Comments on: The Pros and Cons of a Government Bailout http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/09/19/the-pros-and-cons-of-an-government-bailout/ Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:08:26 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5.2 hourly 1 By: TEH MONSTA! http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/09/19/the-pros-and-cons-of-an-government-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-3365 TEH MONSTA! Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:13:21 +0000 http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/?p=673#comment-3365 rawr?! rawr?!

]]> By: Wes Williamson http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/09/19/the-pros-and-cons-of-an-government-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-3355 Wes Williamson Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:54:17 +0000 http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/?p=673#comment-3355 I understand the "bailout" is designed to stabilize the economy, and what must be done must be done. HOWEVER, there must be some accountability for the cause. If people bought houses with terms they cannot afford, that's just too bad. They loose their houses. The government owns these houses if a bailout occurs. That means the taxpayers own those houses. As a taxpayer, I say rent these houses to the former owners. As for the lenders who irresponsibly coaxed people into those terms should face consequences also. I would have no problem with hard prision time, probation, banishment from further real estate dealings, and/or repayment by recovery of *their* assets. If a bailout is to occur, accountability simply MUST be included. The public will not stand for less. If accountability details cannot be determined in a timely enough manner to stabilize the economy, then a basic structure of an acountability plan must be presented to the American people or there will be a massive public reation in terms of votes from constituencies. I understand the “bailout” is designed to stabilize the economy, and what must be done must be done. HOWEVER, there must be some accountability for the cause. If people bought houses with terms they cannot afford, that’s just too bad. They loose their houses. The government owns these houses if a bailout occurs. That means the taxpayers own those houses. As a taxpayer, I say rent these houses to the former owners.

As for the lenders who irresponsibly coaxed people into those terms should face consequences also. I would have no problem with hard prision time, probation, banishment from further real estate dealings, and/or repayment by recovery of *their* assets.

If a bailout is to occur, accountability simply MUST be included. The public will not stand for less. If accountability details cannot be determined in a timely enough manner to stabilize the economy, then a basic structure of an acountability plan must be presented to the American people or there will be a massive public reation in terms of votes from constituencies.

]]> By: KENNEDIE TATE http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/09/19/the-pros-and-cons-of-an-government-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-3260 KENNEDIE TATE Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:58:43 +0000 http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/?p=673#comment-3260 This bail out is good and bad. Good... it will prevent a depresion but bad... it is going to be a crutial step in a long trek tword comunism. This bail out is good and bad. Good… it will prevent a depresion but bad… it is going to be a crutial step in a long trek tword comunism.

]]> By: Troy http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/09/19/the-pros-and-cons-of-an-government-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-3256 Troy Fri, 26 Sep 2008 05:17:13 +0000 http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/?p=673#comment-3256 What are the long term effects of a government bailout? What are the long term effects of a government bailout?

]]> By: chuck http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/09/19/the-pros-and-cons-of-an-government-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-3154 chuck Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:54:18 +0000 http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/?p=673#comment-3154 Vohmie those calls you got could be related what's going with Treasury,Congress and the present bailout related with Wall Street. Becouse Paulson wants to create newer version ot the RTC to take in the toxic bad loans related to home foreclosures. That's the best explaination I can honestly come up with. I suggest you contact the Realtors and Bank Association in your state to check up on status. Vohmie those calls you got could be related what’s going with Treasury,Congress and the present bailout related with Wall Street. Becouse Paulson wants to create newer version ot the RTC to take in the toxic bad loans related to home foreclosures. That’s the best explaination I can honestly come up with. I suggest you contact the Realtors and Bank Association in your state to check up on status.

]]> By: Vohnie Lemon http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/09/19/the-pros-and-cons-of-an-government-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-3143 Vohnie Lemon Mon, 22 Sep 2008 19:26:37 +0000 http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/?p=673#comment-3143 My business is to prepare homes for resale. Recently I contacted several mortgage companies in Western Pennsylvania and a few with federal ties regarding foreclosures. I was told "We got the loan, we could care less if they get their money. You need to contact the smaller banks to see if they need your services". I was advised that mortgage companies do not want to put anything in to the foreclosed homes since they probably won't get their money out of it. Question - why not put a few thousand dollars into the home to ensure it is clean and organized to show better and to get the most out of it? Most foreclosed homes are left in shambles. The tax payer is ultimately paying the price. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks My business is to prepare homes for resale. Recently I contacted several mortgage companies in Western Pennsylvania and a few with federal ties regarding foreclosures. I was told “We got the loan, we could care less if they get their money. You need to contact the smaller banks to see if they need your services”. I was advised that mortgage companies do not want to put anything in to the foreclosed homes since they probably won’t get their money out of it. Question – why not put a few thousand dollars into the home to ensure it is clean and organized to show better and to get the most out of it? Most foreclosed homes are left in shambles. The tax payer is ultimately paying the price. Can someone please explain this to me? Thanks

]]> By: Tom Logie http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/09/19/the-pros-and-cons-of-an-government-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-3141 Tom Logie Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:34:33 +0000 http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/?p=673#comment-3141 We cannot stand by to permit bank accounts to be frozen or even wiped out because of bank mismanagement for which the depositor is not responsible, whether that depositor is a consumer or a business/employer who may not even have FDIC insurance. Imagine the problems if any major employer or even a state or local government had its payroll account frozen. Florida school districts had an analogous problem with its pension fund administered at the state level. Such protection is the legitimate purpose of the "bailout." However, we cannot permit losses to stockholders or to responsible management to be covered, nor can we permit the government to end up with enduring ownership of banks to be used as a political piggybank in the future. The taxpayers cannot bail out everyone who paid too much or who lent too much. I understand the concern about 1 official having power with no oversight, but this "bailout" is expensive enough without adding what the Senate Democrats want. The limited purpose should be to protect depositors and other parties who are truly innocent from a chain reaction panic. We cannot stand by to permit bank accounts to be frozen or even wiped out because of bank mismanagement for which the depositor is not responsible, whether that depositor is a consumer or a business/employer who may not even have FDIC insurance. Imagine the problems if any major employer or even a state or local government had its payroll account frozen. Florida school districts had an analogous problem with its pension fund administered at the state level. Such protection is the legitimate purpose of the “bailout.” However, we cannot permit losses to stockholders or to responsible management to be covered, nor can we permit the government to end up with enduring ownership of banks to be used as a political piggybank in the future. The taxpayers cannot bail out everyone who paid too much or who lent too much. I understand the concern about 1 official having power with no oversight, but this “bailout” is expensive enough without adding what the Senate Democrats want. The limited purpose should be to protect depositors and other parties who are truly innocent from a chain reaction panic.

]]> By: Sherry Ivey http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/09/19/the-pros-and-cons-of-an-government-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-3128 Sherry Ivey Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:21:35 +0000 http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/?p=673#comment-3128 I feel like we are bailing out a group of greedy rich people. With the CEO's salaries of AIG and others in the tens of millions and my salary in the thousands where is the justice in taxing me and they get a free ride. They need to take responsibility for their own bailout. I don't see how this tremendous debt will be paid back with people still losing their jobs, gas prices being sky high and foreclosures increasing by the day. I feel like we are bailing out a group of greedy rich people. With the CEO’s salaries of AIG and others in the tens of millions and my salary in the thousands where is the justice in taxing me and they get a free ride. They need to take responsibility for their own bailout. I don’t see how this tremendous debt will be paid back with people still losing their jobs, gas prices being sky high and foreclosures increasing by the day.

]]> By: Ralph Harrison http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/09/19/the-pros-and-cons-of-an-government-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-3124 Ralph Harrison Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:01:15 +0000 http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/?p=673#comment-3124 I am greatly opposed to any legislation that bails out financial institutions in such a manner as is currently being proposed. This legislation has all the earmarks of being the greatest financial scam ever to be perpetuated on the American taxpayer. First and foremost, there has been no disclosusre or accounting of the losses and especially the underlying assets which comprise this "crisis." Very little mention of the underlying asset which is a house which has inherent value as a home is being considered. Instead all we hear about is the losses in mortgage backed securities which have been hedged by arcane financial instruments known as credit default swaps. My guess is the losses in these swaps is the true culprit. From an accounting perspective, it is entirely possible that if the underlying asset, the house, if appraised using "a fair market value" versus the approach known as "mark to the market' would reduce paper losses and restore capital accounts to manageable levels which would reduce the crisis to one of liquidity instead of the current fearmongering of calling this an economic crisis. Since I am required to guess if this is possible then this means that there is no transparency in this market let alone any disclosure. Without this transparency and disclosure, the taxpayer is being used by so called "experts" to reward their bad behavior. True political leadership versus going along to get along is at stake. Outrage by the American taxpayer should be the result of hearing about the plans currently being touted. I certainly hope they are. Ralph I am greatly opposed to any legislation that bails out financial institutions in such a manner as is currently being proposed. This legislation has all the earmarks of being the greatest financial scam ever to be perpetuated on the American taxpayer.
First and foremost, there has been no disclosusre or accounting of the losses and especially the underlying assets which comprise this “crisis.” Very little mention of the underlying asset which is a house which has inherent value as a home is being considered. Instead all we hear about is the losses in mortgage backed securities which have been hedged by arcane financial instruments known as credit default swaps. My guess is the losses in these swaps is the true culprit. From an accounting perspective, it is entirely possible that if the underlying asset, the house, if appraised using “a fair market value” versus the approach known as “mark to the market’ would reduce paper losses and restore capital accounts to manageable levels which would reduce the crisis to one of liquidity instead of the current fearmongering of calling this an economic crisis. Since I am required to guess if this is possible then this means that there is no transparency in this market let alone any disclosure. Without this transparency and disclosure, the taxpayer is being used by so called “experts” to reward their bad behavior. True political leadership versus going along to get along is at stake. Outrage by the American taxpayer should be the result of hearing about the plans currently being touted. I certainly hope they are.
Ralph

]]> By: geo http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/09/19/the-pros-and-cons-of-an-government-bailout/comment-page-1/#comment-3123 geo Sun, 21 Sep 2008 18:46:37 +0000 http://glickreport.blogs.foxbusiness.com/?p=673#comment-3123 the "analysts and pundits" between 1929 and 1933 kept shouting "the sky is not falling". Oops! Fast forward to today with the "fundamentals are strong". Oops! When someone owes you 11 trillion dollars you can weather any storm. When you owe someone (Chinese, Russians, Saudis, Japanese) 11 trillion dollars and growing at 2 billion dollars every 24 hours the storm is much more dangerous, the fundamentals are NOT strong. We will learn to live within our means even if it means parking the aircraft carriers and taxing the rich. Oops! You may want to reduce your $$$$ cash assets. the “analysts and pundits” between 1929 and 1933 kept shouting “the sky is not falling”. Oops! Fast forward to today with the “fundamentals are strong”. Oops! When someone owes you 11 trillion dollars you can weather any storm. When you owe someone (Chinese, Russians, Saudis, Japanese) 11 trillion dollars and growing at 2 billion dollars every 24 hours the storm is much more dangerous, the fundamentals are NOT strong. We will learn to live within our means even if it means parking the aircraft carriers and taxing the rich. Oops! You may want to reduce your $$$$ cash assets.

]]>