Posted on 09/20/2008 2:50:59 PM PDT by BGHater
That is what folks miss. The mess exists because you can't sell all the repossessed houses and get the money back, or they would have. Furthermore, because of leverage, even if they did, that isn't enough money. Furthermore, the subprime mess is only part of the mess.
Just like our borders were going to be secured, and the government would be reduced in size, government spending controlled and reigned in...And who was it that recently said, “The fundamentals of our economy are strong"?
A cave hideout deep in the woods is starting to sound rational.
Only if one believes what you wrote, show where the facts are, got any canceled checks.
Hey, surely you jest....
NEWS FLASH: Bush isn’t running this year.
Bush saved us from economic collapse...uh, because ANY president would have had to do what he did this week.
I am really sick of people bashing Bush when its NOT his fault. He’s made mistakes (I am sure Regan could have done better..but guess what? Regan is dead.)
Instead of the conservatives eating their own, how about they take that anger and aim it the Dems who gave us this mess!
What exactly would you have Bush do? If he couldn’t get the Dem train wreck on this financial mess stopped for three years...then what? Fire Congress?
Bashing Bush is so counterproductive now, and by the way, hurts McCain...of course, then, he isn’t Regan either is he?
Did I mention that Reagen is dead?
Did you read the report?? Seems to me that I have presented more facts that anyone else on this thread.
We have done this before...and yes the money came back.
He IS calling it straight...it is a bailout AND a loan!
that is the task of conservatives ..to try to stop the Dem train wrecks!
We sure have a lot of economic experts here.
One could say that this portion" The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s.", was really what cause the mess today. You see the community BS was only added on at the last.
This bailout is as good as saying it's his (and Republican's) fault.
Okay. I just trying to see if Ron Paul voted on it.
What if they sell the repossessed houses and only get "some" of the money back, who takes the losses?
Thank you for the voice of reason in 2008.
Some posters think that if they just yell about Bush long enough Regan will rise from the dead.
What I am sure of however is that the Bush adm. did try and stop this screwed up situation several times and was prevented from doing so.
Why he does not go after the dems for creating it and big time is a mystery to me, but I gave us second guessing him some time ago when I discovered that he still is not running for office "again".
Main street could use a little turmoil. IMHO.
Thanks. that’s what I wanted to say, but you beat me to it!
BTW, what is “soittling”? ha.
You are misreading it so I will spell it out for you.
If you look at the 1998 FDIC report, the cost is identified as $87.5 million. If you look at the report you will also note that the RTC still held assets at that time.
Post 22 is not from me but from another poster (Cold Heat). That poster points out that you “need the facts to extend to 2001 when a huge amount of money was returned to the treasury, causing a actual surplus in that year.” Cold Heat also notes that “both parties had an interest in not disclosing the true fact that the RTC made a profit.” You can see post 46 for further discussion on this.
“Add to this the sudden budget surplus in 2000/2001 time frames, and you can start connecting dots, and add to this further the recent statements of some like Larry Kudlow who had the head of the old RTC on his show (a democrat)who essentially said they made a profit, and you begin to understand how this would be a bad thing to become public verifiable knowledge after a stream of Democrat operatives tried to destroy the credibility of the RTC that was run by democrats.
Then you look at the Republicans who also deny a profit for the RTC, because if they acknowledge it, they damage their own credibility during the so called Contract for America episode that they claim caused a surplus for the first time in decades.”
“I think they took it on the 2000 books and the 2001 books which both parties claim to be their good work for the taxpayer and in reality it was a one time gain related to the RTC disposal of it’s assets which had been transferred to another govt division in 1999 and do not show up as RTC assets.”
“You could piece this all together if you had the people in charge do it. It’s really the only way you will get a answer because both parties in two administrations made sure that the money accounting was screwed up in their favor.”
“That’s my take on it, and I think one could say accurately that the Fed actually made out pretty damn well, after it was all said and done, and the actual cost to the taxpayer was either negligible, or they made a small but important profit.”
I think Cold Heat is right about this. If you listen to CNBC or others in the investment community they state clearly that the RTC made money. I didn’t want to take it at face value so I did some research. If found the FDIC report that clearly states that the cost was less than what most people estimated AND there were still residual assets at the time of the report. I understand the political football that would prevent a final report that points out that money was made.
If you choose to be wedded to a view that has NO basis in fact that is your right. I am just pointing out why I reached the conclusion that I did based on the FACTS that I was able to uncover.
My large fingers sometimes hit the “O” instead of the “P” which I’m aiming for. ... spittling
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.