ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) pays people to solicit new voters. They are paid by the hour. According to news reports, some hound people to fill out registration forms, even if they are already registered! Some take names and addresses from the phone book and forge a signature, or just make up names and addresses. How can anyone be surprised? They have flooded the Board of Elections in inner cities with piles of voter registrations. Some percentage of which are invalid.
What does ACORN say? Only a few of their workers turned in phony forms. Yeah?
The first problem is paying people to solicit registrations. What can you expect? These folks are not driven by passion for the political process. Why work hard when it is easier to make up the data.
What's the harm ACORN asks. The phony voter forms will be caught by the BOEs of the city. The harm is the time taken by the BOE workers to process this crap. Time they could better spend processing legitimate registration forms. It is an insult to the system. And, this is not the first time this has happened with ACORN registration cards. Seattle 2007 is a prior instance.
If ACORN were at all concerned with the election process they would have changed their policies and procedures a long time ago. They haven't and they are hurting their image and their mission.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Saturday, October 18, 2008
The Lunar Trainers
With the accumulated gift cards I had, I bought a pair of NIKE LUNAR TRAINER shoes. These are much lighter than the New Balance shoes I have been running in. In my case "running" when talking more than 400m, means jogging interspersed with walking. I have tried them twice and so far, so good. Going to a good running store sure helps in making sure one gets the correct sized shoe. It turns out that I have been running in some that were a bit short in toe, but not enough to cause any problems. Now that I have run about 4 miles in them, I shall go back to my NB shoes for all normal runs and reserve the Lunars for events.
So - will I run the next 5K any faster? Not likely, but I might feel less effort in my snail's pace. And it will sure help in the half marathon coming up in a few weeks. For which I am not prepared. That's not bragging, it is a statement about lacking the stamina to do any serious distance training. I just am not a distance runner. I'm a sprinter. Some year soon, I shall forego these distance events and probably this second half marathon will be my last.
So - will I run the next 5K any faster? Not likely, but I might feel less effort in my snail's pace. And it will sure help in the half marathon coming up in a few weeks. For which I am not prepared. That's not bragging, it is a statement about lacking the stamina to do any serious distance training. I just am not a distance runner. I'm a sprinter. Some year soon, I shall forego these distance events and probably this second half marathon will be my last.
PORTFOLIO.COM
I have found an excellent online financial news and commentary magazine, named PORTFOLIO.COM. Great stuff. Good explanations for simpletons like this NC Crone as well as in depth articles for the more financially sophisticated.
For some entry level explanations of "leverage" and "collateralized debt obligations" here is a link to PORTFOLIO.COM's graphical description of terms, as well as articles on how we got into the mess.
credit crunched
One article on the origin of these derivatives, "The $58 Trillion Elephant in the Room". by Jesse Eisinger, is at:
the elephant
Whether you like finance or not, these are enlightening and entertaining columns and articles. One could spend hours just browsing.
For some entry level explanations of "leverage" and "collateralized debt obligations" here is a link to PORTFOLIO.COM's graphical description of terms, as well as articles on how we got into the mess.
credit crunched
One article on the origin of these derivatives, "The $58 Trillion Elephant in the Room". by Jesse Eisinger, is at:
the elephant
Whether you like finance or not, these are enlightening and entertaining columns and articles. One could spend hours just browsing.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Bah Humbug to both parties.
Think about it. You are eaking out a living, paying rent and just making it. Maybe you a have one or two children. Maybe more. You want a bigger place. You want a home of your own. You want equity. But you have no or very little savings. How on earth are you ever going to reach the goal of your own home, part of the "American Dream"?
The operative word is DREAM. Not "right".
This current financial mess had its origins in the concept that regardless of income, you should not be denied a home loan. Pushed by the Democrats of the more liberal persuasion, the idea was to help lower income folks and minorities obtain their own home. The Democratic administrations encouraged high risk loans and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought these loans and sold as mortgage backed securities. Much of the pressure on banks to make loans with a higher risk of default, came from the threat of discriminatory lending practices lawsuits.
Let's be truthful, here. The threat and cry of racism has been used to circumvent common sense. Realism is that due to various social factors, minorities, mostly represented in the past by African Americans , live in low income areas. Decent paying jobs are hard to come by, again for myriad reasons. Bottom line is they can just afford the rental homes they are in. It's a struggle. In this situation: low income jobs, high rents, they are not good candidates for a home mortgage loan. That's reality.
But the Dems said Not Fair! These folks deserve a home as much as anyone else. Stop your unfair lending practices. Make these risky loans. Sure, a certain percentage will default, but that's okay.
So, the "Trillion Dollar Commitment" to sell to ten million low income families was made by Fannie Mae in 1994. Loans were made, bought by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Lenders on the make for large commissions wrote mortgages for little or no money down. And, oh, by the way, some of the lenders wrote the mortgage for more than the home was worth and may have whispered, maybe, that your payments might escalate substantially if the rates changed. Everyone left the loan office happy: the lender with a nice commission, the buyer with a feeling of pride and security. Let's not forget that during this time the Fannie Mae execs and their Congressional lobbyists made a fine pile of money. Subprime reigns.
Home Equity loans taken by mddle income homeowners flourished. Homes were used as banks, with the belief that eventually the loan would be paid off, perhaps by selling the asset at a higher value. No fear and too much optimism reigned here. Or, it was a "cover the current crisis and worry about paying later" mentality.
Loans were bundled into securities and sold to investors. The Republicans, not to be outdone, urged less regulation. A free market operates better; good stuff will trickle down to everyone.
Institutions and investors who bought the mortgage backed securities also bought credit default swaps as insurance against possible loan defaults.
Then rates went up, real estate values went down, the defaults escalated, and eventually Fannie and Freddie went belly up. Failures up the gazoo followed and the market is now down, oh about 3000 points and continuing its fall. And Europe is taking the big slide down as well.
Pity some of the suckers now being foreclosed. They are worse off than before they walked into the lender's office.
So, who to vote for? The Democrats with a sometimes too socialistic agenda or the Republicans with the too optimistic "all business is good--trust them" outlook?
Bah Humbug on all!
The operative word is DREAM. Not "right".
This current financial mess had its origins in the concept that regardless of income, you should not be denied a home loan. Pushed by the Democrats of the more liberal persuasion, the idea was to help lower income folks and minorities obtain their own home. The Democratic administrations encouraged high risk loans and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought these loans and sold as mortgage backed securities. Much of the pressure on banks to make loans with a higher risk of default, came from the threat of discriminatory lending practices lawsuits.
Let's be truthful, here. The threat and cry of racism has been used to circumvent common sense. Realism is that due to various social factors, minorities, mostly represented in the past by African Americans , live in low income areas. Decent paying jobs are hard to come by, again for myriad reasons. Bottom line is they can just afford the rental homes they are in. It's a struggle. In this situation: low income jobs, high rents, they are not good candidates for a home mortgage loan. That's reality.
But the Dems said Not Fair! These folks deserve a home as much as anyone else. Stop your unfair lending practices. Make these risky loans. Sure, a certain percentage will default, but that's okay.
So, the "Trillion Dollar Commitment" to sell to ten million low income families was made by Fannie Mae in 1994. Loans were made, bought by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Lenders on the make for large commissions wrote mortgages for little or no money down. And, oh, by the way, some of the lenders wrote the mortgage for more than the home was worth and may have whispered, maybe, that your payments might escalate substantially if the rates changed. Everyone left the loan office happy: the lender with a nice commission, the buyer with a feeling of pride and security. Let's not forget that during this time the Fannie Mae execs and their Congressional lobbyists made a fine pile of money. Subprime reigns.
Home Equity loans taken by mddle income homeowners flourished. Homes were used as banks, with the belief that eventually the loan would be paid off, perhaps by selling the asset at a higher value. No fear and too much optimism reigned here. Or, it was a "cover the current crisis and worry about paying later" mentality.
Loans were bundled into securities and sold to investors. The Republicans, not to be outdone, urged less regulation. A free market operates better; good stuff will trickle down to everyone.
Institutions and investors who bought the mortgage backed securities also bought credit default swaps as insurance against possible loan defaults.
Then rates went up, real estate values went down, the defaults escalated, and eventually Fannie and Freddie went belly up. Failures up the gazoo followed and the market is now down, oh about 3000 points and continuing its fall. And Europe is taking the big slide down as well.
Pity some of the suckers now being foreclosed. They are worse off than before they walked into the lender's office.
So, who to vote for? The Democrats with a sometimes too socialistic agenda or the Republicans with the too optimistic "all business is good--trust them" outlook?
Bah Humbug on all!
Friday, October 3, 2008
Emergency Stabilization ... and Pork!
Even now, they can't resist. Tacked onto the Senate version of the Emergency Stabilization Act (bailout) are gobs of tax relief, energy incentives, and other miscellaneous acts or modifications and extensions to existing acts.
The added sections include:
DIVISION B--ENERGY IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION ACT OF 2008
DIVISION C--TAX EXTENDERS AND ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF
one example within this section:
SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN.
This item, well touted in the media, is the wooden arrow excise tax exemption, inserted by the Oregon Senators, to the tune of $2 million over ten years. This $200,000 oer year exemption is said to benefit Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon.
What does this have to do with stabilizing the financial situation?
I doubt Senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith of Oregon will feel any shame regarding this piece of pork. No, they are bringing home the bacon to at least one grateful Oregon constituent.
What's another $200,000 loss of government revenue a year? Whether you think pork is okay when it comes home to your state, or not, it is outrageous to add it to this bill. A prime example of how the legislature works. And why there is such disgust with the way of government.
This is how the Federal Legislature works. In order to garner votes, such crap is allowed into all sorts of bills. This is why line item veto would be a welcome addition to the Executive. (The argument against line item veto is the power the Executive would then have to keep a legislator in line.)
If the Emergency Financial Stabilization Act is that critical, why could they not restrict this legislation to that crisis alone? Obviously, it was not that important to those legislators who had to be wooed by the addition of extraneous items, including some pork.
The colonials used to use tar and feathers in protest,. Maybe the time has come for slathering lard on the most egregious offenders?
The added sections include:
DIVISION B--ENERGY IMPROVEMENT AND EXTENSION ACT OF 2008
DIVISION C--TAX EXTENDERS AND ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX RELIEF
one example within this section:
SEC. 503. EXEMPTION FROM EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN WOODEN ARROWS DESIGNED FOR USE BY CHILDREN.
This item, well touted in the media, is the wooden arrow excise tax exemption, inserted by the Oregon Senators, to the tune of $2 million over ten years. This $200,000 oer year exemption is said to benefit Rose City Archery in Myrtle Point, Oregon.
What does this have to do with stabilizing the financial situation?
I doubt Senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith of Oregon will feel any shame regarding this piece of pork. No, they are bringing home the bacon to at least one grateful Oregon constituent.
What's another $200,000 loss of government revenue a year? Whether you think pork is okay when it comes home to your state, or not, it is outrageous to add it to this bill. A prime example of how the legislature works. And why there is such disgust with the way of government.
This is how the Federal Legislature works. In order to garner votes, such crap is allowed into all sorts of bills. This is why line item veto would be a welcome addition to the Executive. (The argument against line item veto is the power the Executive would then have to keep a legislator in line.)
If the Emergency Financial Stabilization Act is that critical, why could they not restrict this legislation to that crisis alone? Obviously, it was not that important to those legislators who had to be wooed by the addition of extraneous items, including some pork.
The colonials used to use tar and feathers in protest,. Maybe the time has come for slathering lard on the most egregious offenders?
Monday, September 29, 2008
Is the sky falling?
The House version of the Emergency Economic Stabilization (HR3997) bill (BAILOUT!) failed to pass today. The DOW is currently down 683 points.
This version included:
(1) New "Golden Parachute" contracts from firms taking bailout would not be allowed. Existing golden parachute contracts will still be in effect. Betcha most of these execs already have such contracts in place!
(2)Corporations selling bad mortgage debts to the government, who pay their CEOs and other execs more than $500,000, will no longer to be able to deduct the compensation over $500,000 from their taxes. (Does this include stock optins and bonus pay from that calculation?)
(3)Supposedly, though I have only seen this in one report, there is a "clawback" provision. If a bailed out corporation had to restate prior earnings (based on these devalued assets) to a lower number, the executives would have to return (to whom?) the bonuses and incentives that had been based on bloated earnings reports. Indeed, those moneys would have to be ripped out of their hands.
(4) If in five years, the return on these government acquired bailout assets does not equal what the government paid, the President will have to propose to Congress legislation which would require the Financial Industry to make up the difference. Yeah? The whole industry, even the good guys? And if the bad ones no longer exist (for any number of reasons) what then? Believe it when you see it.
How about the cost of administering this bailout program? Valuing the assets, managing the assets (what about foreclosures and deterioration of said property, and selling the assets over time.
Speaking of foreclosures, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (remember him?) said that the Fed cannot change the terms of an assumed mortgage (such as making the interest and/or payoff rate more reasonable)unless it has the majority ownership of the mortgtage backed security (direct loan purchases from a bank is a different case.)
Economists and financial gurus are all over the place on this bailout. Most want the bailout but others say it is not needed. Real helpful. Three days ago, on Friday, Cramer said that the big money folks were already making a run on money markets etc and were moving their money to Treasury Bills. He was very negative about the consequences if the bailout bill was not passed this past weekend. More banks and investment institutions failures. Huge numbers of banks.
And yet. And yet I read about the money made by the folks in the firms that came up with and traded the financial exotics that led to the inflated balloon that has now burst making huge amounts of money, even in 2007.
According to Bloomberg News, the five largest Wall Street firms, including Bear Stearns (bailed out by the government) and Lehman, made $66 billion, which included $39 billion in bonuses. This brought the average4 pay of each employee to $353,089, including $211,849 in bonuses. Great money for screwing the taxpayer.
Politicians and Wall Street keep saying that this is really a bailout for Main Street because with credit currently frozen no one gets lines of creditor loans.
From CNN MONEY:
How about thinking about getting back to running a business or home finances with mostly cash on hand? Okay, initially a business could really use a line of credit, but to end up in a position years down the road where you can not meet your payroll without drawing money from a line of credit .. that is not good.
I'm still not for this bill, despite the dire predictions, unless the bonus money is riped away from the greedy fingers of thise who brought this on. Say two years' woth of bonus money. Since spent money can't be returned. then maybe the future profits of these companies should be be highly taxed. Okay, I know this won't happen.
Bring back the Puritan stockade!
Place a whole line of stocks near the beautiful Bull sculpture. Three days for each CEO, President, COO, and myriad VPs. A new tourist attraction bringing more bucks to the City of New York.
Market ended up down 777 points. Would have been interesting if it had been 666 points.
One politician said that someone who needs a new washing machine now can't get a loan. Who gets loans for an appliance? Most people charge it (building more credit card debt). As for a new washing machine, a laundromat suffices. Now, if it were a refrigerator that stopped working .....
This version included:
(1) New "Golden Parachute" contracts from firms taking bailout would not be allowed. Existing golden parachute contracts will still be in effect. Betcha most of these execs already have such contracts in place!
(2)Corporations selling bad mortgage debts to the government, who pay their CEOs and other execs more than $500,000, will no longer to be able to deduct the compensation over $500,000 from their taxes. (Does this include stock optins and bonus pay from that calculation?)
(3)Supposedly, though I have only seen this in one report, there is a "clawback" provision. If a bailed out corporation had to restate prior earnings (based on these devalued assets) to a lower number, the executives would have to return (to whom?) the bonuses and incentives that had been based on bloated earnings reports. Indeed, those moneys would have to be ripped out of their hands.
(4) If in five years, the return on these government acquired bailout assets does not equal what the government paid, the President will have to propose to Congress legislation which would require the Financial Industry to make up the difference. Yeah? The whole industry, even the good guys? And if the bad ones no longer exist (for any number of reasons) what then? Believe it when you see it.
How about the cost of administering this bailout program? Valuing the assets, managing the assets (what about foreclosures and deterioration of said property, and selling the assets over time.
Speaking of foreclosures, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (remember him?) said that the Fed cannot change the terms of an assumed mortgage (such as making the interest and/or payoff rate more reasonable)unless it has the majority ownership of the mortgtage backed security (direct loan purchases from a bank is a different case.)
If you are tempted to vote for this legislation because you think it will keep people in their homes, think again: in fact, Treasury will not be able to change the terms of bad mortgages because the Act does not require Treasury to purchase a controlling share in the underlying mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations. The Secretary will be powerless to make any real and substantive change in the terms of mortgage. The Secretary will have NO power to avoid foreclosures and keep families in their homes.
Economists and financial gurus are all over the place on this bailout. Most want the bailout but others say it is not needed. Real helpful. Three days ago, on Friday, Cramer said that the big money folks were already making a run on money markets etc and were moving their money to Treasury Bills. He was very negative about the consequences if the bailout bill was not passed this past weekend. More banks and investment institutions failures. Huge numbers of banks.
And yet. And yet I read about the money made by the folks in the firms that came up with and traded the financial exotics that led to the inflated balloon that has now burst making huge amounts of money, even in 2007.
According to Bloomberg News, the five largest Wall Street firms, including Bear Stearns (bailed out by the government) and Lehman, made $66 billion, which included $39 billion in bonuses. This brought the average4 pay of each employee to $353,089, including $211,849 in bonuses. Great money for screwing the taxpayer.
Politicians and Wall Street keep saying that this is really a bailout for Main Street because with credit currently frozen no one gets lines of creditor loans.
From CNN MONEY:
Most businesses don't keep much cash on hand. They rely on banks' lines of credit to cover them until they get paid by their customers
For each business that can't get funding, the impact is felt by many, experts said. The company may curtail credit to its customers, forcing them to pay more cash up front. It won't buy as much from suppliers or invest in upgrading its operations. And it may have to cut its workforce, or at least postpone expanding it.
Other experts, however, say that most companies can get by for the time being. Credit lines, they point out, usually last for at least a year so banks can't start pulling them willy-nilly unless the terms are broken. And business can better survive a credit squeeze than a major downturn in consumer spending, which has yet to materialize.
How about thinking about getting back to running a business or home finances with mostly cash on hand? Okay, initially a business could really use a line of credit, but to end up in a position years down the road where you can not meet your payroll without drawing money from a line of credit .. that is not good.
I'm still not for this bill, despite the dire predictions, unless the bonus money is riped away from the greedy fingers of thise who brought this on. Say two years' woth of bonus money. Since spent money can't be returned. then maybe the future profits of these companies should be be highly taxed. Okay, I know this won't happen.
Bring back the Puritan stockade!
Place a whole line of stocks near the beautiful Bull sculpture. Three days for each CEO, President, COO, and myriad VPs. A new tourist attraction bringing more bucks to the City of New York.
Market ended up down 777 points. Would have been interesting if it had been 666 points.
One politician said that someone who needs a new washing machine now can't get a loan. Who gets loans for an appliance? Most people charge it (building more credit card debt). As for a new washing machine, a laundromat suffices. Now, if it were a refrigerator that stopped working .....
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Joy of sprinting, ah, winning.
Yesterday I ran the 100 meter, 400 meter, and 200 meter races, in that order. I happened to win all three, which was not a given. I was asked why I participate in these events. I mentioned that it is such a great feeling when you can run at your best, with no pain and no gasping. By pain, I mean burning quads. And by gasping I mean a severe oxygen deficit. Gasping after crossing the finish line is okay, but not while trying to get to that line!
Yesterday my breathing was so much better. I ran the 400m at an even pace until the last curve when I picked it up and went all out to the end. No pain. And though breathing hard, the oxygen was getting where it needed. Zounds. What a feeling! I hardly recognized it.
I ran a 400m in April and not only did the quads burn but the breathing was the pits.(Exercise induced asthma is the problem.) I just edged out the man I was competing against, after being about 55 meters behind as I rounded the last turn. Great joy.
Did I say I wanted to stop running after rounding the first curve? I was out of gas even then!
Back to yesterday. What I did not mention to the reporter was the absolute joy of overtaking and passing someone (maybe winning, maybe not. In this case, winning.) Or the joy of getting out in front at the git go and keeping the lead to the end. Who doesn't like to win? But when you can surpass your own expectations and beat someone you had no expectation of coming near (because the last time you raced with them, they were totally out of reach), well that's exhilarating.
Down right joyous making. Maybe it is all about meeting or exceeding your own expectations.
Yesterday my breathing was so much better. I ran the 400m at an even pace until the last curve when I picked it up and went all out to the end. No pain. And though breathing hard, the oxygen was getting where it needed. Zounds. What a feeling! I hardly recognized it.
I ran a 400m in April and not only did the quads burn but the breathing was the pits.(Exercise induced asthma is the problem.) I just edged out the man I was competing against, after being about 55 meters behind as I rounded the last turn. Great joy.
Did I say I wanted to stop running after rounding the first curve? I was out of gas even then!
Back to yesterday. What I did not mention to the reporter was the absolute joy of overtaking and passing someone (maybe winning, maybe not. In this case, winning.) Or the joy of getting out in front at the git go and keeping the lead to the end. Who doesn't like to win? But when you can surpass your own expectations and beat someone you had no expectation of coming near (because the last time you raced with them, they were totally out of reach), well that's exhilarating.
Down right joyous making. Maybe it is all about meeting or exceeding your own expectations.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Say what? 700 Billion?
The Crone barfs!
Say what? $700 billion, right now, please. What's the hurry? The "market" has to run to the John? It took a few years for the financial investment banks to come up with the schemes that got us into this mess. Let them wait while the government comes up with a reasonable, not a hurried plan. Secretary Paulson keeps saying we must hurry. The banks need liquidity so the average consumer and small business person can get loans. Yeah, right.
The assumption is the government will take over these debts, which they admit are so complex they need multiple experts to try to evaluate them. The same experts who helped get us here?
In private industry when a company loans another money, it usually gets good rates and/or equity in the firm. Why should the US Government (taxpayer) not be treated the same?
I listened to part of today's Hearing and am disturbed by some things I heard.
(1) Credit Card and student load default debt coverage? Absolutely not! Banks and others have encouraged credit card debt. Both the consumer who lacks fiscal responsibility and the banks that inundate us with credit card offers are responsible. Let them pay thee price. (I am not as hard on student loan debt. However, let's stick to the main problem.) We do need some moral leadership to reduce personal debt. (Encouraging spend, spend, spend to boost the economy has its price.)
(2)The taxpayer will not abide golden parachute exits from bailed out companies. Not that these folks have not already gotten huge profits from these illiquid schemes (AIG's Fuld, $490 million in stock options and bonuses). Let them walk away with full pockets and the taxpayer will be throwing virtual teabags in the harbor.
(3) No possibility of future review of the Treasury Secretary's actions in this matter by a court of law or review is not acceptable. There should be some liability, even if limited.
(4) What's the doggone rush? This situation has been coming on for some time and now all of a sudden the "market" has lost faith? The "market" is what brought this on! (As well as consumer's lack of knowledge about the equity and mortgages.) Take the time to get it right. My IRA, pension, etc has already lost value. And so it goes.
(5) No to $700 billion! Absolutely not. Where does this figure come from? Is it every asset class that is in default? Infusing some money into the banking system , not taking over the entire consumer debt problem, should be the goal. Secretary Paulson says we need to get liquidity back into the "market". How about a 100 or 200 billion infusion? (I get sick just thinking about it.)
I am not real savvy on credit-debt swaps or the other esoteric financial instruments. I am just someone who has no debt. Why? Because debt is damn scary. Too bad that is not the case for the US Government or the "market"!
Absolutely disgusted. Arrrrgh!
Say what? $700 billion, right now, please. What's the hurry? The "market" has to run to the John? It took a few years for the financial investment banks to come up with the schemes that got us into this mess. Let them wait while the government comes up with a reasonable, not a hurried plan. Secretary Paulson keeps saying we must hurry. The banks need liquidity so the average consumer and small business person can get loans. Yeah, right.
The assumption is the government will take over these debts, which they admit are so complex they need multiple experts to try to evaluate them. The same experts who helped get us here?
In private industry when a company loans another money, it usually gets good rates and/or equity in the firm. Why should the US Government (taxpayer) not be treated the same?
I listened to part of today's Hearing and am disturbed by some things I heard.
(1) Credit Card and student load default debt coverage? Absolutely not! Banks and others have encouraged credit card debt. Both the consumer who lacks fiscal responsibility and the banks that inundate us with credit card offers are responsible. Let them pay thee price. (I am not as hard on student loan debt. However, let's stick to the main problem.) We do need some moral leadership to reduce personal debt. (Encouraging spend, spend, spend to boost the economy has its price.)
(2)The taxpayer will not abide golden parachute exits from bailed out companies. Not that these folks have not already gotten huge profits from these illiquid schemes (AIG's Fuld, $490 million in stock options and bonuses). Let them walk away with full pockets and the taxpayer will be throwing virtual teabags in the harbor.
(3) No possibility of future review of the Treasury Secretary's actions in this matter by a court of law or review is not acceptable. There should be some liability, even if limited.
(4) What's the doggone rush? This situation has been coming on for some time and now all of a sudden the "market" has lost faith? The "market" is what brought this on! (As well as consumer's lack of knowledge about the equity and mortgages.) Take the time to get it right. My IRA, pension, etc has already lost value. And so it goes.
(5) No to $700 billion! Absolutely not. Where does this figure come from? Is it every asset class that is in default? Infusing some money into the banking system , not taking over the entire consumer debt problem, should be the goal. Secretary Paulson says we need to get liquidity back into the "market". How about a 100 or 200 billion infusion? (I get sick just thinking about it.)
I am not real savvy on credit-debt swaps or the other esoteric financial instruments. I am just someone who has no debt. Why? Because debt is damn scary. Too bad that is not the case for the US Government or the "market"!
Absolutely disgusted. Arrrrgh!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)