Posted on 09/29/2008 9:20:24 AM PDT by BufordP
In his White House address to the Nation Wednesday night, Bush said, "Under our proposal, the federal government would put up to $700 billion taxpayer dollars on the line to purchase troubled assets that are clogging the financial system."
But just seconds later, Bush continued: "... the value of many of these assets will likely be higher than their current price, because the vast majority of Americans will ultimately pay off their mortgages." He added that once "markets return to normal... money will flow back to the Treasury as these assets are sold. And we expect that much, if not all, of the tax dollars we invest will be paid back."
[snip]
If these soiled assets really are rubbish, let’s learn that now and collectively disabuse ourselves of the notion that we ever will see these $700 billion again.
"Over a two- to three-year period, the government is going to make money, and this thing won’t cost a penny," predicted Bob McTeer...
... Until these assets eventually improve, it might be wise to allow banks to describe them on their books the way hospital patients are listed -- critical, serious, or stable -- until they are well enough to be released and sold into a healthier economy.
[snip]
Here's an idea: Rather than spend $700 billion, why not dedicate $641 billion to cancel the corporate tax for the next two years? President Bush would be better off reviving the economy with that pro-growth policy, rather than cremating the few remaining shreds of his legacy with a pathetic impersonation of Franklin Roosevelt.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
My short list ping.
What party in George Bush in?
The Bush portfolio Party..
If these mortgages are actually going to regain their value in a few years the banks would hold onto them. Unless they can get the government to pay full price for them now which is about to happen. But, according to Pelosi, “The party’s over.” For the bankers the party is just beginning. They’ll have a hell of a party when they sell these non performing loans!
|
5½ posted on 09/29/2008 10:37:27 AM EDT by Drunkin' the Sailor Man (Fool me once ... shame on ... shame on you ...The fool you can't get fooled again!)
|
If you want off my ping list get over it!
While I have been unhappy with President Bush many times, including the current bailout scheme, I do resent you posting this picture. Like him or not, he is still the President of the United States of America.
PAN.
Terry Mross didn’t post that. I think it’s quite funny, myself. :-D
“If these mortgages are actually going to regain their value in a few years the banks would hold onto them. Unless they can get the government to pay full price for them now which is about to happen. But, according to Pelosi, “The party’s over.” For the bankers the party is just beginning. They’ll have a hell of a party when they sell these non performing loans!”
Terry, I believe this is wrong and that this sort of misunderstanding is fueling a lot fear and loathing.
They are not selling individual mortgages. The mortgages are part of packages that contain both good and bad loans; packages that were put together and marketed at some time in the past, before the crisis.
The reason the banks do not hold onto to them is that they CANNOT hold onto them and remain solvent. After they lend money, they package the notes together and sell them to other investors so that they can have more liquid capital to lend. If they do not sell these mortgages, they run out of cash and can no longer lend. This freezes the credit market.
The problem is that since there are non-performing loans in the packages, the institutions that would normally buy them as investments will no longer do so, because nobody knows the value of the packages. Into this steps the U.S. Treasury, who will buy them at a deep discount, and probably make a good profit as the market sorts itself out.
Remember, the T is not buying all the bad loans. They are buying the bad with the good - and at a discounted price that will be determined by a reverse auction.
If money can be made on this then why don’t we invest Social Security in it?
(could it be because these financial masters of the universe are too smart to bail out one con job with another one???)LOL
I didn’t but I think it’s funny, too. Act like a clown and you’ll be treated like one. I’m waiting for a little car to pull up and Bush and all the democrats start climbing out.
Mouse over “Drunkin’ the Sailor Man” and “Report Abuse”. Then click on “Drunkin’...
I understand that the gov't isn't buying individual loans, but packages. However, I still have to believe that the housing markets will have to stabilize and at least grow some before we can break even or realize a profit. Is this your take?
The performing loans are also over valued. So, no matter what we pay for them, we’re paying too much. We do get the property so I guess that’s something. But it could take 20 years for the value to get back to where they were.
My problem is why are repubs afraid to vote for this and afraid to vote against it?
Answer this. An MBA contains 1,000 loans. 950 are performing. 50 aren’t. How is this a loser?
I’m tring to reply to 5 1/2. This is an invalid post. This is one of BufordP’s fake, fony, feloneous comments. I LIKE IT!!!
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.
What party in George Bush in?