Not Good, GM wants another 16 or is it 9 Billion to Survive.

[kanys]

Originally Posted by RT21

OK...tard...let me splane to ju....I have an excel spreadsheet if you need one. 700 billion = lots of zeros...7 billion = 9 zeros. Who would you want to give even 1 billion to? Sally Mae or GM?

My point was that 9 zeros, though less than 11, is still a large amount of money, which the government cannot spend without further screwing over the next couple generations of taxpayers. Sorry but I am a die hard capitalist and this slow yet seeminlgy inevitable transition to a market socialism is really bothering me!

[RT21]

Originally Posted by kanys

My point was that 9 zeros, though less than 11, is still a large amount of money, which the government cannot spend without further screwing over the next couple generations of taxpayers. Sorry but I am a die hard capitalist and this slow yet seeminlgy inevitable transition to a market socialism is really bothering me!

That's great...did you have this wonderful of an uproar when Sally Mae got their 700 billion? Did you go shout at the roof tops that they are screwing over the next couple generations of taxpayers? But if you are going to pick a fight...go for the baddest FM out there first, which would be the 700 billion non accountable, future ending, for the next couple generations clowns. Excel = GM is 670 Billon less than those clowns....go fight them.

[Design1stCode2nd]

Originally Posted by UCF w00t

Sorry to be a hater but what are you gonna do with a poli sci degree? Or economics for that matter?

Intelligence analyst for one and its a job you can't export.

[RT21]

Originally Posted by Design1stCode2nd

Intelligence analyst for one and its a job you can't export.

good luck with that unless u are in the Military...

[kanys]

Originally Posted by RT21

That's great...did you have this wonderful of an uproar when Sally Mae got their 700 billion? Did you go shout at the roof tops that they are screwing over the next couple generations of taxpayers? But if you are going to pick a fight...go for the baddest FM out there first, which would be the 700 billion non accountable, future ending, for the next couple generations clowns. Excel = GM is 670 Billon less than those clowns....go fight them.

Oh believe me I was speechless for a time, then dangerous to be around when the initial 700 billion bailout was announced. Just didn't mention it on here or anything since it had nothing to do with GM or Camaro. I'm not trying to pick any fights, but yes at times I would like to express my rage in some illegal fashion on all responsible for the 700 billion bailout, specifically the big bank ceo's. As you said GM is responsible for a miniscule percentage of the money our government is throwing away, and I believe (or at least I know I need to since that is all I can do at this point) that GM will eventually pay back what has been loaned to them, but with their desire for more money I become more sceptical. Time will tell....

[Supermans]

This link below about sums up how I feel about all of this..Watch the video all the way thru, it's quite a thing coming from cnbc.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

[Hylton]

Originally Posted by Supermans

This link below about sums up how I feel about all of this..Watch the video all the way thru, it's quite a thing coming from cnbc.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

Of all the news networks, CNBC has the hottest babes....

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by Hylton

Of all the news networks, CNBC has the hottest babes....

That just might get more people to click on the link..

Look, If you are being bailed out by the Government for not paying your mortgage, what is going to motivate you to suddenly start paying your mortgage? What about the property taxes that are bundled up with the mortgage, will that be forgiven and bailed out too? How is this going to fix the housing market if the same people who don't pay continue not to pay?

And how does this relate to the auto industry (union) bailout.
In my opinion, bailouts only postpone the inevitable because history shows that if you keep the problem there by bailing them out, they will always come back asking for more. In other words if the problem isn't removed, the problem keeps coming back. And in the auto industry, the main problem in my opinion is the Union. The union is like all those homeowners who can't pay their mortgages because they signed promises to the lenders that they were going to be able to pay and then suddenly ran out of money to pay. The Union told all its members that they were going to be able to keep the retirees and employees legacy costs intact but they instead have almost bankrupted the auto industry and because of it can't keep the promises to their members without asking for the money and getting it from the Government whom the union spends a fortune to get Democrats elected. I know I'm simplifying the explanation but you all understand my comparison here... I'm running out of steam on this issue but my passion is there. I just want GM restructured and the Union to become much less powerful as they are in most other areas except perhaps the teachers unions.. Chapter 11 is the only way to accomplish that..

And if you haven't clicked on the link, please do it is a rare occurrence on this network..
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1039849853

[PQ]

Supermans, where can I get the paperwork, forms, to send in my request for my bailout money?

Are they gonna put a cap on the 'Rescue' funds for American businesses? I totaly get the autos and the banks. I disagree but I get it that the bleeding had to be stopped. And the wound has to be sutered, but is there a criteria for getting a 'loan' from the gov?

[Supermans]

Originally Posted by irpq11

Supermans, where can I get the paperwork, forms, to send in my request for my bailout money?

Are they gonna put a cap on the 'Rescue' funds for American businesses? I totaly get the autos and the banks. I disagree but I get it that the bleeding had to be stopped. And the wound has to be sutered, but is there a criteria for getting a 'loan' from the gov?

mods, thank you for letting this discussion continue even though politics is involved. Since this is the only forum I belong to in which I care about the people in it, I don't know where I would go to speak my mind on this issue.

This is a better explanation than I had before...

There are two groups of homeowners here that are being looked at by the plan. The first group is made up of people who cannot afford their mortgages -- by the way, the price of this is $75 billion. The first group is made up of people who cannot afford their mortgages and have fallen behind on their monthly payments. Many of the people here in group one took out loans they were never going to be able to afford.

Now, how does that happen? The New York Times just glosses over this, but how in the name of Sam Hill do you take out a loan that you were never going to be able to afford? It seems that somebody had to tell the lender to do that, and we know that's exactly what happened. The Community Redevelopment Act started with Carter, beefed up with Clinton, it was one of the specialties of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, it's called affordable housing. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought up all this worthless paper, started inventing all kinds of things, derivatives and you name it to try to give value to this worthless paper, and that got us largely in the place that we're in now. Many people took out loans they were never going to be able to afford, never! That means somebody knew from day one they were never going to be able to pay back the loans. Some of these people have since lost their jobs. They are still in the homes. About three million households fall into category number one, and without help, they will lose their homes. So the first group is made up of three million people who can't afford the mortgages, who took out loans they were never going to be able to afford.

The second group is far larger. It is made up of more than ten million households that can afford their monthly payments but whose houses are worth less than what is owed on their mortgages. In real estate parlance, they're underwater. If they want to stay in their homes, they'll have no trouble doing so, but some may choose to walk out voluntarily rather than continue to make payments on an investment that may never pay off. Obama has apparently decided to focus on the first group, based on the previews of his speech that his aides have put out there. So let me sum this up for you: $75 billion in the housing Rescue plan. It is gonna go to group one, people who couldn't afford the house and mortgages they entered into in the first place. Group two is going to get hardly anything, maybe nothing. They are made up of over ten million people. They are making payments on their homes, but they're underwater because of the plunge in housing prices caused by the first group. The larger group is making their payments but the value of their home's plummeted, going to get nothing. The plunge in their housing prices, the value of their home caused by group one.
The responsible people in the second group are going to get the equivalent of diddly-squat. What Obama is going to do is bail out the first group, which has contributed directly to the misfortune placed by the second group. So to personalize this, you live in a house, you're making the mortgage payments, but the price of your house has plummeted, it's now worth less than what your payments will add up to. A lousy investment. You can stay in your house, but not much can be done to raise the value of your house. The first group, which had no prayer of ever being able to pay it back and is not paying their mortgages, that's who's going to be bailed out in the re-distribution of wealth plan. Well, you in the second group, you do get eight dollars a week in the tax credit plan found in the stimulus bill. It's not as though you're getting nothing.

I didn't come up with this, this is actually paraphrased from a popular conservative personality who understands the issue better than I do..I toned it down a little bit as well

So basically to some all of this up, just don't pay your mortgage for a few months and be in danger of a foreclosure,then you fall into the group that is going to be bailed out.. If you are struggling to make the payments and being responsible even if you are having a hard time and having to sell things and give up entertainment expenditures to make the payments, sorry you don't fall under the new bailout, but will get something back from the original stimulus..

[BigRigMike]

Wow it almost looks like the old political forum has returned. I don't know how the last one ended because I was gone the weekend it was deleted.

As for CRA it did not specify that you have to take risky loans it said you need to apply the same criteria to everyone. So if you are chartered in NYC you can not enact a rule that says you will not grant mortgages to homes between 110th and 130th.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/
"Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner."

And as for Fannie and Freddie being the main players. 84% of sub prime mortgages were done by the private sector.

Only one of the top 25 sub prime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law.

[kanys]

Originally Posted by Supermans

mods, thank you for letting this discussion continue even though politics is involved. Since this is the only forum I belong to in which I care about the people in it, I don't know where I would go to speak my mind on this issue.

Thanks for seeing there is some good info in this thread that will answer the many questions people have. I know it helped me a good deal.

[Supermans]

This video above will shed some light on this whole issue.. A very good compilation of c-span clips that if you haven't seen them, you don't know what is going on.

Here some more good info on Wikipedia about what CRA is incase you thought it might mean the Celera Corporation in NASDAQ or the Computing Research Association or the Canada Revenue Agency (yes I know sometimes the pages get hijacked with bad info but I think this one so far is accurate)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Originally Posted by BigRigMike

Wow it almost looks like the old political forum has returned. I don't know how the last one ended because I was gone the weekend it was deleted.

As for CRA it did not specify that you have to take risky loans it said you need to apply the same criteria to everyone. So if you are chartered in NYC you can not enact a rule that says you will not grant mortgages to homes between 110th and 130th.

http://www.federalreserve.gov/dcca/cra/
"Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner."

And as for Fannie and Freddie being the main players. 84% of sub prime mortgages were done by the private sector.

Only one of the top 25 sub prime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law.

I think you are only looking at one of the many reforms that CRA has gotten and ignoring the beginnings of it. Perhaps you are looking at it sometime mid 1995-1998 in your numbers. in 1992 if you take a look at the timeline in wikipedia is when the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 which was not supposed to be part of CRA passed.

taken from wiki below,
Although not part of the CRA, in order to achieve similar aims the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.[9]

In October 2000, in order to expand the secondary market for affordable community-based mortgages and to increase liquidity for CRA-eligible loans, Fannie Mae committed to purchase and securitize $2 billion of "MyCommunityMortgage" loans.[20][21] In November 2000 Fannie Mae announced that the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) would soon require it to dedicate 50% of its business to low- and moderate-income families." It stated that since 1997 Fannie Mae had done nearly $7 billion in CRA business with depository institutions, but its goal was $20 billion.[22] In 2001 Fannie Mae announced that it had acquired $10 billion in specially-targeted Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans more than one and a half years ahead of schedule, and announced its goal to finance over $500 billion in CRA business by 2010, about one third of loans anticipated to be financed by Fannie Mae during that period.[23]

I don't know what your point was by mentioning that Freddie and Fannie would only constitute 16% of all loans and 84% of sub prime mortgages were done by the private sector. I'm guessing you are trying to downplay the Governments roll in all of this by ordering Fannie and Freddie that they must at least have 50% of their loans must go towards people who could not pay their loans and to keep doing this until the projected numbers by 2010. Now we know the numbers are greater than that... More than one third by 2010...I guess you're right, the private sector is mostly to blame..

[BigRigMike]

Originally Posted by Supermans

Here some more good info on Wikipedia about what CRA is incase you thought it might mean the Celera Corporation in NASDAQ or the Computing Research Association or the Canada Revenue Agency

Great way to start an argument it makes everything else seem more reputable.

Maybe I will start to just cut and paste from Daily Kos to make my arguments and then try to belittle someone that makes a case against it.