United States economy doomed …

[freedom]

and the beat goes on .......



see ya later leman brothers! peace out yo !

 

[PITbull]

Yeah, the Mae/Mac issue is significantly more important than a Bears Stearns issue. It is VERY unlikely that one can "get taken out," however. Due to the fact that Mae/Mac is often the group that allows average joes to own homes, despite the lack of unanimity the gov't, in my opinion, would never allow it to be "taken out." Nonetheless, the shares of Mae/Mac are likely wothless at this point. The question becomes then: what are the ramifications of a Mae/Mac rescue, if one were to occur?

Lehman in BK; Merril bought by BOA, Fannie and Freddie being bailed out by the gov.....tax payors are now exposed to all the risks.

Freddie and Fannie are not gov. agencies. Not for the past 30 years. But since the perception globally is that they are, the gov. will back these two agencies to protect international interest.

Now, all the financials want to be rescued. Such hippocrits screaming they want the gov. to stay out of business, and stay out of the way (sound familiar...McCain)...until they get in trouble, then they want nothing but GOV INVOLVEMENT for rescue.

Wall street wants the risks to be "socialized", but the gains private....capitalism my azzzzz! Can't have it both ways and the gov. can't be Quazi.

Next...is AIG. Who would have thought it could be this bad?
This is what happens when there is not enough regulations and no transparency!

The "shortsellers" are having a field day.

I wonder if McCain will campaign that the gov. back AIG...if he takes that position, than he is a ligitimate, bonfide liar when he states that gov. should not be involved and that gov. should stay out of the way of folks lives.

Can't wait to hear McCain/Palin solutions to this crisis.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Lehman in BK; Merril bought by BOA, Fannie and Freddie being bailed out by the gov.....tax payors are now exposed to all the risks.

Freddie and Fannie are not gov. agencies. Not for the past 30 years. But since the perception globally is that they are, the gov. will back these two agencies to protect international interest.

Now, all the financials want to be rescued. Such hippocrits screaming they want the gov. to stay out of business, and stay out of the way (sound familiar...McCain)...until they get in trouble, then they want nothing but GOV INVOLVEMENT for rescue.

Wall street wants the risks to be "socialized", but the gains private. Can't have it both ways and the gov. can't be Quazi.

Next...is AIG. Who would have thought it could be this bad?
This is what happens when there is not enough regulations and no transparency!

The "shortsellers" are having a field day.

I wonder if McCain will campaign that the gov. back AIG...if he takes that position, than he is a ligitimate, bonfide liar when he states that gov. should not be involved and that gov. should stay out of the way of folks lives.

Can't wait to hear McCain/Palin solutions to this crisis.

Pit,

I am assuming, then, that you are pleased (or perhaps it is better to say less-perturbed?) with the Fed's decision to stay out of Lehman's demise and not rescue it?

I am quite certain that the Fed saw the situation with Lehman as distinctively different than the situation with Bear Stearns, and that is what supported the Fed's decision to let Lehman suffer to its likely end: Bankruptcy.

 

[PITbull]

Pit,

I am assuming, then, that you are pleased (or perhaps it is better to say less-perturbed?) with the Fed's decision to stay out of Lehman's demise and not rescue it?

I am quite certain that the Fed saw the situation with Lehman as distinctively different than the situation with Bear Stearns, and that is what supported the Fed's decision to let Lehman suffer to its likely end: Bankruptcy.

Don't assume anything with me.

I don't think the feds think its different at all. I think that THEY now think they just can't bail everyone out and place all the RISKS on the taxpayors of this nation.

What I do know is that in this present day of trillion $$ deficits... the taxpayors cannot bail out the entire financial enterprise. Perhaps 8 years ago when the budget was in the SURPLUS, the gov. could have made the effort to cushion this crisis and help the financial markets.

But not now.

We better hope that China doesn't call in their loans to be paid in full...

Look for the uneployment figures for next month to be in closer to 7% nationally.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Lehman in BK; Merril bought by BOA, Fannie and Freddie being bailed out by the gov.....tax payors are now exposed to all the risks.

Freddie and Fannie are not gov. agencies. Not for the past 30 years. But since the perception globally is that they are, the gov. will back these two agencies to protect international interest.

Now, all the financials want to be rescued. Such hippocrits screaming they want the gov. to stay out of business, and stay out of the way (sound familiar...McCain)...until they get in trouble, then they want nothing but GOV INVOLVEMENT for rescue.

Wall street wants the risks to be "socialized", but the gains private....capitalism my azzzzz! Can't have it both ways and the gov. can't be Quazi.

Next...is AIG. Who would have thought it could be this bad?
This is what happens when there is not enough regulations and no transparency!

The "shortsellers" are having a field day.

I wonder if McCain will campaign that the gov. back AIG...if he takes that position, than he is a ligitimate, bonfide liar when he states that gov. should not be involved and that gov. should stay out of the way of folks lives.

Can't wait to hear McCain/Palin solutions to this crisis.

PitBull,

Take a breather and ‘soak it all in’…

I have been working in the RE industry for awhile and a lot of this crap can be attributed to the ‘regulation’ of the ‘law’.

It is ‘fundamentally’ wrong to allow borrowers to obtain a loan without meeting the 38% rule, at a minimum.

For the last few years, borrowers could get a loan with very simple documentation.
When the ‘rules’ allow for a 100%, no doc (no documentation), no principle, 3 year ARM@ 4.5% based on 30 years… WTF? :wacko:

Who could not see this coming?

The majority of the ‘air breathers’ on this continent are more concerned with real issues like sex and idol.

JMHO, Most people are screwed.

I probably am as well, but I’ll be able to sit here on the ‘catbird’ seat a little while longer than most.

Take Care,
B) xUT

 

[PITbull]

UAL,

Obviously, you can agree, we need regulations for the lack of transparency you speak of.

Shows me how greedy these lenders were...you would think they were into the housing business; rather than the lending business.

Well, they have all the houses.

The other shoe is going to drop as well. There is not tax revenue from these homes that are in repo. So, what happens to the local communities with less tax revenue coming in; not counting unemployment is ready to jump another 1%.

There is going to be a massive trickle down effect that will impact every man, women, child and pet in this country. ..and we still have two wars we are funding, health care crisis, energy crisis, and social security deficits with no remedy or solutions from either knuckleheads running.

Hell, I don't think there are any solutions. I think in the next 10 years we will become another immpoverished third worlder.

 

[PITbull]

Today, my retirement portfolio went down another $7,600...in one friggen day!

 

[Gilding the Lily]

Don't assume anything with me.

I don't think the feds think its different at all. I think that THEY now think they just can't bail everyone out and place all the RISKS on the taxpayors of this nation.

What I do know is that in this present day of trillion $$ deficits... the taxpayors cannot bail out the entire financial enterprise. Perhaps 8 years ago when the budget was in the SURPLUS, the gov. could have made the effort to cushion this crisis and help the financial markets.

But not now.

We better hope that China doesn't call in their loans to be paid in full...

Look for the uneployment figures for next month to be in closer to 7% nationally.

So, in other words, I was correct with my assumption that you are pleased that the Fed let Lehman slide into bankruptcy rather than bail it out with taxpayer's money. No worries... we may be in agreement in principle.

I think the Fed, however, did see a distinctive difference between the conditions during the Bear Stearns bail-out and the conditions during the Lehman love loss. The Fed noted quite clearly that it took action during the Bear Stearns debacle because Bear Stearn's fincancial condition was, relatively, a surprise. The Fed was worried that such a suprising and quick failure threatened to worsen the already tense market conditions. Moreover, the problems in the markets regarding short-term funding were severe and suprising at the time. The financial markets and the U.S. financial system appeared unprepared for such a big failure in the derivates market. As noted in Fed testimony, it was also quite concerned about the contagious effect that a suprising failure would have on other significant members of the U.S. financial community because they did not have time to prepare for such a suprising failure. Lastly there was a willing buyer to purchase the Bear Stearn's platform, etc.

In the Lehman love loss, there is hardly anyone who can claim that they were hit by a suprising and sudden failure. All the major players who will be effected by the Lehman failure had six months to prepare any trouble caused by the Lehman demise (if I could predict the fall of Lehman 6 months ago, anyone can). Since the Bear Stearns bailout, the Fed expanded its discount window to let securities-type firm borrow. In Lehman's case, there were a couple reluctant buyers, but the Fed understood that any likely buyers would want considerably more than the $29 billion the government provided for Bear Stearns. And, despite what some would suggest, the Fed has made clear that it was concerned about moral hazard, so instead of a bailout, the fed decided to extend lending over the weekend to provide assistance to other members of the market who will be effected by Lehman's bankruptcy filing (e.g., citibank).

 

[UAL_TECH]

UAL,

Obviously, you can agree, we need regulations for the lack of transparency you speak of.

Shows me how greedy these lenders were...you would think they were into the housing business; rather than the lending business.

Well, they have all the houses.

The other shoe is going to drop as well. There is not tax revenue from these homes that are in repo. So, what happens to the local communities with less tax revenue coming in; not counting unemployment is ready to jump another 1%.

There is going to be a massive trickle down effect that will impact every man, women, child and pet in this country. ..and we still have two wars we are funding, health care crisis, energy crisis, and social security deficits with no remedy or solutions from either knuckleheads running.

Hell, I don't think there are any solutions. I think in the next 10 years we will become another immpoverished third worlder.

PitBull,

JMHO,
We adamantly agree on some issues as much as we do not agree

( but that is why I Love U So!)…

We are now the ‘bagholders’ of the American Banking system as much as we were for the American Credit Unions. The ‘Meircan’ peeple are a bunch of sheeple. Too stupid to understand the importance of ‘anything’ other than cable TV.

There are ‘solutions’ but there are few of us to actually make a difference to the ‘sheeple’.
Possibly, if I did not have as much ‘contempt’ for the intestinal fortitude of my constituency other than the internet blow hards, change could be made.

I agree, we will have to become a third world nation before these ‘sheeple’ grow a set and see WTF is going on.

IMHO, I will be long in the ash before that ever happens!

Take Care,
B) xUAL_TECH

 

[PITbull]

So, in other words, I was correct with my assumption that you are pleased that the Fed let Lehman slide into bankruptcy rather than bail it out with taxpayer's money. No worries... we may be in agreement in principle.

I think the Fed, however, did see a distinctive difference between the conditions during the Bear Stearns bail-out and the conditions during the Lehman love loss. The Fed noted quite clearly that it took action during the Bear Stearns debacle because Bear Stearn's fincancial condition was, relatively, a surprise. The Fed was worried that such a suprising and quick failure threatened to worsen the already tense market conditions. Moreover, the problems in the markets regarding short-term funding were severe and suprising at the time. The financial markets and the U.S. financial system appeared unprepared for such a big failure in the derivates market. As noted in Fed testimony, it was also quite concerned about the contagious effect that a suprising failure would have on other significant members of the U.S. financial community because they did not have time to prepare for such a suprising failure. Lastly there was a willing buyer to purchase the Bear Stearn's platform, etc.

In the Lehman love loss, there is hardly anyone who can claim that they were hit by a suprising and sudden failure. All the major players who will be effected by the Lehman failure had six months to prepare any trouble caused by the Lehman demise (if I could predict the fall of Lehman 6 months ago, anyone can). Since the Bear Stearns bailout, the Fed expanded its discount window to let securities-type firm borrow. In Lehman's case, there were a couple reluctant buyers, but the Fed understood that any likely buyers would want considerably more than the $29 billion the government provided for Bear Stearns. And, despite what some would suggest, the Fed has made clear that it was concerned about moral hazard, so instead of a bailout, the fed decided to extend lending over the weekend to provide assistance to other members of the market who will be effected by Lehman's bankruptcy filing (e.g., citibank).

You think that the Bear Stearns forced marriage with JP for $2 a share is different for Lehman's?

I can recall Pulson saying immediately after the Bears Stearns deal that they don't want to give the perception that they are in the business of bailing out the financial markets. There is no difference between Bears and lehman only that the Feds won't get involved again.

They already put their foot in their mouth with Fannie and Mac. The focus now is what to do with AIG??????

What do you think they will do?

I think they will give AIG a bridge they need to starve off immeidate BK. Cause BK with AIG will create one hell of a mess and probably 1,000 point decline in the DOW. Everyone is in someway connected to AIG specifically in our financial portfolios.

 

[KCFlyer]

Today, my retirement portfolio went down another $7,600...in one friggen day!

Doesn't it give you the warm fuzzies knowing that the right wants to get rid of Social Security? Remember folks...it the SAME GUYS that gave you this mess who want you to "invest" in your own personal retirement plan.

 

[PITbull]

Doesn't it give you the warm fuzzies knowing that the right wants to get rid of Social Security? Remember folks...it the SAME GUYS that gave you this mess who want you to "invest" in your own personal retirement plan.

KC,

You couldn't be more clear on that point!!!

Geezus...tomorrow is going to be a killer. Folks that are on "margin" are going to be pulling funds to meet their margin obligations, which will in turn, pull even the good, non-financial stocks down!

Damn it.

 

[Freight train]

Doesn't it give you the warm fuzzies knowing that the right wants to get rid of Social Security? Remember folks...it the SAME GUYS that gave you this mess who want you to "invest" in your own personal retirement plan.

Your words are profound !
It's "mind numbing" to think of anyone giving the republican party another four years at the controls.

 

[Freight train]

There is a train coming for us all.

B) xUT

 

[Gilding the Lily]

They already put their foot in their mouth with Fannie and Mac. The focus now is what to do with AIG??????

What do you think they will do?

I think this is a little more difficult to predict than the Lehman/No rescue or the Freddie/Fannie Rescue.

With that said, however, I think that any private intervention at this point would likely be a futile attempt. Thus, if I was a bookie, I would place better odds at a Fed-created conservatorship; moderate odds on a Fed gap-loan; low odds of a AIG bankruptcy filing without any Fed intervention. (Note, however, I am a better betting man than a bookie).

Pit, we may not need to wait too long to find out (if AIG needs to file for BK, it will likely need to do it by tomorrow night or Thursday morning). On another note, looks like airline stocks had a decent day. Looks like your LCC desicion looks a little better today than it did 2 days ago.