Friday, March 13, 2009

Photo of the day

Posted by at 7:13 AM
Labels:

21 comments:

  1. UnknownMarch 13, 2009 9:11 AM

    I guess I am not getting the point here. We have handed out hundreds of billions to bail out the financial industry, and to a large degree they are responsible for the creation of a lot of this mess. The problem is that once we bailed them out, it created an expectation that average folks might be able to get some relief too.

    Now I understand that regular folks who are current on their mortgages might feel this to be unfair, yet the same sense of unfairness extends to the question of why it is that banks get a bailout and mortgagees don't.

    Now some might argue that nobody should have gotten bailed out at all - at least that argument would have some consistency.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousMarch 13, 2009 9:23 AM

    I guess I am not getting the point here...

    Now some might argue that nobody should have gotten bailed out at all

    Yes, you are getting the point.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousMarch 13, 2009 9:47 AM

    "Yes, you are getting the point."

    Where is the outrage toward AIG manifesting itself? I'm not seeing it.

    As usual, Jon Stewart and the Daily Show are doing more to address the issue than the government or the population at large.

    ReplyDelete
  4. AnonymousMarch 13, 2009 11:11 AM

    "Where is the outrage toward AIG manifesting itself? I'm not seeing it."

    you obviously have not seen this guy...

    http://www.youtube.com/user/walstreetpro2

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousMarch 13, 2009 11:59 AM

    Jack Russell-
    The rationale for the "bailout of the financial industry" was that it was, in fact a bailout of "average folks". The argument that was used, and the only reason that it passed was that, without that money, banks would collapse and there would be no lending available for " average folks". This meant no mortgages, car loans, or small business loans. The argument went on that small businesses would fail and unemployment would worsen.

    Was this correct? I don't know, but it was the only reason to bail out banks in the first place. So the the expectation that " average folks" should get something because banks did is ridiculous. "Average folks" were the intended beneficiaries of the bank plan in the first place. Did it work? We'll never know for sure since we don't know how bad it would have been. By indicators of lending, I'd say that it probably did work, and that things would have been much worse for most people without those measures.

    ReplyDelete
  6. AnonymousMarch 13, 2009 1:10 PM

    all that will come of the Fed's doubling of its balance sheet (i.e. the bailouts) is inflation and an expansion of welfare rolls as more "average folks" fall behind. i would crush the Fed flat with my palm if i could.

    "extending credit without adequate savings is just a pyramid scheme."

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousMarch 14, 2009 2:06 AM

    There is a fundamental difference between the Wall St. bailout and the Loan Modification Program. Wall st. bailouts are in the form of loans, not handouts. True, financial institutions may eventually fail and not repay the loan, but it's still a loan (and with a lot of strings attached). The Loan Modification Program offers outright gifts to homeowners and the mortgage companies. It's truly bad policy, although I'm sure many European countries look at the program with envy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. AnonymousMarch 14, 2009 4:18 AM

    Those loans are effectively handouts.

    Cheap loans on favorable terms, requiring little if anything of value as collateral are free money.

    The only reason the banks are getting a far better deal than the homeowners is because they employ far better lobbyists and have been able to convince too much of the public that without them unspeakable things would happen.

    These banks are not indispensable, and they are not "too big to fail." The only reason they were able to grow as large as they did was by making a series of spectacularly stupid decisions. The correct course of action is to let them "fail." The federal government will probably have to facilitate an orderly transition as these companies are broken up into their various pieces and auctioned off. Within a couple years nobody will remember why it was that these companies were considered indispensable to the US economy, and with any luck their executives will still be looking for new jobs.

    While I am at it, there is no good reason to be giving free money to people who spent more than they can repay. Who cares whether someone bought a house or a Ferrari? The basic fact is that people behaved like idiots and wrecked their finances. They don't deserve any kind of handout for having done so. If they can't make the payments they agreed to make, they can just go back to renting, it isn't a death sentence.

    You don't "own" a house when you sign up to pay more than you have any hope of actually paying and don't put one penny towards the principal of your loan before defaulting.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousMarch 14, 2009 7:33 AM

    I would just like to see the day that my $100K salary can afford me a nice little house in a bad area of town here in the DC area.

    Bailing everyone out, keeps me out of the "home owner" club. I dont mind paying someones mortgage if Im at least allowed to have my own.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AnonymousMarch 14, 2009 3:43 PM

    JACKRUSSELL:

    I don't think just because the banks are getting a bailout that ordinary people should either.

    First off, I don't think banks should be getting the bailouts. But I certainly don't think all these douchebag homeowners who saw nothing but profit and greed should either.

    I can't stand people who knew what they were doing and now cry that they didn't see it coming, they were victimized, etc...what a load of bullshit and we ALL know it here.

    Yeah sure...perhaps 10-15% of all homeowners got caught up in things they didn't know about and were taken for a ride.

    But the rest? F'em. Go to the Inland Empire in So Cal. Every other house has a boat, an RV, jetskies, etc. Where the hell did these whining assholes get these toys? From their $40K per year jobs? While living in their 2500 sqft cookie cutter dream homes?

    This is one example out of many.

    This whole situation is akin to these greedy scumbags who put their money with Bernie Madoff and are now crying about it. Case in point...the other day on NPR they had a coupe who'd been taken for a ride by Madoff. The woman had lost $25Million. She had to take her mother out of a luxury senior living center and put her in a regular retirement home while claiming disability.

    BOOHOO...that's the way the rest of us have to do it. Perhaps if she wasn't so freaking greedy and $25MM was enough money, she'd not be in this mess. The hell if I'm going to shed a tear. Tough shit.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousMarch 15, 2009 7:51 AM

    "BOOHOO...that's the way the rest of us have to do it. Perhaps if she wasn't so freaking greedy and $25MM was enough money, she'd not be in this mess. The hell if I'm going to shed a tear. Tough shit."

    I love your "tough shit" psots.

    I have a babyboomer coworker that owns 3 houses and I hate hearing him complain about the values falling. He bought them all in the 80s, what is he got to bitch about? I haven't asked him if he sucked all the equity out of them, but that would be my guess.

    Im in my late 20s and Im priced out of buying a home because of the games the babyboomers played. F'em is right.

    ReplyDelete
  12. LanceMarch 15, 2009 9:33 AM

    "Im in my late 20s and Im priced out of buying a home because of the games the babyboomers played. F'em is right."

    I guess you don't realize that with today's very low interest rates and relatively higher salaries (due to more service sector vs. factory job availability) that today's generation can much more easily afford housing than the boomers could when they were your age. Yeah, the average house might have been 1/5 the nominal price of what it is now ... but so was the average salary. And while interest rates are now a paltry 5%, they were approaching 20% back then. And while today there are still programs that allow you to buy without having to put down a 20% downpayement, these programs hadn't even been invented back then ... which meant that only those with generous parents could expect to own a home anytime before the age of 30 or 35. No, it's far far easier to own a home today than it was then ... because of the changes which the baby boomers have helped bring about.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousMarch 15, 2009 10:25 AM

    Lance, aging homosexuals don't have the right to pass judgement upon others when it comes to inter-generational issues. You're out of the gene pool and out of the evolutionary process. If the guy wants to blame the boomers for the mess we're in; thats his right. Now go get yourself some creme brulee.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AnonymousMarch 15, 2009 12:03 PM

    Lance, dear, your forgot to mention "innovative financial products/schemes". Just admit that the guy i"in his 20s" is right and stop posting your usual nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousMarch 15, 2009 1:58 PM

    Why isn't that girl's shit-father mad that Bush bailed out the banks? Why is he mad enough use his daughter to mock Obama, who really hasn't even done anything yet?

    It seems to me the republicans and their nuts are sore losers and are suddenly pretending that the last 8 years of the retard in chief never happened.

    ReplyDelete
  16. AnonymousMarch 15, 2009 3:13 PM

    LANCE:

    I guess you don't realize that with today's very low interest rates and relatively higher salaries (due to more service sector vs. factory job availability) that today's generation can much more easily afford housing than the boomers could when they were your age.


    You me BORROW...not afford. Understand the situation before blowing off BS.


    Yeah, the average house might have been 1/5 the nominal price of what it is now ... but so was the average salary.


    OK then what the hell are you talking about? That means the situation is the same...with the exception that the banks are were recently giving money away...and thus making people like YOU think we're richer.


    And while interest rates are now a paltry 5%, they were approaching 20% back then. And while today there are still programs that allow you to buy without having to put down a 20% downpayement, these programs hadn't even been invented back then ... which meant that only those with generous parents could expect to own a home anytime before the age of 30 or 35.


    Yeah good points...which shoot you in the foot. It just means people today AGAIN...are just getting money more EASILY...not that they are richer.

    Now that the credit is tightening...look at how many people and business are being truly affected. But you choose not to see that...conveniently.


    No, it's far far easier to own a home today than it was then ... because of the changes which the baby boomers have helped bring about.

    EASIER...yes. More affordable..NO.

    The real wealth of people is now clearly being displaced by the lack of credit. This is when you realize people are still at the mercy of easy money as ever.

    Lance, I think your time machine is broken. You keep coming back to today in your pod when you really should be back in the 60's or something.

    ReplyDelete
  17. AnonymousMarch 16, 2009 11:36 AM

    You may BORROW...not afford. Understand the situation before blowing off BS.

    Oh, for God's sake, don't be an idiot. If your roof is leaking, do you get it patched, or do you wait til you save up the money? What if you're appendix needs removal? Do you save up your pennies, or do you get the operation, finance it with cheap borrowed money, and use income to pay it down?

    We can argue whether the utility of having X now outweighs the costs of borrowing, but surely--CAPS KEY, or no--you can grasp the concept?

    ReplyDelete
  18. AnonymousMarch 16, 2009 12:33 PM

    Oh, for God's sake, don't be an idiot. If your roof is leaking, do you get it patched, or do you wait til you save up the money? What if you're appendix needs removal? Do you save up your pennies, or do you get the operation, finance it with cheap borrowed money, and use income to pay it down?

    We can argue whether the utility of having X now outweighs the costs of borrowing, but surely--CAPS KEY, or no--you can grasp the concept?

    Ahhhh...so I see...you're comparing a necessity to a luxury....

    Let's think about who's the idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  19. LanceMarch 16, 2009 2:15 PM

    Noz, only someone who doesn't understand what the "luxury" part of homeownership really is would call it "luxury". I'd have a hard time considering stability and full participation in one's community as a "luxury". To me that is a basic necessity. Something that should come before dinners out, vacation travel, and the latest gadgets and cars. Those are luxuries. Borrowing to obtain the stability and full membership in your community that only homeownership can provide, is not. Incidentally, are all your credit cards paid off? Any recent trips or gadgets or dinners out on them at 25% non-deductible-interest?

    ReplyDelete
  20. AnonymousMarch 17, 2009 3:22 AM

    What happens if my roof leaks?

    I write a check.

    That is why you don't go buying a house if it takes every penny you have in savings idiot.

    Medical costs can bankrupt damn near anyone, that is just the way things are, but routine maintenance on a house, car, or anything else, should not require one to run off looking for a loan. This mentality is exactly what got people into this mess.

    They spent every penny they had, and then convinced themselves that credit was "necessary" to deal with even the most routine needs.

    ReplyDelete
  21. AnonymousMarch 17, 2009 3:25 AM

    Remember kids, you aren't "full members" of your community unless you overpay!

    (Easily the stupidest of Lance's arguments...)

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)