GarryFroker
New Member
We didn't learn the lesson back in the late 80's. Remember the Savings and Loan bail out? I believe daddy Bush was President for that. Must run in the family.
The Bill Maher Show ...
- Thread starter ViRedd
- Start date
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
I hadn't seen the newest one, with the hot black chick and the old black Republican and Scott McClellan between them (poor guy). Just watched that one last night. That one wasn't as funny as some, I agree. Too many people trying to talk over each other, kinda sucked. I don't even remember the one before that, so if it wasn't as funny as usual either, well, pot saved me from remembering that fact. Heh.
GarryFroker
New Member
I LMAO when he read what Palin's future son-in-law had on his MySpace. Classic.
Garden Knowm
The Love Doctor
Hi ViIf anyone wants to see an example of just how desperate, cruel, hypocritical and condescending the Left is these days, tune into Bill Maher's show. I used to think the guy, even though coming from the opposite side politically from me, was funny. Not anymore. Not funny at all. Just desperate. His last two shows really sucked.
Vi
What exactly do you not like?
can you post a link to the show?
iloveyou
Hey Knowm, love your DVD's that's besides the fact.
The show he was talking about was, in fact, awesome. Vi's just an angry Republican that doesn't like it when the truth is spoken. It hurts...
ViRedd
New Member
Look, I tape Maher every week. In the past, I've thought he was funny. Even though he's the opposite of me politically, and a fake libertarian, I still think he's funny. Not his last two shows though. There was nothing funny about those last two shows. Nothing. Maher was crude, insulting, snide and cruel.
Now you tell me what it was that you found so "awesome."
Vi
What I liked: The first part about a pseudo day-in-the-life of Palin was absolutely hilarious. ROFL @ "Touchstone Pictures presents.... President MOM!" (Nothing against women, just this one sucks.) The entire episode was funny, loved every minute. OKAY ASSHOLE drop it.
Next point, if you look at Sarah Palin's high school year book, you can figure out all the people in her Alaska government. Dead serious about that, she picks people that she knows are loyal to her. This is cronyism at it's finest. (And don't try to argue this, it was on Countdown on MSNBC.)
Also, Sarah Palin is *NOT* going to be cooperating with the TROOPERGATE INVESTIGATION... WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU HIDING BITCH?
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
How do you figure that if Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac weren't bailed out we'd get screwed?
About the only thing we'd end up doing is being forced to actually save and buy the house instead of "borrowing" it for a period of time defined as the lesser of when we sell it, die, or actually pay off the mortgage.
And we're still getting screwed even with the bail out of the "not GSEs". They took on bad loans, and borrowed massive amounts of money, and failed to pay it back. They were publicly traded corporations that only a fool would have invested in after looking at their income statements and balance statements.
Four years of increasing interest payments, which means they were borrowing money and not paying it back. Yet, they fail and the government rushes to the rescue saddling everyone with an additional $5 Trillion in debt.
Eh, hopefully they'll be kicked out of the government's arms relatively quickly and told that the next time they act stupid they'll be allowed to fail.
About the only thing we'd end up doing is being forced to actually save and buy the house instead of "borrowing" it for a period of time defined as the lesser of when we sell it, die, or actually pay off the mortgage.
And we're still getting screwed even with the bail out of the "not GSEs". They took on bad loans, and borrowed massive amounts of money, and failed to pay it back. They were publicly traded corporations that only a fool would have invested in after looking at their income statements and balance statements.
Four years of increasing interest payments, which means they were borrowing money and not paying it back. Yet, they fail and the government rushes to the rescue saddling everyone with an additional $5 Trillion in debt.
Eh, hopefully they'll be kicked out of the government's arms relatively quickly and told that the next time they act stupid they'll be allowed to fail.
Bongulator
Well-Known Member
The government isn't *buying* Fannie and Freddie, so the cost won't be anywhere near five trillion. $200 billion, worst case. Not great, no, but less than 2 years worth of Iraq.
The reason why it had to be done, at least short-term, is that the only people able to get home loans now are prime borrowers, people with sterling credit, lots of assets, and cash in hand. Remove the security of Fannie and Freddie and there will be no money in the market available for anyone to get loans, and homes would basically become a cash-only purchase.
Now, that's not necessarily a problem, at least not for those who can purchase a home with cash, or who already own a home and who intend to stay there for a very long time. But anyone selling a home, welp, sorry, nobody can get a loan to buy it and few have that much cash. So, everyone goes to renting, and the number of unsold homes on the market grows and grows and grows, and the value of every home shrinks and shrinks and shrinks. Got $100k equity in a home now? Kill off Freddie and Fannie in this market and it'll be worth a third of that in a year, so your net value would take an enormous hit.
Absent Freddie and Fannie, the people who want to buy houses, that could afford the loan, still can't, because nobody's loaning. The people who own houses, their home value drops precipitously and whether they want to or not, they can't sell the house, at least not without taking a big loss (unless they bought it for $2500 in 1935 or something). Since everyone has to rent, rent prices increase -- supply and demand. So the result of the death of Fannie and Freddie would screw home buyers, home sellers, home owners, and renters. Which is, for all intents and purposes, everyone. The lending capability of Freddie and Fannie are all that is keeping the housing market going at all. Kill them, kill housing, at least for quite some time, several years at least.
I feel I'm fairly objective about this. Even if Freddie and Fannie are allowed to die, and the value of my home drops by 2/3, that won't really affect me. I don't plan on selling it for decades, if ever. I won't be upside down on the mortgage, no matter what happens. Since I don't plan on renting, I don't care if rent prices climb enormously. I don't care if I can't get a home loan, because I don't want to buy another home. I don't care if other people can't get home loans because I'm not trying to sell mine. So, I'm pretty objective, no vested interest in how this comes out. I am a compassionate person though. Most people are not in the situation I am in, which is absolutely ideal for enduring a complete market collapse, a new Depression; for their sakes, I hope Freddie and Fannie are kept alive in the short-term. Long-term, we need some economic thinkers to put their brains on this and see how to transition to something that will never again require costly government intervention, but that will still provide the liquidity 'grease' that the housing market must have to function and that currently only Freddie and Fannie are providing.
This isn't a problem that fits easily into a sound bite.
The reason why it had to be done, at least short-term, is that the only people able to get home loans now are prime borrowers, people with sterling credit, lots of assets, and cash in hand. Remove the security of Fannie and Freddie and there will be no money in the market available for anyone to get loans, and homes would basically become a cash-only purchase.
Now, that's not necessarily a problem, at least not for those who can purchase a home with cash, or who already own a home and who intend to stay there for a very long time. But anyone selling a home, welp, sorry, nobody can get a loan to buy it and few have that much cash. So, everyone goes to renting, and the number of unsold homes on the market grows and grows and grows, and the value of every home shrinks and shrinks and shrinks. Got $100k equity in a home now? Kill off Freddie and Fannie in this market and it'll be worth a third of that in a year, so your net value would take an enormous hit.
Absent Freddie and Fannie, the people who want to buy houses, that could afford the loan, still can't, because nobody's loaning. The people who own houses, their home value drops precipitously and whether they want to or not, they can't sell the house, at least not without taking a big loss (unless they bought it for $2500 in 1935 or something). Since everyone has to rent, rent prices increase -- supply and demand. So the result of the death of Fannie and Freddie would screw home buyers, home sellers, home owners, and renters. Which is, for all intents and purposes, everyone. The lending capability of Freddie and Fannie are all that is keeping the housing market going at all. Kill them, kill housing, at least for quite some time, several years at least.
I feel I'm fairly objective about this. Even if Freddie and Fannie are allowed to die, and the value of my home drops by 2/3, that won't really affect me. I don't plan on selling it for decades, if ever. I won't be upside down on the mortgage, no matter what happens. Since I don't plan on renting, I don't care if rent prices climb enormously. I don't care if I can't get a home loan, because I don't want to buy another home. I don't care if other people can't get home loans because I'm not trying to sell mine. So, I'm pretty objective, no vested interest in how this comes out. I am a compassionate person though. Most people are not in the situation I am in, which is absolutely ideal for enduring a complete market collapse, a new Depression; for their sakes, I hope Freddie and Fannie are kept alive in the short-term. Long-term, we need some economic thinkers to put their brains on this and see how to transition to something that will never again require costly government intervention, but that will still provide the liquidity 'grease' that the housing market must have to function and that currently only Freddie and Fannie are providing.
This isn't a problem that fits easily into a sound bite.
TheBrutalTruth
Well-Known Member
Always more than one way to view it.
Though you are probably right. Of course the other problem with the GSEs was the fact that if the government didn't bail them out we'd probably have had backlash from the foreign governments that bought preferred shares, and see them lash out against the dollar by dumping it.
Hyperinflation... I'd rather not.
Though you are probably right. Of course the other problem with the GSEs was the fact that if the government didn't bail them out we'd probably have had backlash from the foreign governments that bought preferred shares, and see them lash out against the dollar by dumping it.
Hyperinflation... I'd rather not.
ViRedd
New Member
The last Maher show I saw live, the producer passed around a pitcher of Kool-Aid. I passed. Obviously, you didn't.
Vi
