Paladin77 Paladin77

The bail out bill is going to cost us more that three trillion dollars

The bail out bill is going to cost us more that three trillion dollars

If the Congress is correct in their figures then I am wrong and it will only cost us tax payers three trillion dollars to bail out the mortgage industry. With the pork they have already loaded the bill with just to get people to sign it in the House we all should know by know that it will cost more than the trillion dollars they initially asked for under the guise of 750 billion.

 

The Congressional lack of understanding in business is shining through once again. Unless Congress re-writes its charter, there is a little fact that gets in the way of their ignorance. Freddy or Fanny and the GSA are forbidden to own or hold any private property longer than 180 days without putting it up for auction. So if property is foreclosed upon then the GSA must sell it to the highest bidder after 6 months. I think this is why the Congress wants to create a new agency to handle the mortgage crisis one that can hold those properties longer. The President was going to get rid of them as fast as possible if they fell under the control of the GSA. Have you ever been to a GSA auction? The last one I went to was at the Kennedy Space Center, where there is a regional office of the GSA, I watched a nearly new Rolls Royce sold for 9,000 because that was the highest bid. It did have a few bullet holes in the trunk but other than that and the blood stains some lucky guy drove away with a 240 grand car for 9 grand, what makes you think that if the GSA had a million homes nation wide they would not be selling for a dollar a piece? There is one catch, once you have bought the property at their auction you are on the hook to the bank for any unpaid mortgage. This will mean we would not need to take a trillion dollars of tax payer money to buy up the bad mortgages and people that can afford them can buy them.

 

The Congress killed that idea so they came up with this bail out bill that will further choke the economy.

 

All the confiscated property from drug dealers and mobsters is turned over to the GSA for sale. If Freddy and or Fanny foreclosed on the bad mortgages they would have to get rid of them as quickly as they can, providing bargains for the people in the know. It was a very smart idea to do this but what would the Congress know about doing things smartly?

 

Their grand idea is to buy up the bad stuff and hold it for years with a new agency. The government would be forced to maintain the property at government expense, I know because I am writing a proposal for my company to manage the properties in my area and it won’t be cheap.

 

This is where it starts to get expensive. The federal regulations for the maintenance of property is very strict and costly, grass has to be cut, security has to be maintained, cleaning has to be done, if there is a pool it has to be maintained which means power has to be kept on the property so the electric bill must be paid each month and in the northern part of the country snow has to be removed from the sidewalks and in some cases the roofs to protect them from collapse. The trillion dollars to buy the bad properties is only the first and cheapest step. The next step is maintaining the value of the home, what does it cost to maintain your home? Multiply that by a million homes and you can see that this will become very expensive. Then you have to do record keeping of each property, that costs money too, and you have to list it for sale, a small home will cost five hundred dollars a month to maintain, a large home will run you two thousand dollars a month and if it has a pool it will cost an extra three hundred dollars. So using averages of  $1,000 per home times a million homes comes out to about $1,000,000,000 per month times five years comes out to about 60 billion dollars on top of the trillion in the initial buy. Don’t forget the five to fifteen hundred dollars to initially secure the property per federal regulations and the same amount to get it ready for sale. Multiply that by one million homes and you can see that the Congress is going to be spending our tax dollars for the next five to eight years waiting for the market to absorb those homes while home builders and homeowners wanting to sell will be competing with older homes that have been vacant for five years. It will slow down the rise in property values and at first will cause property values to drop by about 12% to 15%. Yeah the people that are still paying on their homes will love to know that their property just lost another 12% because the neighbor was foreclosed upon and the government picked up the tab.

 

Less homeowner’s in the area will mean higher property taxes to make up the loss in local government revenue because the Federal Government is exempt from property taxes and until the home is sold local governments will be bleeding dollars. This means that there will be layoffs in local fire and police so crime will go up. People will move out of the area if they can or abandon their homes if the crime rate is too high leaving even less property tax payers. Yup, I can see where this is heading and it won’t be pretty for the first decade or two.

 

Great job, why listen to a president with a business degree when we can listen to lawyers that never ran a business and allow them to make business laws?

13,092 views 42 replies
Reply #26 Top

It does not address the root cause.
End of quote

Predatory lending laws were passed over a decade ago. Too bad the executive branch didn't enforce them but instead went as far as hindering states and local municipalities from writing their own.

 

However when you read the bill you will notice that there are provisions in there that:

Enhance Mortgage Disclosure requirements

Combat Mortgage Fraud

Sets capital requirements for FHLB's

etc.

 

Reply #27 Top

WHY WON'T McCAIN WAKE UP, AND BE A REAL MAVERICK?  THIS ECONOMIC  (CRISIS) DID NOT START 2 MONTHS AGO.  IT STARTED WHEN BILL CLINTON, AND JANET RENO PRESSURED FANNY AND BERNIE TO LOAN MORTGAGES (WITH DIRE CONSEQUENCES IF THEY DID NOT) TO LOW INCOME PEOPLE, WHO THEY KNOW WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO PAY THEM BACK.  THEN UP JUMPS THE DEVILS, BY THE NAME OF FRANK, RAINES, DODD, GORELICK, WITH AMERICAS HARD EARNED MONEY POURING INTO THER'RE POCKETS.   MILLIONS,  AND MILLIONS.   THESE ARE THE SAME ONES NANCY PELOSI DECIDES ARE HERO'S AND CAN FIX THIS MESS, THAT THEY GOT US INTO IN THE FIRST PLACE.  IF McCAIN, WANTS TO WIN THIS ELECTION, NOW IS THE TIME FOR HIM TO PUT THE SADDLE ON AND START WRANGLING, THE A REAL MAVERICK.  HOLD THESE PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE, PUT THE BLAME WHERE IT ACTUALLY IS.  ALL THESE PEOPLE LEAD RIGHT BACK TO OBAMA.  THEY'RE HELPING HIS CAMPAIGN,  HE CAN'T DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM THESE PEOPLE LIKE HE DID THE WONDERFUL REVERAND WRIGHT AND BILL AYERS,, HE SAYS HE IS THE ONE WHO BLEW THE WHISTLE ON WALL STREET.  WHAT A BUNCH OF BULL.  ANOTHER LIE.  BUSH TRIED 17 TIMES AND OUR WONDERFUL CONGRESS TURNED IT DOWN.  McCAIN TRIED, CONGRESS TURNED IT DOWN.  DEMOCRATS DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO INVESTIGATE, WHY? BECAUSE THEY DID IT.  THEY NEED TO BE CHARGED, AND CONVICTED, JUST LIKE THEY DID TO THE ENRON EXECUTIVES .  IF ANY REPUBLICANS HAD THEY'RE HANDS IN ANY OF IT. THEY WOULD PROBABLE ALREADY BE IN JAIL.   PUT THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS, AND THERE PROBABLE WOULD'NT BE AN ELECTION, BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE WOULD BE SITTING IN A 6X8 CELL.   McCAIN BETTER WAKE UP AND NAME NAMES, AND START THE BALL ROLLING BEFORE ITS TOOOOOO LATE.

Reply #28 Top

WHY WON'T McCAIN WAKE UP, AND BE A REAL MAVERICK?  THIS ECONOMIC  (CRISIS) DID NOT START 2 MONTHS AGO.  IT STARTED WHEN BILL CLINTON, AND JANET RENO PRESSURED FANNY AND BERNIE TO LOAN MORTGAGES (WITH DIRE CONSEQUENCES IF THEY DID NOT) TO LOW INCOME PEOPLE, WHO THEY KNOW WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO PAY THEM BACK.  THEN UP JUMPS THE DEVILS, BY THE NAME OF FRANK, RAINES, DODD, GORELICK, WITH AMERICAS HARD EARNED MONEY POURING INTO THER'RE POCKETS.   MILLIONS,  AND MILLIONS.   THESE ARE THE SAME ONES NANCY PELOSI DECIDES ARE HERO'S AND CAN FIX THIS MESS, THAT THEY GOT US INTO IN THE FIRST PLACE.  IF McCAIN, WANTS TO WIN THIS ELECTION, NOW IS THE TIME FOR HIM TO PUT THE SADDLE ON AND START WRANGLING, THE A REAL MAVERICK.  HOLD THESE PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE, PUT THE BLAME WHERE IT ACTUALLY IS.  ALL THESE PEOPLE LEAD RIGHT BACK TO OBAMA.  THEY'RE HELPING HIS CAMPAIGN,  HE CAN'T DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM THESE PEOPLE LIKE HE DID THE WONDERFUL REVERAND WRIGHT AND BILL AYERS,, HE SAYS HE IS THE ONE WHO BLEW THE WHISTLE ON WALL STREET.  WHAT A BUNCH OF BULL.  ANOTHER LIE.  BUSH TRIED 17 TIMES AND OUR WONDERFUL CONGRESS TURNED IT DOWN.  McCAIN TRIED, CONGRESS TURNED IT DOWN.  DEMOCRATS DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO INVESTIGATE, WHY? BECAUSE THEY DID IT.  THEY NEED TO BE CHARGED, AND CONVICTED, JUST LIKE THEY DID TO THE ENRON EXECUTIVES .  IF ANY REPUBLICANS HAD THEY'RE HANDS IN ANY OF IT. THEY WOULD PROBABLE ALREADY BE IN JAIL.   PUT THE BLAME WHERE IT BELONGS, AND THERE PROBABLE WOULD'NT BE AN ELECTION, BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE WOULD BE SITTING IN A 6X8 CELL.   McCAIN BETTER WAKE UP AND NAME NAMES, AND START THE BALL ROLLING BEFORE ITS TOOOOOO LATE.

Reply #29 Top

Enhance Mortgage Disclosure requirements
End of quote

According to Florida law, where I am licensed to sell real estate, the sale contracts require a single page in large letters that explain the ARM and the responsibilities of the borrower. There is another single page that that explains who is responsible for what. Each page of the contract has to be initialed and signed by each person buying the house. The problem lies with the homeowner. Because most of the bad loans are what we call no doc loans. This is where the borrower does not have to provide documentation for income verification. They have to tell the lender how much money they make and the bank has to take their word on it. I make 25k a year and tell the bank I make 100k they loan me the money and I buy the house. The mortgage goes up and I can’t make the payments and lose the house. Before the Feds changed the lending laws it was illegal to sell a house the person could not afford. Once those laws were changed the state had to relax their strict laws or be charged as racist. To turn around and say the banks were predatory is not entirely true. Laws were in place and swept aside by Mr. Clinton. Getting those laws changed fell on the Congress and they resisted any changes that would restrict sales to people that could actually afford the home. Now you want to tout the new law that does not even come close to what the old state laws required and you call this an improvement.

 

Face facts, the liberal way never works. The liberal way screws with the checks and balances that were already in place, creating the problem and now it will cost the tax payer hundreds of billions of dollars to fix what was not broken until the liberals started to monkey with the laws in the first place. How can you blame the lending institutions for being the bad guys when they are following the stupid laws that they must follow if they want to stay in business?

Reply #30 Top

DEMOCRATS DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO INVESTIGATE, WHY? BECAUSE THEY DID IT. THEY NEED TO BE CHARGED, AND CONVICTED, JUST LIKE THEY DID TO THE ENRON EXECUTIVES .
End of quote

This is true and correct. When will these people who not just stole tax payer money but set in motion the collapse of other financial institutions that will destroy our economy, not just America but other nations as well. We need to arrest the people involved and put them in jail as quickly as possible before we can begin to fix the problems.

Reply #31 Top

Face facts, the liberal way never works. The liberal way screws with the checks and balances that were already in place, creating the problem and now it will cost the tax payer hundreds of billions of dollars to fix what was not broken until the liberals started to monkey with the laws in the first place. How can you blame the lending institutions for being the bad guys when they are following the stupid laws that they must follow if they want to stay in business?
End of quote

That is a pretty good summation.  In defference to some on these forums, I will add that not all liberals are democrats, nor are all liberal laws passed by democrats.  But the root is still the "good intentions" of the liberals regardless of who passes them.

Reply #32 Top

Because most of the bad loans are what we call no doc loans.
End of quote

Most nodoc loans are made for refinancing homes or for business loans in which asset values or expected rental income are used as the basis for qualification. They have been most widely used for construction loans, rental properties, luxury homes and refinancing. They are most commonly used by businesses, investors, trusts, and wealthy individuals.

Reply #33 Top

That is a pretty good summation. In defference to some on these forums, I will add that not all liberals are democrats, nor are all liberal laws passed by democrats. But the root is still the "good intentions" of the liberals regardless of who passes them.
End of quote

Dr. I have said it before and I will say it again, both Presidents Bush were liberals. The last two conservative presidents we have had were Kennedy and Reagan.

Reply #34 Top

They are most commonly used by businesses, investors, trusts, and wealthy individuals.
End of quote

You left out the refinance loans. you know the stuff that we are bailing out along with the ARM's and so on. they were all bundled as securities.

Reply #35 Top

You left out the refinance loans. you know the stuff that we are bailing out along with the ARM's and so on
End of quote

The first category I mentioned in the first sentence were refinances . Put on your specs and scroll up.

In any case we are bailing out illiquid derivatives and if you read the news you will find articles about auction rate securities. These are deriatives which are backed by all kinds of bonds ranging from mbs's to muni bonds to corporate bonds. The bailout concerns all kinds of debt. As the shit was hitting the fan companies like lehman wrapped up the mbs's with other bonds and everyone quickly slid  them into investors accounts. This is how they got their leverage down as the foreclosure rates started to rise. This is one of the dirty little secrets they didn't want everyone to know and are trying to clean up as quickly as they can. I'm guessing that the investment banks that are merged with banks and insurance companies are the ones sitting on the tranches of mbs's that are actually still attached to mortgages and the crap tranches are sitting in the accounts of investors. This is the problem with repealing the Glass Stegall Act. The Banks can give themselves the filet mignon and sell off the sausage to investors because now they can control the asset, the insurance, and the slicer and dicer.

 

here's a good article about the bubble leading into the credit crunch.

http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2007/10/29/focus4.html

Reply #36 Top

The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns.[1] The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This 'veto proof legislation' was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999[2]

The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[3]

HAD TO READ IT WITH MY OWN TWO EYES. Senator Gramm did it to us again. Gramm Rudman Hollings act, and now this mess. What pisses me off is that the Democrats could have been the heros in this and sold out to give poor prople houses for nothing. Both sides should have stayed home that day. Two branches of government failed the nation. Now we have done it again with this new monstrosity.

Reply #37 Top

What pisses me off is that the Democrats could have been the heros in this and sold out to give poor prople houses for nothing
End of quote

They did but the key is keeping CRA, because CRA keeps the big banks from sucking up some of the smaller ones. I'm in a rural area and all the good banks are the small ones. They reinvest in the community instead of taking the locals deposits and sending them into overseas investments. Its not about the poor, Its about rural areas having small banks that serve their communities and the small businesses in them, yet the big players in the GOP spin up a whole different story. If you look at the house vote a ton of republicans voted against Gramm-Leech-Bliley.There are a lot of Republicans that knew this was bad and prior to the CRA provisions it didn't even pass in the house which was controlled by the republicans. This is why I always say its not a party thing. I tend to look at house voting because the Senate has longer terms,gets more lobby money and are generally more influenced by big business. This is why so many of the house republicans hate McCain. He's selling out America. But it goes to show you how clueless most of congress is. They don't even know what they are voting for because the lobbies write certain provisions and either hide or spin them.

 

The big banks have been trying to get rid of the GSE's also and went as far as writing a bill in 2005 that would have made things worse. It didn't pass because their were no provisions for capital,leverage, or asset limits. The banks have been trying to get rid of the GSE's because they have been crutial to the profitability of the smaller banks. This is a big bank scheme going on and its about to get exposed in a big way. The house has been having hearings abt AIG, Lehman, regs etc and it looks like they are going to add one abt the GSE's. It could get interesting since it might expose a few dirty players....and they won't be who many think.

 

 

 

Reply #38 Top

Still have to get rid of the GSE'a they are killing the economy.

Reply #39 Top

Still have to get rid of the GSE'a they are killing the economy.
End of quote

Don't hold your breath.......They are nationalized now and a few banks may soon follow.

Reply #40 Top

There are three things wrong about the bailout package and I have written about them in my blog:

1 Too little too late. The 700 billion $ will not stach the finacial drain.

2 It does not provide a policy framework to acquire assets and value them. The Taxpayer will be held holding not useleess junk bonds but will also pay interest on them.

3 All macroeconomic theories held sacred by the IMF US Treasurey and World Bank is now thrown out of the window and laslt

4 What about the regulators and by all account it was Ralph Nader who foresaw this.

Reply #41 Top

1 Too little too late. The 700 billion $ will not stach the finacial drain.
End of quote

The 700 billion is just to keep things going until we can get the foreign banks to start servicing our debt again. This is where the majority of our credit comes from. They will most likely end up just recapitalizing some banks.

The Taxpayer will be held holding not useleess junk bonds but will also pay interest on them.
End of quote

The bonds i think they will buy might be the auction rate securities that Andrew Cuome sued the banks about. These are sitting in either the banks or the account of depositors who were misled into buying them.The fed said they would buy commercial paper a few days ago, this is the type of thing they are talking about. These are layered derivatives that include several types of debt so they accrue interest not pay it.

What about the regulators and by all account it was Ralph Nader who foresaw this.
End of quote

A lot of people saw it coming, including those who are directly involved, they just didn't know when.

Reply #42 Top

Smooth,

I wish I had seen this one coming. Out of all the choices we had this was the worse and I foolishly dismissed it. Why in the world would we risk national financial failure when we could have just taken it in the shorts for five years and have it over with?