits! And then there's overhead and actual production costs!"
Susie: "But it looks like you just threw a lemon in some sludge water!"
Calvin: "Well, I have to cut expenses somewhere if I want to stay competitive."
Susie: "What if I got sick from that?"
Calvin: " 'Caveat emptor' is the motto we stand behind! I'd have to charge more if we followed health and environmental regulations."
Susie: "You're out of your mind. I'm going home to drink something else."
Calvin: "Sure! Put me out of a job! It's you anti-business types who ruin the economy!"
Calvin scowls, abandons his stand and tells his mother, "I need to be subsidized."
The only thing I could think of that could be so terrible as to shut up congressmen for 15 mins is that china wants their money back.
And on the Sullivan/Klein clip - Sullivan isn't even in the same league as Klein, and doesn't deserve to share the same stage - she towers over him intellectually, and he proves once again how morally bankrupt "free" market ideology has become
the Administration is able to change the scope of the bailout at whim (different securities, foreign banks OK), but the Congress is forbidden to change even one tiny little comma lest it cause the End of the World.
This stinks to high heaven.
That ain't ever gonna happen! Well...no I take that back, I've seen something like that in Japanese auto and industrial firms, but a US one?!?
Pages