Posted on 09/24/2008 8:56:33 PM PDT by zeppenwolf
Like many of you, (I think), I have the deepest respect for Dubya.
I don't just think, I know that history will treat him very kindly, (what the heck ELSE were we going to do with the middle east, just ignore it?!?). I know that he is a very deeply religious and decent man. (Being religious isn't a requiremnt-- I'm not, in any conventional sense, but it's indicative and explanatory, in his case).
Anyway, as much as I support him, he made me want to put my foot through the radio today:
"But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly."
Excuse me?!? WHY exactly would the market not be "functioning properly" ? Would that be, just maybe, because GOVERNMENT, (hat tips to Carter and Clinton), were goofing around with the market, trying to engineer "social justice" by pretending that ineluctable market forces like the cost-of-risk can just be legislated away?!?
I mean... JUST MAYBE?!?!?
AAAARGHGHGHG!!!!
I presumed that the frozen state of the credit markets was what he was referring to. That particular market appears not to be working at all...and he doesn’t want that to spread to other areas of our economy that will stop functioning.
Yeah, I just read about how he upped the quota for granting “underserved” (boy THERE’S a misnomer) neighborhood mortgages to substantially more than it was under Clinton.
I think you answered your own question. Decent presidents do not point fingers at other presidents. They explain the situation and let history determine blame. W is a gentleman.
Did you support Bush when he called for 440 Billion for Fannie and Freddie Sub Prime loans to minorities?
Looks like massive government intervention --- aka. socialism --- trumps free market solutions.
>>>>>I don't just think, I know that history will treat him very kindly...
Highly doubtful. Most historians are liberal Democrats. If you get my drift. They helped to resurrect Truman's legacy, which was in the toilet for years. No reason they'll be that kind to GW Bush.
I feel yer pain.
The “free market” was working just fine until Janet Reno and the Clintons threatened lenders with investigatiions if they weren’t “fair” in their lending habits.
Bingo
I have heard this statement a lot these past few days. Can you give me a source to show that credit markets are frozen?
Every single new car dealer is offering financing on their cars; my local credit union says they are getting a record number of mortgage applications (now that the bottom feeder subprime guys have gone bankrupt), etc. At the local level, I simply am not seeing any evidence of the credit markets being frozen.
Further, the proposed 700B bailout, will be funded from, you guessed it, these same credit markets that are "frozen".
Bush lost me with the Medicair bill. It was trillions. The benefits will be yanked because people will refuse a 65% tax rate.
> Highly doubtful. Most historians are liberal Democrats.
Yeah, I get the academia thing; lucky for us, history is not entirely written by “historians”. And if your name is “Reagan Man”, I think you should agree.
About “frozen credit” versus the frozen fish-sticks, I don’t know enough to really comment on that part of it; I just wish that my president hadn’t said “THE market isn’t working”. If he meant just the frozen fish, then I wish he would have said that.
Allright, I’ll just have another drink and look forward to McCain/Palin, followed by Palin/Jindal, followed by Jindal/Zeppenwolf... Just kidding about that last one. :)
Thank Goodness, I got one at 5.2! Woohoooo!
Heh. My husband and I got our last house, which was in a “transitional” neighborhood, at around that. We had just moved to Atlanta and neither of us had jobs! We used some BS “declared income” category loan to get the mortgage. And guess what? It was through Freddie Mac. Luckily we found work quickly, fixed up the house, sold it and moved to greener pastures. But we were NOT the typical scenario for Fannie and Freddie, evidently (nor were we the target market for the CRA, harumph).
History is written by liberal historians, liberal academics and liberal media types. That was my point. Pick up a school book. You'll be shocked to see what passes for history these days and what our children are being taught.
Ronald Reagan was a recent historic figure who transcended politics. His two huge election landslides are a testament to his great standing in the eyes of the American people.
The local markets will follow suit soon, as they too will be effected when the remaining liquidity in the system dries up.
It will dry up because as asset values fall or cannot be determined by the market, the banks being regulated institutions must increase reserves for bad debt and for declining asset bases.
In the space of days, and weeks all the credit will be force to cease. Even credit cards. At first they will stop issuing, and then limit charging.....and so forth.
as for right now, I am now aware of several ongoing construction projects that have been told to stop. one of them is McDonalds who was in the middle of a major remodeling.
This is already spreading to main street, and soon enough payrolls of large businesses who need credit lines will find it difficult and or expensive to renegotiate, and some may not be able to get credit at all.
NO BAIL OUT!
I am not saying you are wrong, I am asking for a SOURCE that backs up your statement. Surely at this point there are concrete examples that have been written about or are public knowledge? Surely they are willing to loan, but possibly at a higher rate?
As a counter- example. Caterpillar (CAT) recently decided to borrow a few billion, and the market did allow them credit. However it was at a higher rate than before.
Quote: On Tuesday, the finance arm of Caterpillar Inc. was able to raise $1.25 billion by selling corporate debt -- but the company had to pay the highest yields in nearly 10 years, noted Atkins.
this is from this article: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080924/credit_markets.html?.v=6
That's an aspect not much discussed. The bailout in essence is a trade (into the market) of AAA rated (currently) treasury bonds for devalued mortgage backed securities, a.k.a junk bonds. The fed will be buying the junk at the original value of the bond, even though market rates for these junk bonds is much lower. Merrill Lynch went under because they were forced to sell $30B in these junk bonds at $.22 on the dollar.
My fear with this bailout is that we are in essence opening up another case of Vodka at the AA meeting. Will these jackals just take the $700B and wind it all up in a bunch of derivatives and credit default swaps in one last orgy of personal greed? Or, will this money backstop the losses until the existing bad debt can be flushed out of the system?
And those "scams" are legal thanks to big donations to people like Dodd and Obama...
I want to see how much money banks and Wall Streeters are giving to folks on the Banking Committee right now. And for the last few weeks.
Are there any DNC Stenographers (AKA MSM reporters) out there who can get this information?
It's prime "shakedown" time for congressmen. They hand out billions for 133,000 donations. Sick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.