How low will the Market go before Bush acts?

[aoxamaxoa]

You are correct.

Bush is not relevant.

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by bokworker

CF, normally you are spot on with your facts but Fannie Mae doe snot do student loans... Sallie Mae is the largest student lender.

D'oh!  You are correct and I am totally wrong.  Sorry, I was thinking Sallie Mae the entire time and I guess Fannie Mae is too close for my little mind.  My favorite part was when I was told I was wrong and still insisted I was right... damn you brain.

Thanks for correcting me.

- - - - - -

Tim,

The Federal Reserve is not going to act to try and stabilize ONE sector of the economy.  The are, theoretically, not suppose to act to stave off economic downturns anyway... they are suppose to react to in- and deflation.  If they cut rates to help one sector, they would be screwing another (I realize they cut short term rates).

Business that make bad decisions should be allowed to fail.  Citizens that make poor decisions should be allowed to fail.  Everyone in the nation new variable rate mortgages WOULD GET more expensive, as rates were at a historic low.  Companies new people really couldn't afford what they were borrowing.  No sympathy to either of them.

A piece on NPR yesterday fretted for about 30 minutes about the pending bankruptcy of Country Wide and how the nation could handle such a thing.  They ignored the underlying strength and asset base (mortgages are secured) of the company and pretending any Bankruptcy would be a liquidation.  Way to spread panic...

- MARKETS UP, we lost our opportunity.

[tim huntzinger]

I am just amazed that a White House that borrowed a trillion bucks to keep its deficit spending going is suddenly a spendthrift.  The taxpayers have been keeping the phoney real estate - and education - industries afloat for sixty years, so why blanch at keeping the wheels going and boosting investor confidence?

Why seek control of the Treasury Department and White House if you do not believe in their power to influence things like the Market during a crisis?

This is worse than Katrina, in that up to seven million at-risk borrowers may lose their homes.  I know that many will be single folk with only themselves to care for, but I suspect that millions of families with children are getting ready for some heartbreak.

Government bails out undeserving people all the time, if it is a firefighter or an ambulance, doing the right thing does not always require needs testing.

[Conan71]

Quite simply this is a greed issue.  The investors in the hedge funds, and everyone in the home building/sale, and lending chain all sought to profit by more promiscuous lending.  The homeowner had greed in wanting more house than he/she could logically afford.

Here's the pathos story I'm anticipating on one of the news networks:

"Joe was a mid-level manager working for XYZ corporation and enjoying the American dream.  One day that came crashing down as he lost his job, his cars, and finally- his dream home, as the economy was dissolving...."

What that story will neglect to point out is that Joe was an alcoholic, was a chronic absentee from work, had a sexual harrassment claim brought against him to the HR dept., had a Hummer and BMW he could barely afford, and bought a house he couldn't afford on an ARM.  

Somehow the news media has a way of making people's stupidity look like a tragedy.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

I am just amazed that a White House that borrowed a trillion bucks to keep its deficit spending going is suddenly a spendthrift.  The taxpayers have been keeping the phoney real estate - and education - industries afloat for sixty years, so why blanch at keeping the wheels going and boosting investor confidence?

Because it's not their job to do so...why is this so difficult for you to grasp?  The problem will not go away by throwing a little money at it.  

quote:
Why seek control of the Treasury Department and White House if you do not believe in their power to influence things like the Market during a crisis?

No one but you is asking for that.

quote:
This is worse than Katrina, in that up to seven million at-risk borrowers may lose their homes.  I know that many will be single folk with only themselves to care for, but I suspect that millions of families with children are getting ready for some heartbreak.

Why can't we just eliminate all risk from the stock market and guarantee that all stock trades.  Just guarantee that if investors lose money the fed will just reimburse them for their poor stock choices...seems reasonable to me?

quote:
Government bails out undeserving people all the time, if it is a firefighter or an ambulance, doing the right thing does not always require needs testing.

Unfortunately Timmy, the government is not there to protect you from yourself and keep you from making piss poor decisions...You should be thankful for that or you'd be locked in a padded white room right now.

[tim huntzinger]

The government protects us from ourselves all the time, from seatbelts to drug usage.  The government bails out people all the time, from firefighting to lost hikers.  You anti-government freaks live in some anarchistic lala land.

Since we are living in a cradle-to-grave Nanny State that restricts our freedoms it is my opinion that we begin asking more from our government.  I am unsure exactly what emergency steps the Executive Branch can take outside of raising the lending caps at Fannie et al, but this is a national emergency and passing the buck to a do-nothing Congress is weak.

[Conan71]

Seven million at-risk borrowers losing their homes smells a lot like hyperbole to me.

Tim, are you implying that just because these lenders are going under that means the houses get sucked under with them?

Not the case.  So long as the borrower keeps making the payments, they aren't going to lose their house.  If they quit paying because they think they don't have to pay for it because the lender went belly-up, then they are just stupid.

What will happen with the mortgages is they will be sold at discounts to other lenders to service.  It can create an even higher yield for subsequent holders of the notes.

[tim huntzinger]

Since re-dedicating my life to Jim Cramer, I find he says 7 million borrowers have their property on the line.  He does cry over the hedge fund managers and I do find it hard to share his grief.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

The government protects us from ourselves all the time, from seatbelts to drug usage.  The government bails out people all the time, from firefighting to lost hikers.  You anti-government freaks live in some anarchistic lala land.

Since we are living in a cradle-to-grave Nanny State that restricts our freedoms it is my opinion that we begin asking more from our government.  I am unsure exactly what emergency steps the Executive Branch can take outside of raising the lending caps at Fannie et al, but this is a national emergency and passing the buck to a do-nothing Congress is weak.

So are you proposing what I'm asking for then, a risk free stock market?  If not, why?

[cannon_fodder]

Tim, seriously... I getting lost in the rhetoric.  What do you want?

1) If you want the government to bail out the stock market, then where does it end?  Eventually, will they cover my gambling losses too?  Stupid me for making sound investments that aren't likely to double, so long as the government will cover me when my risk fails I'll take it all day long. Companies are in business to make money, inherently with competition there is risk involved.  Slowly but surely as the risk goes down, the profits go down too (look at farmers).  

2) If you want the government to bail out home buyers, then where does it end?  Can I run out and buy a home I can not afford and then expect the government to save it for me?  Stupid  me for buying this I can afford.  Surely the tax payers should make sure I can live above my means - everyone can!  Its easy.

3) You repeatedly point out all the problems the government has gotten us into, but you think somehow getting the government MORE involved is now the answer.  Dont you see the flaw in that?

4) You complain about the nanny state, so your solution is to increase the nanny state?  Do you think more government intervention, taxation (to pay for 7milion homes), and freedom infringing is somehow going to lessen the nanny state?  I just dont get that.
- - - -

Failed businesses should be allowed to fail.  Risky investors should be allowed to both reap the benefits and suffer the pitfalls of investing.  Consumers should be allowed to both borrow credit to live as they please and be allowed to suffer the consequences of living beyond their means.

FREEDOM includes the obligation to suffer the consequences of your actions.

[rwarn17588]

All this talk about financial panic is B.S.

I got an e-mail from my highly respected money manager late yesterday, and he said right now is a prime opportunity to BUY stocks. He's gone from bullish to strongly bullish because the market has become undervalued, and that the housing shakeout will have a meager effect on the economy.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

All this talk about financial panic is B.S.

I got an e-mail from my highly respected money manager late yesterday, and he said right now is a prime opportunity to BUY stocks. He's gone from bullish to strongly bullish because the market has become undervalued, and that the housing shakeout will have a meager effect on the economy.

Well...the panic is real, but the reasons are probably not as "real" as they are making them out to be.  And you're manager is correct.  Great time to get into the market...unless the damned thing keeps going up![]

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

All this talk about financial panic is B.S.

I got an e-mail from my highly respected money manager late yesterday, and he said right now is a prime opportunity to BUY stocks. He's gone from bullish to strongly bullish because the market has become undervalued, and that the housing shakeout will have a meager effect on the economy.

Best way to create panic is to...well... panic.

Thanks for bringing some reality into the discussion.

[tim huntzinger]

All I know is that the market tanked in a big way and all the analysts were saying it had to do with a credit crunch - not enough cash to keep the wheels going.  This could be a ploy by 'Them' I suppose to drive down prices to make for better buys, but I do not think crazy like that.  I am not a Defeatocrat who longs for bad news to show The Man that he sucks.

1. Not wanting a 'bail-out' on the market, just life support is all.
2. Something needs to be done for homeowners who were unwary consumers.  Maybe the lending institions should eat their losses, maybe the loans need to be structured fairly.  If Big Government needs to lean on Money Bags, so be it.  If the banks gave out bad loans and unwary customers took them, the buyer has more to lose than the bank.
3. When do I put down big gubmint? I just want the trains to run on time.  Gubmint is not getting smaller nor will it, I submit we are not getting our dollars' worth.
4. Ditto.  At least I am not whining about universal health care when we already have universal education, universal roadcare, universal retirement security.  At least I am not making the argument that tax-payer funded immunizations are an affront to the Constitution and human liberty or whatever

And if I were selling ice I would sell ice to an eskimo, so for a stockbroker to point out that stock prices are low and therefore a good time to buy, how can you argue with that?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

All I know is that the market tanked in a big way and all the analysts were saying it had to do with a credit crunch - not enough cash to keep the wheels going.  This could be a ploy by 'Them' I suppose to drive down prices to make for better buys, but I do not think crazy like that.  I am not a Defeatocrat who longs for bad news to show The Man that he sucks.

1. Not wanting a 'bail-out' on the market, just life support is all.
2. Something needs to be done for homeowners who were unwary consumers.  Maybe the lending institions should eat their losses, maybe the loans need to be structured fairly.  If Big Government needs to lean on Money Bags, so be it.  If the banks gave out bad loans and unwary customers took them, the buyer has more to lose than the bank.
3. When do I put down big gubmint? I just want the trains to run on time.  Gubmint is not getting smaller nor will it, I submit we are not getting our dollars' worth.
4. Ditto.  At least I am not whining about universal health care when we already have universal education, universal roadcare, universal retirement security.  At least I am not making the argument that tax-payer funded immunizations are an affront to the Constitution and human liberty or whatever

And if I were selling ice I would sell ice to an eskimo, so for a stockbroker to point out that stock prices are low and therefore a good time to buy, how can you argue with that?

Sigh...sadly you just don't get it but that's okay...

You're the only one around here that's stuck on this issue.  Just go on hating Bush for your soup being cold and grass stains on your jeans and you'll be just fine.