U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-29-2009, 09:09 AM
 
Location: The Planet Mars
2,150 posts, read 2,304,116 times
Reputation: 523

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post

Do you even hold a mortgage? Do you know how they work? Does the balance due go up or down monthly when you make your mortgage payment? (hint, they go down unless you signed a reverse mortgage which has nothing to do with the conversation)

The value of the underlying assets may go up, but they are being sold, do you understand the difference between the taxpayers holding property which may appreciate, and holding the loan after selling the property which always depreciate?

Didnt you just criticize Bush for guaranteeing loans on the taxpayers dime and now you have the nerve to come here and proclaim that its now good?

The taxpayers are not becoming investors in the assets, they are liable for the debts, learn the difference before you continue to make a fool of yourself by criticizing Bush and crediting Obama for doing the exact same thing..
Acting in a totally condescending and arrogant and insulting fashion does not indicate intelligence - just the opposite...

I have paid off my mortgage - thank you very much - and have probably have had more in my lifetime than you...

Please quote exactly where I criticized Bush for guaranteeing loans.

Are you referring to my comments about his hypocritical Ownership Society PR campaign??? That was not a new program to guarantee Fannie/Freddie loans - it never claimed to turn a profit for the taxpayer - it was a case of personally profiting from the ongoing sub-prime fiasco by giving it a lot of bully-pulpit support for his own personal gain... get your facts straight please...

Obama/Geithner's Toxic Loan Auction/Purchase plan is world's apart from Bush's support of Subprime...

Sorry - you are dead wrong.

Nice try of spinning though!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-29-2009, 10:34 AM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,339,374 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbob View Post
Acting in a totally condescending and arrogant and insulting fashion does not indicate intelligence - just the opposite...

I have paid off my mortgage - thank you very much - and have probably have had more in my lifetime than you...

Please quote exactly where I criticized Bush for guaranteeing loans.

Are you referring to my comments about his hypocritical Ownership Society PR campaign??? That was not a new program to guarantee Fannie/Freddie loans - it never claimed to turn a profit for the taxpayer - it was a case of personally profiting from the ongoing sub-prime fiasco by giving it a lot of bully-pulpit support for his own personal gain... get your facts straight please...

Obama/Geithner's Toxic Loan Auction/Purchase plan is world's apart from Bush's support of Subprime...

Sorry - you are dead wrong.

Nice try of spinning though!!
If you've truly paid off your mortgage than you understand that YOU will profit from the sale, not the bank. Obamas plan offers INVESTORS the ability to profit from the sale, not the taxpayers.

The fact that you can sit there and say that the taxpayers will profit from buying toxic assets from the banks at face value, then selling to investors at a discount is laughable.



And the fact that you make assumptions about my financial situtation just goes to show how you just ASSume to much without knowing facts.. You may or may not have made more than me, I really dont care, I dont suffer from class envy..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 12:43 PM
 
1,315 posts, read 1,442,398 times
Reputation: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
If you've truly paid off your mortgage than you understand that YOU will profit from the sale, not the bank. Obamas plan offers INVESTORS the ability to profit from the sale, not the taxpayers.

The fact that you can sit there and say that the taxpayers will profit from buying toxic assets from the banks at face value, then selling to investors at a discount is laughable.



And the fact that you make assumptions about my financial situtation just goes to show how you just ASSume to much without knowing facts.. You may or may not have made more than me, I really dont care, I dont suffer from class envy..
The assets will NOT be bought at face value - why did you invent that???

The articles quoted in this thread clearly state that they will be 'auctioned' off - at significant discounts... just how much of a discount remains to be seen - because the holders of the assets will have to agree to the discounted price...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 12:50 PM
 
706 posts, read 898,615 times
Reputation: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
If you've truly paid off your mortgage than you understand that YOU will profit from the sale, not the bank. Obamas plan offers INVESTORS the ability to profit from the sale, not the taxpayers.

The fact that you can sit there and say that the taxpayers will profit from buying toxic assets from the banks at face value, then selling to investors at a discount is laughable.



And the fact that you make assumptions about my financial situtation just goes to show how you just ASSume to much without knowing facts.. You may or may not have made more than me, I really dont care, I dont suffer from class envy..

The republican plan not only make it where the investors profit from a sale, but also the bank by giving them a % of the increase assesedment. Also their plan will give banks an additional tax incentive to negotiating refinancing, but again we don't know how much this is going to cost the tax payers if it was to be adopted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 02:08 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,664,057 times
Reputation: 18036
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbob View Post
Why would Bush get credit for a plan that he had nothing to do with???

Under Bush - the $350 Billion TARP payments went to inject capital directly into major banks.

They did NOTHING to auction off toxic loans...

No - he had nothing to do with this plan, he gets absolutely no credit...

This is a trick question - right???

YHe get5s credit for moving very fast to get the TARP funds if the loans are paid back like they lok ore and more will. He moved much faster than other countries to his credit. obama agreed with him on this.In fact he used the tarp for the same purposes and appointed Geithner who was in on the origanl paln Its also lookign aike he will eg credit for stabaslising Iraq with the surge after a bad start but so will McCain for suggesting it first. Even Obama who said the surge wouldn't work in 2007 has how stated that the troops did a job most thought they would fail with the surge.History takes funny turns many times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 02:28 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,339,374 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by HubbleRules View Post
The assets will NOT be bought at face value - why did you invent that???

The articles quoted in this thread clearly state that they will be 'auctioned' off - at significant discounts... just how much of a discount remains to be seen - because the holders of the assets will have to agree to the discounted price...
You must have missed the whole debate on how banks and the government are going to determine the value of the assets. Do you fail to understand that an auction closing price is "face value".. Its the value of the asset, i.e. what people are willing to pay..

The auction will sell off assets with the money going to the banks, the government will loan the money to buyers using taxpayer money, and investors will benefit leaving the taxpayers to pickup the tab.

Why the only thing dumber than this would be if the banks would hold auctions to auction off their own assets.. Ooh wait, they can already do that.. Makes me wonder why they are waiting for the governments auction

oooh I know, because then the government will provide the financing and not the banks..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 02:31 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,339,374 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudmama View Post
The republican plan not only make it where the investors profit from a sale, but also the bank by giving them a % of the increase assesedment. Also their plan will give banks an additional tax incentive to negotiating refinancing, but again we don't know how much this is going to cost the tax payers if it was to be adopted.
Your contradicting your own statement.

If banks have an incentive to negotiate refinancing, there is no need to auction off the assets. Banks, by nature of their business, already have an incentive to re-negotiate financing in order to not have to foreclosre against the properties.

Again, why does the banks want the government incentive to not foreclose? Oooh thats right, because the taxpayers are going to pickup the difference..

We dont know what this is going to cost? If Bush had said that, liberals rightfully so would have been all over the place yelling and screaming, but somehow its ok when Obama says it..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 02:35 PM
 
706 posts, read 898,615 times
Reputation: 134
[quote=pghquest;8096887]Your contradicting your own statement.

If banks have an incentive to negotiate refinancing, there is no need to auction off the assets. Banks, by nature of their business, already have an incentive to re-negotiate financing in order to not have to foreclosre against the properties.

Again, why does the banks want the government incentive to not foreclose? Oooh thats right, because the taxpayers are going to pickup the difference..

We dont know what this is going to cost? If Bush had said that, liberals rightfully so would have been all over the place yelling and screaming, but somehow its ok when Obama says it..[/quote

you are too busy being such a wise ass that you refuse to take the time to read what is actually going on. Those were not MY words, that was coming directly from the REPUBLICANS HOUSING PROPOSAL. So no i'm not contradicting myself, that would be the REPUBLICAN party HOUSING PROPOSAL.


Enough said. (period)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 02:43 PM
 
69,372 posts, read 55,339,374 times
Reputation: 9358
Quote:
Originally Posted by proudmama View Post
you are too busy being such a wise ass that you refuse to take the time to read what is actually going on. Those were not MY words, that was coming directly from the REPUBLICANS HOUSING PROPOSAL. So no i'm not contradicting myself, that would be the REPUBLICAN party HOUSING PROPOSAL.
I didnt realise this thead was about the Republican plan which was just as stupid, hence why I didnt comment on the thread started on the subject..

The banks should not be left off the hook, and we sure in the hell shouldnt be putting tax payer money into helping to make rich investors richer.

Period
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-29-2009, 03:01 PM
 
1,315 posts, read 1,442,398 times
Reputation: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
You must have missed the whole debate on how banks and the government are going to determine the value of the assets. Do you fail to understand that an auction closing price is "face value".. Its the value of the asset, i.e. what people are willing to pay..

The auction will sell off assets with the money going to the banks, the government will loan the money to buyers using taxpayer money, and investors will benefit leaving the taxpayers to pickup the tab.

Why the only thing dumber than this would be if the banks would hold auctions to auction off their own assets.. Ooh wait, they can already do that.. Makes me wonder why they are waiting for the governments auction

oooh I know, because then the government will provide the financing and not the banks..
Again, you are totally wrong...

A quote from the article quoted in the OP:

"Taxpayers could profit from the interest paid by the public-private partnerships on the government loans — the interest rate has not yet been set — and if the troubled assets rise in value above the prices paid to acquire them."

Last edited by HubbleRules; 03-29-2009 at 03:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:26 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top