A Complete Waste of Space

ruggbutt wrote:If the gubmint had told the banks to re-fi people at a reasonable interest rate and then backed the loan the economy would have been much better off.

you realize that you are proposing, essentially, complete government control of the banking system?
Priceless.

why on Earth any of you think that Obama caused your woes in this economy is beyond me.
Cuda, find where Obama EVER remotely promised a percent figure on unemployment. Oh, and not counting
underemployment/non-active jobseekers has been going on for years, so no news there(I complained about that back in 2006 when folks said all was great). If you folks went out and learned anything about the economy you live in, you'd realize that this whole downturn could have been WAY worse. Hell, if you had followed the sage advice of Ruggie, Dawg and other whizzes here, you would be looking at 20% unemployment, 35-40% underemployment and a nation in total collapse. Heck, at this stage, I feel for those
in bad shape, but my major fear is yet another speculative bubble.

callmeslick wrote:[
you realize that you are proposing, essentially, complete government control of the banking system?
Priceless.

As usual, you don't comprehend the written word. Go back and look at how the Savings and Loan situation was handled in the 80's. Only the banks that fucked up were audited. Some were given money to continue. And many were allowed to go under. It wasn't "complete government control". This country survived, wasn't thrust into massive debt and the banks that were the worst offenders went away. Which is what AIG, Fannie May, Freddie Mac and others who acted irresponsibly should have done. I'd also like to see the deregulation from the Clinton years to present be rescinded.

Ruggie, you proposed, in plain English, to force the banks to re-finance outstanding loans, many if not most of which had about 1/2 the necessary collateral, due to the drop in prices. That is, or would be, government control of banking practice. That has utterly no relation to how the S and L thing was handled. In fact, what the govt did last year into this was the S and L bailout on a grand scale. They've let around 200 banks fail, propped up about 25 larger institutions that were deemed salvage-worthy, and put tighter regs on another 35 or 40. I'm not so sure that was the right thing to do, as it created at least the potential for another dangerous bubble, but time will tell.

callmeslick wrote: In fact, what the govt did last year into this was the S and L bailout on a grand scale.

Incorrect. If that was the case AIG would have been allowed to fail. As for government control, the one thing that needs to be done is for the government to restrict banks from doing what caused all this crap in the first place. Put the regulations back into banking and it's one of the few jobs that I believe the Fed should be allowed to do.

Well, you're getting there, ruggie. Still you DID suggest forcing banks to make loans. With public money backing them, to boot. Why? You seem to have fits whenever Obama suggests any potential risk to the taxpayers. If Obama had followed your suggestion to the word, I can nearly guarantee that you, along with other knee-jerk hatin' types, would be all over the guy.
Oh, and the government IS allowing AIG to fail, they are just slowing the process so that it happens in an orderly fashion. You can, if you wish, read about the process, as there are numerous articles out there dealing with it. Google is your friend.

callmeslick wrote:Still you DID suggest forcing banks to make loans. With public money backing them, to boot.

I suggested if we were going to print a trillion dollars (devaluing the dollar at the same time) then not to give it to AIG and other companies that are the reason we're in this whole mess to start with.

Have the Fed back the loans instead. Get rid of the ARMs and get those homes re-fied. The worst thing Obama Bin Laden could have done was to give the money to the banks. Let AIG, Fannie May and Freddie Mac die and go away.