Discounted housing and health care

jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
We, the American people, now own part of an insurance company and soon to be real estate.

So when do I get my house and free insurance? I didn't get vote to bail out these idiots, so I want a vote on my cut and what that cut is.
 
Rickster71

Rickster71

Audioholic Spartan
It's funny you say that.

I'll bet it's the first step toward Universal Health Care.

It's supposed to be a two year loan at 11%:rolleyes:
 
Adam

Adam

Audioholic Jedi
I will say up front that I'm speaking out of ignorance in regards to this specific situation. That said, I do have some fundamental faith in the decision of the government to bail out those institutions. I'm sure that it was not done lightly. A collapse of key financial institutions could have a ripple effect that would hit this country hard, and not in a good way.

I wouldn't mind a free summer home, though. :)
 
Rickster71

Rickster71

Audioholic Spartan
AIG the company in question is very big.
It's also has it's hands in many industries, and if it went under we would probably be close to a domino effect and a depression.
Sucks that the tax payer has to pay for the loan. Though if left to collapse, the ramifications would hurt us all much more.
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
It's funny you say that.

I'll bet it's the first step toward Universal Health Care.
I know: GASP! Perish the thought that the U.S. government may actually serve the base interests of her citizenry.
 
R

rnatalli

Audioholic Ninja
Let's not forget that although the government has guaranteed up to $800 billion worth in "bail outs" so far, it's likely it won't cost that much. That said, it isn't going to be a cheap fix this time around. We should start a pool to see who gets closest. It will take several years before the actual costs are determined so imagine how many people could contribute :D
 
Last edited:
C

cbraver

Audioholic Chief
Nod, AIG is massive. They insure basically all my crap. It is considered good insurance. :rolleyes:
 
1

10010011

Senior Audioholic
Obviously these banks and insurance companies need a huge tax break and less government regulation.:rolleyes:
 
Rickster71

Rickster71

Audioholic Spartan
Obviously these banks and insurance companies need a huge tax break and less government regulation.:rolleyes:
Bill Clinton, and the Republicans agree to deregulation of US financial system (November 1999)

An agreement between the Clinton administration and congressional Republicans, reached during all-night negotiations which concluded in the early hours of October 22, sets the stage for passage of the most sweeping banking deregulation bill in American history, lifting virtually all restraints on the operation of the giant monopolies which dominate the financial system.

The proposed Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 would do away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, one of the central pillars of Roosevelt's New Deal. Under the old law, banks, brokerages and insurance companies were effectively barred from entering each others' industries, and investment banking and commercial banking were separated.



The sticking point was the effort by Gramm to gut the Community Reinvestment Act, a 1977 anti-redlining law which requires that banks make a certain proportion of their loans in minority and poor neighborhoods. Gramm blocked passage of a similar deregulation bill last year over demands to cripple the CRA, and bank lobbyists were in a panic, during the week before the deal was made, that the dispute would once again prevent any bill from being adopted.



The latter provision was particularly offensive to black and other minority business and community groups, who have used the CRA provisions as a lever by threatening to challenge mergers and other bank operations which require government approval. In most such cases, the banks have offered loans to businessmen or outright grants to community groups in return for dropping their legal actions. These petty-bourgeois elements have been able to posture as defenders of the black or Hispanic community, while pocketing what are essentially payoffs from finance capital and concealing from the public the details of this relationship.

The banks and other financial institutions did not themselves oppose continuation of the CRA, which they have treated as nothing more than a cost of doing a highly profitable business in minority areas. Loans tied to the CRA average a 20 percent rate of return. Financial industry lobbyists complained that they were being caught in a crossfire between the Republicans and Democrats which was unrelated to the main purpose of the bill.

The Clinton White House threatened to veto the bill if CRA provisions were substantially weakened, in response to heavy pressure from the Congressional Black Caucus and the Reverend Jesse Jackson, whose Operation PUSH has made extensive use of CRA in its campaigns to pressure corporations and banks for more opportunities for black businessmen. But eventually the White House caved in to Gramm, accepting his amendments so long as the program remained formally in place.

The White House similarly retreated on pledges that consumer privacy would be protected in the legislation. Consumer groups pointed to the potential for abuse of financial information once giant conglomerates were created which would handle loans, investments and insurance at the same time. For example: a bank could refuse to give a 30-year mortgage to a customer whose medical records, filed with the bank's insurance subsidiary, revealed a fatal disease.
 
J

jamie2112

Banned
Its all a bunch of crap. If the government made our own money instead of taking money from the "FEDERAL RESERVE" we would not be in this shinola in the first place. The Fed bank is owned by the richest men in our country IE: the Rockafellers and a few other untouchables. Our government gets its cash from the Fed bank at an interest so our country is in debt from the get go. Why we still use this one bank system is beyond me but they are trying to make a "World Bank" so they can control the planet. I advise you all to watch video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331 it is pretty eye opening. Why dont they just shut the Fed Reserve?... Oh wait thats right Kennedy was going to do that as well as splinter the CIA as well. You can't win against People who can off a president and get away with it. They are "Untouchable" at this point. Kind of like our current administration......:eek:

Sorry to rant. I should just stick to sound....
 
Last edited:
Adam

Adam

Audioholic Jedi
Jamie, let's step back for a second. Without the Federal Reserve, we wouldn't have had the epic movie known as Die Hard with a Vengeance. You gotta look at this with a broader lens, my friend. :D
 
J

jamie2112

Banned
I know I should of never posted that remark. I am just sick all our decisions being made for us......We are almost beyond redemption in the rest of the worlds eyes. Not that I really care what the rest of the world thinks about the USA. Don't get me wrong I love my country I just cannot stand the things going on in politics these days......:D
 
itschris

itschris

Moderator
I will say up front that I'm speaking out of ignorance in regards to this specific situation. That said, I do have some fundamental faith in the decision of the government to bail out those institutions. I'm sure that it was not done lightly. A collapse of key financial institutions could have a ripple effect that would hit this country hard, and not in a good way.

I wouldn't mind a free summer home, though. :)
It's not ignorance at all. You're absolutely correct. Many of these agencies and large institutions are firmly interwoven within our economy and even the world economy. The flow of funds and commerce are very much linked to the health of these institutions if not only for their sheer size and volume of transactions and money. They actually create "economy" just by existing.

It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on, no one is happy about bailing out these businesses. I've heard some folks, even in our firm complain and say "oh just let them fail... that's what they get" but I can completely assure you that the one's saying that are not our top economists and analysts... they're the clerical worker or lower level employees who don't really understand the complexity of the issue.

And that's really what irks me about politics in general. All the time people go around making these bold statements and they really just don't understand. I mean think about it... can you really fathom what takes place in running the country from day to day... the sheer amount of decisions that get made each day... the numbers of things that just have to happen each day for things to work? I don't think people really have a firm handle on what it really takes. And I also get impression that people think the administration, whether it's the current or some other, just sits around and thinks to themselves... "yeah... I'll f*ck the entire country and help my oil friends make more money." I honestly believe that most Presidents and administrations do in fact do what they think is best and believe in what they do. We're a nation split 45/55 liberal/convservative or visa versa on any given day about any given issue, so how can anywon expect any administration to do what they want them to 100% of time when our own nation is so diverse in thinking about the very same thing.

Rather than recognizing we have fundamental differences and that there's something to be gained by differing view points, most would rather resort to calling people stupid or worse. The arrogance just floors me.
 
M

Mort Corey

Senior Audioholic
Let's not forget that although the government has guaranteed up to $800 billion worth in "bail outs" so far, it's likely it won't cost that much. That said, it isn't going to be a cheap fix this time around. We should start a pool to see who gets closest. It will take several years before the actual costs are determined so imagine how many people could contribute :D
OK, I'm in for five bucks (which in a couple of years might buy a stick of gum). Lessee....last Friday the tab was $500B, then by Sunday it was up to $700B and today we're talking $800B.....heck, I'm guessing we hit a trillion before the end of the week so I going to take the $3T spot:D

Mort
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
... A collapse of key financial institutions could have a ripple effect that would hit this country hard, and not in a good way.

I wouldn't mind a free summer home, though. :)
A bit larger effect. How about the world since some or most have global intertwining? Global recession or depression? Run on all the banks and financial houses? Economic collapse?
That summer home? I think Galveston has some prime beachfront lots :)
 
jinjuku

jinjuku

Moderator
It doesn't matter what side of the aisle you're on, no one is happy about bailing out these businesses. I've heard some folks, even in our firm complain and say "oh just let them fail... that's what they get" but I can completely assure you that the one's saying that are not our top economists and analysts... they're the clerical worker or lower level employees who don't really understand the complexity of the issue.
What is sad is that these institutions were allowed to have gotten to the point where no matter how badly/poorly/in-appropriately they have been ran, they HAVE to be bailed out. They simply can't be allowed to fail.

What is aggravating is there are sub-prime brokers sitting on a beach in Tahiti sipping mai-tai's and laughing all the way to the bank while we collectively hold the bag. Hell, I don't even own a house yet! I really want to punch a greedy exec in their big fat head...
 
itschris

itschris

Moderator
What is sad is that these institutions were allowed to have gotten to the point where no matter how badly/poorly/in-appropriately they have been ran, they HAVE to be bailed out. They simply can't be allowed to fail.

What is aggravating is there are sub-prime brokers sitting on a beach in Tahiti sipping mai-tai's and laughing all the way to the bank while we collectively hold the bag. Hell, I don't even own a house yet! I really want to punch a greedy exec in their big fat head...
Well... as it relates to Freddie and Fannie, you can pretty much thank the Congress on failing to act on reform. Twice, there were specific issues raised discussing the very issue that caused the dramatic failure we saw with them a couple of weeks ago, but went largely ignored. Ironically, one of the main architecs of that failure is Obama's economics advisor Frank Raines. There is also a responsibility of the shareholder to demand more transparency. I don't think there's a lack of regulation. There's a failure to enforce the existing rules that prevent these collapses. By nature, an investment bank takes risks. Unlike a normal bank, they are in the business of maximizing risk/reward ventures and they got burned. No one... I mean no one... was *****ing while they were making money hand over fist. It's greed, pure and simple. The problem is, at what point does the government step in and say there's a larger good to be gained, or really... a lesser catastrophe to be gained... by the bailout. There are people a whole lot smarter than me making those decisions and I have to believe they're doing what they think is best. It's just like when companies get sued. Often times they settle, even though they're not at fault, because it costs less than it does to fight and win. It's a ballpark analogy, but it has some relevance to what we're talking about.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top