Screw the Banks and Investment Firms

[littleflower]

i don't disagree with anything you've written on china, simon. i see it pretty much the same way, except for timing... and the fact that they have not yet sent their military invading outside their borders since they were created by the UN. but where will they go? taiwan first, i suppose? i have also read some things that suggest they may be interested in japan, and likely s. korea as well, via n. korea ... any word on kim jong il?

africa ... interesting. we will see...

CSS - i would love to know what happens when our government falls? how will we know? that's a very abstract thought to me.

[can't sit still]

Abstract it is !! The US needs to borrow about $ 2.5 Billion a day. We also service interest-only on our debt. Bond sales are failing. We're borrowing more than we're paying back as interest. There are limits on just how much "money" GOV can create. The day may come when GOV just can't produce enough "money" to pay the interest on our debt.

GOV isn't talking about CAFR money;
" The composite totals of investment assets held internationally by USA government is staggering. Between local and Federal government, the total of liquid investment assets held Internationally is a conservative sixty (60) Trillion dollars. "
http://www.rense.com/general81/deue.htm
GOV owns an enormous amount of the stock market but, continues to suck in every dollar that it can from foreigners; http://www.rense.com/general77/topfe.htm
We sucked in 80% of the savings worldwide. Who knows,,,, maybe with all that sucking, GOV can stay functional. If not, then we miss payments on treasury bonds.

$3.7 trillion comes due this year. There are already suggestions that treasuries are going to default. If we default, our creditors demand payment from the IMF and the BIS. A default would have the biggest effect on our imports.
I would expect Saudi, Iran and Venezuela to stop sending oil. Mexico is our second biggest supplier after Canada. Mexico would sell it on the open market. Canada only has pipelines to the US. They started building a pipeline to the coast so that they could export. I heard that the project was stopped.

If GOV collapses, I imagine that the first sign would be martial law and fuel rationing.

[Simon of the Playa]

the big thing to watch out for today is the manufacturing index...i believe it comes out at 10am est.

if it is 43 or below, it should trigger a sell-off.

we'll see....i dont really care, i'm po', so this is really nothing more than armchair stockbroking.

i'm slumming, as it were.

[Simon of the Playa]

DOES ANYONE GIVE A SHIT?


Fed Defies Transparency Aim in Refusal to Identify Bank Loans

By Mark Pittman, Bob Ivry and Alison Fitzgerald


Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve is refusing to identify the recipients of almost $2 trillion of emergency loans from American taxpayers or the troubled assets the central bank is accepting as collateral.

Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in September they would comply with congressional demands for transparency in a $700 billion bailout of the banking system. Two months later, as the Fed lends far more than that in separate rescue programs that didn't require approval by Congress, Americans have no idea where their money is going or what securities the banks are pledging in return.

``The collateral is not being adequately disclosed, and that's a big problem,'' said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Boston- based Loomis Sayles & Co., where he co-manages $17 billion in bonds. ``In a liquid market, this wouldn't matter, but we're not. The market is very nervous and very thin.''

Bloomberg News has requested details of the Fed lending under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure.

The Fed made the loans under terms of 11 programs, eight of them created in the past 15 months, in the midst of the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression.

``It's your money; it's not the Fed's money,'' said billionaire Ted Forstmann, senior partner of Forstmann Little & Co. in New York. ``Of course there should be transparency.''

Federal Reserve spokeswoman Michelle Smith declined to comment on the loans or the Bloomberg lawsuit. Treasury spokeswoman Michele Davis didn't respond to a phone call and an e-mail seeking comment.

The Fed's lending is significant because the central bank has stepped into a rescue role that was also the purpose of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, bailout plan -- without safeguards put into the TARP legislation by Congress.

$2 Trillion

Total Fed lending topped $2 trillion for the first time last week and has risen by 140 percent, or $1.172 trillion, in the seven weeks since Fed governors relaxed the collateral standards on Sept. 14. The difference includes a $788 billion increase in loans to banks through the Fed and $474 billion in other lending, mostly through the central bank's purchase of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds.

Before Sept. 14, the Fed accepted mostly top-rated government and asset-backed securities as collateral. After that date, the central bank widened standards to accept other kinds of securities, some with lower ratings. The Fed collects interest on all its loans.

The plan to purchase distressed securities through TARP called for buying at the ``lowest price that the secretary (of the Treasury) determines to be consistent with the purposes of this Act,'' according to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, the law that covers TARP.

`We Need Transparency'

The legislation didn't require any specific method for the purchases beyond saying mechanisms such as auctions or reverse auctions should be used ``when appropriate.'' In a reverse auction, bidders offer to sell securities at successively lower prices, helping to ensure that the Fed would pay less. The measure also included a five-member oversight board that includes Paulson and Bernanke.

At a Sept. 23 Senate Banking Committee hearing in Washington, Paulson called for transparency in the purchase of distressed assets under the TARP program.

``We need oversight,'' Paulson told lawmakers. ``We need protection. We need transparency. I want it. We all want it.''

At a joint House-Senate hearing the next day, Bernanke also stressed the importance of openness in the program. ``Transparency is a big issue,'' he said.

Banks Resist Disclosure

The Fed lent cash and government bonds to banks, which gave the Fed collateral in the form of equities and debt, including subprime and structured securities such as collateralized debt obligations, according to the Fed web site. The borrowers have included the now-bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Citigroup Inc. and JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Banks oppose any release of information because it might signal weakness and spur short-selling or a run by depositors, said Scott Talbott, senior vice president of government affairs for the Financial Services Roundtable, a Washington trade group.

``You have to balance the need for transparency with protecting the public interest,'' Talbott said. ``Taxpayers have a right to know where their tax dollars are going, but one piece of information standing alone could undermine public confidence in the system.''

Frank Backs Fed

The nation's biggest banks, Citigroup, Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, declined to comment on whether they have borrowed money from the Fed. They received $120 billion in capital from the TARP, which was signed into law Oct. 3.

In an interview Nov. 6, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said the Fed's disclosure is sufficient and that the risk the central bank is taking on is appropriate in the current economic climate. Frank said he has discussed the program with Timothy F. Geithner, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and a possible candidate to succeed Paulson as Treasury secretary.

``I talk to Geithner and he was pretty sure that they're OK,'' said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. ``If the risk is that the Fed takes a little bit of a haircut, well that's regrettable.'' Such losses would be acceptable, he said, if the program helps revive the economy.

Frank said the Fed shouldn't reveal the assets it holds or how it values them because of ``delicacy with respect to pricing.'' He said such disclosure would ``give people clues to what your pricing is and what they might be able to sell us and what your estimates are.'' He wouldn't say why he thought that information would be problematic.

`Unclog the Market'

Revealing how the Fed values collateral could help thaw frozen credit markets, said Ron D'Vari, chief executive officer of NewOak Capital LLC in New York and the former head of structured finance at BlackRock Inc.

``I'd love to hear the methodology, how the Fed priced the assets,'' D'Vari said. ``That would unclog the market very quickly.''

TARP's $700 billion so far is being used to buy preferred shares in banks to shore up their capital. The program was originally intended to hold banks' troubled assets while markets were frozen.

The Bloomberg lawsuit argues that the collateral lists ``are central to understanding and assessing the government's response to the most cataclysmic financial crisis in America since the Great Depression.''

AIG Lending

The Fed has lent at least $81 billion to American International Group Inc., the world's largest insurer, so that it can pay obligations to banks. The central bank is also responsible for losses on a $26.8 billion portfolio guaranteed after Bear Stearns Cos. was bought by JPMorgan.

``As a taxpayer, it is absolutely important that we know how they're lending money and who they're lending it to,'' said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia- based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

Ultimately, the Fed will have to remove some securities held as collateral from some programs because the central bank's rules call for instruments rated below investment grade to be taken back by the borrower and marked down in value. Losses on those assets could then be written off, partly through the capital recently injected into those banks by the Treasury.

Moody's Investors Service alone has cut its ratings on 926 mortgage-backed securities worth $42 billion to junk from investment grade since Sept. 14, making them ineligible for collateral on some Fed loans.

The Fed's collateral ``absolutely should be made public,'' said Mark Cuban, an activist investor, the owner of the Dallas Mavericks professional basketball team and the creator of the Web site BailoutSleuth.com, which focuses on the secrecy shrouding the Fed's moves.

[Simon of the Playa]

The GreenBerg Family.....Jesse James aint CRAP compared to their thievery.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home



Maurice "Hank" GreenBerg et Fils.


should be strung up and gutted, publicly.

[can't sit still]

Simon, the big question to me is;
The FED is a private group of banks.
The FED is loaning almost a trillion a day to other banks
The FED is loaming this money of their own volition, not the taxpayer
Does the FED charter "make" the taxpayer liable for any bank default???????
The US agreement with the FED is cancelllable. I believe that we just have to pay $450 million to cancel the agreement. We're slowly reaching a point where we're in competition with the European banks. The FED is comprised of a group of mostly european banks. I'm wondering if GOV is going to suck out every penny from the FED to resuscitate American banks and then dump the FED.
Is the $700 billion of capital just to keep the picture pretty until the FED is sucked in too deep? It's a nice thought if nothing else

[Simon of the Playa]

bailoutsleuth.com is pretty nifty though, i just spent 1/2 hour poking around, only to leave more terrified then when i entered.

but hey, it's only a paper moon.

[youtube][/youtube]

[cowboyangel]

Today on Democracy Now! I heard that 18 veterans a day, yes, that's correct, 18 veterans a day, according to Government statistics, commit suicide.

And so my fellow Americans, I ask, "Who should we be bailing out? Who should we be taking carer of?"

Who? Who really?

[can't sit still]

Cowboy, the news today said that there are 2 million vets in L.A. One million are unemployed. We've all become eminently disposable. The Veterans prove that the more control GOV has over your life,,,,,,,,,, the worse the results. It's a disgusting failure of our "throwaway" society. I wish all the Vets the rewards that they deserve.

[cowboyangel]

ya css

here's the full piece from Aaron Glantz

The War in Iraq has disappeared from the headlines. The ongoing economic crisis has Americans looking inward, wondering if they can keep their homes and their jobs, with little interest in death and destruction half a world away. According to the Pew Research Center, media coverage of the war has plummeted from an average of 15 percent of stories in July 2007, to 3 percent this February, to just 2 percent of stories during the last week of October.


*
On Veterans Day, Don't Forget About the War

Iraq War

Aaron Glantz: Most Americans want to put the war in Iraq behind them, but this feeling is based not on a coherent critique but on a kind of collective exhaustion.


Aaron Glantz: Today's military members face red tape, false advertising and multiple deployments. What happened to the promises of the original GI Bill?

The war also disappeared as an issue in the presidential campaign. Both Barack Obama and John McCain barely mentioned the war in Iraq in their final debate. In his historic victory speech, Obama said "Iraq" only once. Some say the election results show Americans demanding a "change," and in many ways they do. But they also show a collective desire to forget.

Most Americans want to put the war behind them, but this feeling is based not on a coherent critique but on a kind of collective exhaustion. In many ways, we as a country find ourselves in a mood like the one towards the end of the Vietnam War: we are tired and simply want to move on and forget the conflict ever happened.

Yet this feeling can come at a great cost, because it is this same dynamic that led to the betrayal of more than three million Vietnam veterans.

"When I go through airports I see soldiers just sitting up against a wall...by themselves," says therapist and Vietnam veteran Shad Meshad, who heads up the National Veterans Foundation. "No one goes up to them; that positive energy toward them has faded. No one is spitting or shouting, but they're still left with the fact that they're responsible for what they did or didn't do, and they're supposed to think about that alone."

Given the experience of Vietnam vets, Meshad believes that the American people ignore their veterans at their own peril. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, eighteen veterans commit suicide every day and 200,000 sleep homeless on the streets on any given night. By 1986, the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Survey reported that almost half of all male Vietnam veterans suffering from post-traumatic-stress disorder had been arrested or jailed at least once--34.2 percent had been jailed more than once, and 11.5 percent had been convicted of a felony.

"We're going to repeat that same thing, I can sense it," Meshad says, "if we don't take action and Congress doesn't create services to help these folks over the next ten or fifteen years."

Indeed, there are already many signs that history is repeating itself. Consider the implications of an April 2008 survey by the Rand Corporation; it found that a majority of the 300,000 Iraq and Afghanistan veterans suffering from post-traumatic-stress disorder and of the 320,000 with traumatic brain injury are not receiving help from the Pentagon and VA medical systems. In its study, Rand noted that the federal government fails to care for war veterans at its own peril--noting PTSD and TBI "can have far-reaching and damaging consequences."

"Individuals afflicted with these conditions face higher risks for other psychological problems and for attempting suicide. They have higher rates of unhealthy behaviors--such as smoking, overeating, and unsafe sex--and higher rates of physical health problems and mortality. Individuals with these conditions also tend to miss more work or report being less productive," the report said. "These conditions can impair relationships, disrupt marriages, aggravate the difficulties of parenting, and cause problems in children that may extend the consequences of combat trauma across generations."

"These consequences can have a high economic toll," the report continued. "However, most attempts to measure the costs of these conditions focus only on medical costs to the government. Yet, direct costs of treatment are only a fraction of the total costs related to mental health and cognitive conditions. Far higher are the long-term individual and societal costs stemming from lost productivity, reduced quality of life, homelessness, domestic violence, the strain on families, and suicide. Delivering effective care and restoring veterans to full mental health have the potential to reduce these longer-term costs significantly."

There is hope in this story, though.

When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on January 20, America will have a President who has shown an interest in and commitment to caring for America's veterans. As a senator, Obama supported increased funding for the VA and an expanded GI Bill. His campaign platform sounded all the right notes about increasing the number of mental health providers, reforming the government's bureaucratic disability-claims system, and increasing the number of Vet Centers, where returning veterans can find community as they make the difficult transition from war to civilian life.

But taking those steps will require hard work and support from the public that amounts to more than just lip service to "supporting the troops." We must stay engaged on the issue of Iraq and our government's treatment of its veterans and create an atmosphere where a repeat of the tragedy that followed the Vietnam War will not be tolerated. If we don't, Barack Obama may follow our lead and rush quickly past the veteran who's sleeping homeless on the street.

[Elderberry]

I still think that there sould be a flat 10% war tax on every adult person working in the U.S. for EACH WAR the administration involves the country in. You think the war in Iraq and Afghanistan would be still going on if the citizens of the country really had to pay for it themselves????

Afghanistan probably would have been authorized and finished expiditiously; but Iraq would never have been started.

JK

[can't sit still]

Well, not too surprisingly, the $700 billion went to Paulson's banking buddies. Most of this charade was a ploy to get us to finance a takeover of the small banks by the huge banks.
The best thing that we can do is to put all our money into community banks. Starve out all the big banks and let community banks help,,,, the community. We wouldn't have the obscene concentration of power that is blowing the system to hell. Keep it in the community!

[Simon of the Playa]

grandpa, whats in your pockets?


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... =exclusive

[can't sit still]

Screw the banks and fuck the FED. The US owes about $15---20 trillion,,, depending who you ask. The FED has the presses fired up like never before.
"From the day of its founding in 1913, the Fed’s assets – the foundation capital of the U.S. banking system – grew, reaching $1 trillion on the 24th of September, 2008. But then, something extraordinary happened. Something breathtaking. And for a classical economist – something incredibly reckless. In the next six weeks, the Fed added another trillion. And the head of the Dallas Branch of the Fed said that he expected to add another trillion before the end of the year.

How does the Fed get these “assets?â€

[can't sit still]

It looks like the U.S. will be on the Argentine diet. Argentina was evidently a practice run for our collapse.

The Banking Powers created an enormous bubble in the FINANCIAL economy. Then they screamed that it was going to collapse and that they need all the money created by the PRODUCTIVE economy. Congress dutifully handed over our wealth and the wealth of our kids.
Now, we have no wealth to run the productive economy. That money was transfered to the financial economy so that they could buy up EVERYTHING.
Everything will soon be owned by the Banking Powers through foreclosure. The Banking powers have no danger of running out of money. They just keep screaming "collapse" to Paulson or Geitner. Since the banks are hoarding every cent that they received, they are sure to break the productive economy and preserve their own skins.
Now, we will have the requisite collapse so that the elements of the productive economy can be "marked down" to a price that the banking powers feel is a good deal. Given about 20 or 30 years of hard labor, we can buy it back from the Banking Powers.
If you want a sneak preview of what the Banking powers have planned for us, just read what they did to Argentina;
http://www.silverbearcafe.com/private/10.08/tshtf1.html

This site has great info on the last depression. It must be remembered that ALL the pieces of the economy where in place. Someone had screwed with money and credit so badly, that the physical economy couldn't function.
It took a few years to really get on a roll;
http://www.futurecasts.com/Depression_d ... %2732.html


This paper is absolutely fascinating. If you have the time to read it, it has serious discussions on economic ideology. Larouche wanders a bit, but the info is great.
He argues that the entire idea of supply-side economics can never work.
This paper argues that our basic economic structure is fatally flawed;
http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2008/12 ... rised.html


"The grim reality of course is that when the real estate bubble burst the Government was able to “bail-outâ€

[can't sit still]

This is a very interesting story of a guy who figured out the business cycle with great accuracy;
"Armstrong's cycle gives dates down to the day years and decades ahead of time, not just a yearly date as Benner's shows. Armstrong's is much more precise. So much so that the CIA and Chinese government tried to aquire his super-computer model after his amazing prediction of the crash of 1998 to the day."
He uses a super computer. GOV threw him in jail for refusing to disclose his code. 7 years later and he's still in jail
http://armstrongmartin.blogspot.com/
They've fucked him good. No release and no trial. Their holding him in solitary for contempt of court 7 years ago. What a fucking screw job.

[can't sit still]

SERIOUS MONEY
"Splitting off Smith Barney, analysts say, may not be enough to plug a widening hole at the bank, which has lost an average of nearly $100 million a day in the fourth quarter."
CITI is losing $ 100,000,000 a day. THAT would buy a LOT of candy
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/busin ... f=business

[can't sit still]

This guy Mish has been pretty much right all along. His latest statement that brings chills to the spine is; "There is no money on the sidelines. We have had one of the most profound periods of wealth destruction in the last 12 month. Billionaires are throwing themselves in front of trains. Sideline cash is a myth."

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot. ... uture.html
It's one thing if people have pulled their money out of speculation. It's quite another thing altogether if they've lost it. CITI is coming apart. B of A is going to blow. Might get interesting.
Dan

[Simon of the Playa]

yet another....Hedge fund managers will be dropping like flies soon.


http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home

[can't sit still]

Hey,,,,,,,, Take the money and run!!!!! It seems to work for many.
The latest thing is that CITI is coming apart. They want to try to preserve the good parts. That would imply that they will separate the good apples form the bad. Sounds OK. BUT, the bad apples will be concentrated in one entity. The entity will default to preserve the good. It's entirely possible that the CITI defaults will be much bigger than the defaults from Lehman Bros.
SO, we have another tsunami of defaults pouring into the system. That's just great. That will poison all their counter parties. B of A is tottering. You can bet your gold teeth that B of A has counter party exposure to CITI. B of A also has $ 3.7 trillion of tier 3 tranches that are collapsing. That's why GOV is giving them lots more millions AND guarantees on $ 118 million of loans.
Every loan default unwinds a leveraged obligation. Some are not just CDOs. Some are CDOs squared.
Say that 10 people default on the mortgage of $ ten 1 million dollar houses. That could call for a $ 1 billion payout on obligations [squared] If those obligations were leveraged at another level, it could be 20 times worse.
The total loss exposure could reach $ 1.25 quadrillion. GOV is trying to save it all with 8--10--12 trillion. CITIs coming apart. B of A doesn't look good at all. Morgan is in trouble. The bailouts are just a postponement and a grand opportunity for a few people to collect the payouts from the failed CDOs.
The failure rate from CDOs from lehmans was about 91.8%. It would be very interesting to know who was the receiver in the payouts.
Dan

[Box Burner]

Heres the fix.

the banks want money and want gov. to bail them out. Anybody remember govrnment of the people, by the people, for the people?

the way to give the money to the banks is to pay off the loans of the people.

1 - Mortgage, auto and credit debt. Up to 1 million per US Citizen. Non citizens and corporations and bussiness do not qualify. You have to be a real live human being who is a US Citizen. Loans from foreign banks or foreign owned banks do not qualify. Loans on property not held in the United States do not qualify even if the loan is from a US bank. The loan on a second (and 3rd etc.) house does not qualify even if it is in the United states.

2 - Only 1 auto loan per individual. Vehicle must be in the United States and have been purchased in the United States. Loan must Be from a US bank.

3 - credit card debt Up to $20.000 for loans on US Banks only with a signed and notorized statement from the individual US Citezen that he/she will not use credit card for non essential items and will try to save up money and pay cash in the future.

It's our money folks. It would be sheer stupidity to give to the ones who are screwing us. The banks are just greedy and want you to pay for their folly and still owe them money.

The US Constitution guarantees our right to have a business. It does not guarantee that that business will succeed. therefore businesses, large or small, do not qualify for any kind of a bail out. Stockholders in failing companies are shit out of luck unless they want to pay out of their own pockets to float those companies. Guess the stockholders should pay more attention.

Anyway this will clear up the debts of US Citizens and free up their money so that they can (responsibly) start buying stuff again. And it puts money into the banks so that they can become solvent.

If Banks and businesses still fail, tough shit. Guess they ought to use better business practices shouldn't they.

[ygmir]

Heres the fix.

the banks want money and want gov. to bail them out. Anybody remember govrnment of the people, by the people, for the people?

the way to give the money to the banks is to pay off the loans of the people.

1 - Mortgage, auto and credit debt. Up to 1 million per US Citizen. Non citizens and corporations and bussiness do not qualify. You have to be a real live human being who is a US Citizen. Loans from foreign banks or foreign owned banks do not qualify. Loans on property not held in the United States do not qualify even if the loan is from a US bank. The loan on a second (and 3rd etc.) house does not qualify even if it is in the United states.

2 - Only 1 auto loan per individual. Vehicle must be in the United States and have been purchased in the United States. Loan must Be from a US bank.

3 - credit card debt Up to $20.000 for loans on US Banks only with a signed and notorized statement from the individual US Citezen that he/she will not use credit card for non essential items and will try to save up money and pay cash in the future.

It's our money folks. It would be sheer stupidity to give to the ones who are screwing us. The banks are just greedy and want you to pay for their folly and still owe them money.

The US Constitution guarantees our right to have a business. It does not guarantee that that business will succeed. therefore businesses, large or small, do not qualify for any kind of a bail out. Stockholders in failing companies are shit out of luck unless they want to pay out of their own pockets to float those companies. Guess the stockholders should pay more attention.

Anyway this will clear up the debts of US Citizens and free up their money so that they can (responsibly) start buying stuff again. And it puts money into the banks so that they can become solvent.

If Banks and businesses still fail, tough shit. Guess they ought to use better business practices shouldn't they.

I like those ideas, BB..........

I wonder, though:
What about us poor slobs who don't have loans?
Who only buy what we can afford.
live in old, maybe even run down, but, paid for houses, drive 25 year old cars, and work our butts off?

Why do we not get something?
Bail people out who have loans, maybe that they couldn't afford anyway, (I include corporate America in the term "people", for this thought), but, those of us who try to live within our means, not buy what we can't afford, or pay for, save money, etc.......

we seem to be getting the biggest screwing of all..........
no welfare, no mortgage forgiveness, credit card, whatever......

Just wonderin'..............

[littleflower]

also .. jobs ....

when those businesses fail, jobs disappear .... how many people work for citi and b of a?

i know someone who was looking into lehman brothers' assets for his company a few months ago ... he was having trouble justifying their purchase at fire sale prices, and described lehman's executives as "incredibly reckless." but that is not necessarily true of all struggling companies .... many just got caught up in the investment of these bad mortgages.

it is never so simple.

[Box Burner]

I like those ideas, BB..........

I wonder, though:
What about us poor slobs who don't have loans?
Who only buy what we can afford.
live in old, maybe even run down, but, paid for houses, drive 25 year old cars, and work our butts off?

Why do we not get something?
Bail people out who have loans, maybe that they couldn't afford anyway, (I include corporate America in the term "people", for this thought), but, those of us who try to live within our means, not buy what we can't afford, or pay for, save money, etc.......

we seem to be getting the biggest screwing of all..........
no welfare, no mortgage forgiveness, credit card, whatever......

Just wonderin'..............

Sorry ygmir - I did think about that but forgot to post it. The million dollar figure was a bit simplistic and I just threw it out there. the actual payoff of debt should be based on the average amount of debt owed by the average US Citizen. So if the average debt is about $100,000 (I am using this figure just to make it easy to compute) including mortgage, auto, medical and credit card debt, the payout cap would be about $120,000. So if you owed more than that you would still owe some. but if you owed less than that you would get cash in your pocket up to the $120.000 cap. So if you owed nothing you would get the full $120,000 as a reward for being a responsible citizen. The stipulation would be that you could not invest it in a foreign company or bank, or in a company or bank that was not owned and controlled (by stockholders) by anyone who is not a US Citizen, Or in a company or bank that is not on US soil, even if it is oqned by a US Citizen.

also .. jobs ....

when those businesses fail, jobs disappear .... how many people work for citi and b of a?

i know someone who was looking into lehman brothers' assets for his company a few months ago ... he was having trouble justifying their purchase at fire sale prices, and described lehman's executives as "incredibly reckless." but that is not necessarily true of all struggling companies .... many just got caught up in the investment of these bad mortgages.

it is never so simple.

littleflower - No it is not going to be easy, but the payouts as outlined above will ease that a little. The reason for not allowing corporations is that they are not human and not responsible. For example; Take a meat packing company that has failed to follow safety and sanitation rules. So tainted hamburger goes out on the market across the nation and people get sick and some might even die and what happens? the owners and ceo abscond with alltheir earnings and bonuses, the company takes out bankrupsy and closes and the little guys who work on the line for minimum wage are out of a job. (Nevermind about the poor guy who died.) Often the owners open a new corporation and it back to business as usual. The buck has got to stop somewhere and that should be with the owners and, to some extent the stockholders. The caveat is the same one that is on the back of the burning Man ticket. If you do not want to pay attention, fasten your seat belt and hold on then do not get on the roller coaster.

There are a few small businesses that are privately owned and because they have not incorporated the owners can claim those debts.

Those people who took resposibility to try and stay out of debt will have the funds to invest in new companies that will provide new jobs.

there is no magic wand that we can wave that will make it easy. We failed to hold our leaders accountable and they sold us out and now it is time to fix the problem. It is always easier to do the maintenasnce than it is to do the repair.

[ygmir]

THanks for the further explanation, BB.
I like that idea in total, then,.............

(not that my approval matters)......

[Simon of the Playa]

GOV broke into all the vaults and said that they were looking for drug money.
They should check with the CIA.

dude, it's gone, it's been spent all on drugs and sex, duh....

[Elderberry]

Box Burner, I too like your idea. It just seems so fair and simple. I wish I were smart enough to know why it won't work, but I think those pesky derivitives have something to do with it.

JK

[ygmir]

Box Burner, I too like your idea. It just seems so fair and simple. I wish I were smart enough to know why it won't work, but I think those pesky derivitives have something to do with it.

JK

I think the reason it'd not work are those pesky politicians...................

[Elderberry]

Box Burner, I too like your idea. It just seems so fair and simple. I wish I were smart enough to know why it won't work, but I think those pesky derivitives have something to do with it.

JK

I think the reason it'd not work are those pesky politicians...................

That might be true too.

I guess I just don't understand why I haven't heard anybody 'in the know' even mention this idea. (that I recall). So, I'm assuming that it probably has some fatal flaw that is just beyond my comprehension.

JK

[Box Burner]

In one form or another most politicians have their fingers in that pie. Keep in mind that banks are a Money for Nothin' proposition. They get your money for nothing in return. When I was kid I opened a savings account that paid the high return of 7&1/4 % monthly. when I closed that account it was paying only about 1&1/2% tjhis same bank will loan me money at somewhere between 9% to 23% interest compounded daily. WTF? They are going to loan me my money and charge me a high interest for it . And the kicker is that they encourage you to take out a loan at th 9 to 20% interest rate and keep your money in the bank so you can "save money" and earn the 1&1/2%. Does everyone have stupid written on their foreheads? Living on credit is one of the stupidest ideas I have ever heard. And we as a nation got suckered in. And now our leaders want to bail out the banks so they can extend us more credit? Give me a break. You can rest assured that a good number of our leaders have their fingers in that pie. If Americans start saving money and paying cash for everything except major nessesary purchases the banks will "lose" all that interest. Wouldn't that be a shame.

maybe we should be keeping our money at home and hiring Smith and Wesson to protect it for us.