Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...

It isn't just Congress, it's us. We have a Governor here in NJ, who is
trying to fix our budget mess. Everybody is squawking. They all want
the other guy's pork to be cut, not theirs. We are all feeding at the
trough.
Yup. And people who bought houses with interest only loans thinking they
could "flip" it in a couple of years at a big profit are now blaming Bush
for the mess they are in.

It could have just as easily been Clinton at the helm. People like to
blame everyone else for their own screw-ups.


Eisboch
More than a year ago, the financial sector was issuing very serious
warnings about the problems of these sorts of loans, along with the
problems of the sales of subprime mortgage instruments. A more engaged
administration might have expressed enough interest and concern to see if
something needed to be done. Being "cheerleader in chief" isn't enough
when the economy is heading into the crapper.


The POTUS isn't a babysitter for our personal lives and investments. Or at
least he/she shouldn't be. In a free society, adults are responsible to
research risks, weigh the advice of experts and be responsible for their
choices.

If those collective choices lead to a significant risk to the *US* financial
structure as a whole, then the POTUS should act, as Bush did this weekend,
supporting the sale of Bear Stearns.

Eisboch




I see. Help the rich retain what they have, screw the little guy.

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


The POTUS isn't a babysitter for our personal lives and investments. Or
at least he/she shouldn't be. In a free society, adults are
responsible to research risks, weigh the advice of experts and be
responsible for their choices.

If those collective choices lead to a significant risk to the *US*
financial structure as a whole, then the POTUS should act, as Bush did
this weekend, supporting the sale of Bear Stearns.

Eisboch


I see. Help the rich retain what they have, screw the little guy.


Name one person who got or remained "rich" from the Stearns bailout.

Eisboch

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


More than a year ago, the financial sector was issuing very serious
warnings about the problems of these sorts of loans, along with the
problems of the sales of subprime mortgage instruments. A more engaged
administration might have expressed enough interest and concern to see
if something needed to be done. Being "cheerleader in chief" isn't
enough when the economy is heading into the crapper.




Eisboch wrote:

The POTUS isn't a babysitter for our personal lives and investments. Or
at least he/she shouldn't be. In a free society, adults are
responsible to research risks, weigh the advice of experts and be
responsible for their choices.

If those collective choices lead to a significant risk to the *US*
financial structure as a whole, then the POTUS should act, as Bush did
this weekend, supporting the sale of Bear Stearns.

Eisboch


I see. Help the rich retain what they have, screw the little guy.



This is the core of conservative versus liberal philosophy differences.

Liberals tend to put the responsibility for their personal welfare on the
government.
Conservatives tend to assume responsibility for their own personal welfare.

The role of the government is to ensure those choices continue to exist.

Eisboch

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:19:18 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...


The POTUS isn't a babysitter for our personal lives and investments. Or
at least he/she shouldn't be. In a free society, adults are
responsible to research risks, weigh the advice of experts and be
responsible for their choices.

If those collective choices lead to a significant risk to the *US*
financial structure as a whole, then the POTUS should act, as Bush did
this weekend, supporting the sale of Bear Stearns.

I see. Help the rich retain what they have, screw the little guy.

Name one person who got or remained "rich" from the Stearns bailout.

Jamie Dimond. :)

Look - everybody was looking for a quick buck. The brokers, the home
buyers, the securities industry - it was a classic bubble. Everybody
was buying into the never ending increase in real estate prices.
Nobody in Congress saw it coming and the securities industry was on a
huge roll with complicated securities and derivatives. I saw a
prospectus in 2003 for a SIV which was 132 pages long - that was the
detailed base agreement. The CDO squared attached was 281 pages long,
the CDO cubed was 857 pages long, etc. It was sliced and diced and
leveraged to such an extent that you couldn't understand the base
economics. Yet, they kept selling the products and morons kept buying
the products.

That's what did everybody in - greed on the loan broker's, greed on
the home owner's and greed on the securities people. Nobody saw it
coming because nobody understood it.

Somebody had to take the hit. Bear Sterns took the hit - that's
business. They, and their employees, got bit in the ass. That's
life. Financial planners tell people over and over and over - never
ever believe anything you are told - look at the fundamentals, do your
research, figure not on the best that can happen, but the worst that
can happen. Balance that risk against your ability to take the hit if
everything goes teats up. If you can stand to take the hit, then
balance that against the upside potential in terms of percentage of
gain against percentage of loss. Then make your bet.

If there was one single aspect of this whole mess, it was this.
Everybody thought they were the casino, not the mark.

Whoops. :)

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...


Look - everybody was looking for a quick buck. The brokers, the home
buyers, the securities industry - it was a classic bubble. Everybody
was buying into the never ending increase in real estate prices.
Nobody in Congress saw it coming and the securities industry was on a
huge roll with complicated securities and derivatives. I saw a
prospectus in 2003 for a SIV which was 132 pages long - that was the
detailed base agreement. The CDO squared attached was 281 pages long,
the CDO cubed was 857 pages long, etc. It was sliced and diced and
leveraged to such an extent that you couldn't understand the base
economics. Yet, they kept selling the products and morons kept buying
the products.

That's what did everybody in - greed on the loan broker's, greed on
the home owner's and greed on the securities people. Nobody saw it
coming because nobody understood it.

Somebody had to take the hit. Bear Sterns took the hit - that's
business. They, and their employees, got bit in the ass. That's
life. Financial planners tell people over and over and over - never
ever believe anything you are told - look at the fundamentals, do your
research, figure not on the best that can happen, but the worst that
can happen. Balance that risk against your ability to take the hit if
everything goes teats up. If you can stand to take the hit, then
balance that against the upside potential in terms of percentage of
gain against percentage of loss. Then make your bet.

If there was one single aspect of this whole mess, it was this.
Everybody thought they were the casino, not the mark.

Whoops. :)


Well put. ........ ( I think.)

Eisboch

On Mar 17, 5:04*pm, "John" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:09:21 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:

It isn't just Congress, it's us. *We have a Governor here in NJ, who is
trying to fix our budget mess. *Everybody is squawking. *They all want
the other guy's pork to be cut, not theirs. *We are all feeding at the
trough.

Exactly correct - both parties do it, the biggest difference is where the
pork goes and the size of it. *The democrats flip pork to infrastructure
type companies - which by the way does create jobs. *Republicans flip the
pork to the MIC and oil companies - this did not start with Bush.
Size difference - how loud would you conservative type folks screamed if
Bill Clinton simply GAVE 12 BILLION in CASH to his favorite supporter? *That
is exactly what Bush did, he flew 12 billion in cash into the open waiting
hands of he military contractors. *Our troops did not have Armour for their
humvees or body Armour - but military contractors got 12 billion in cash....

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...billions200710

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...05/0629appalli...

Is anyone surprised that out of the three main candidats, only Billary
will not list their earmarks history?

wrote in message
...
On Mar 17, 5:04 pm, "John" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 11:09:21 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:

It isn't just Congress, it's us. We have a Governor here in NJ, who is
trying to fix our budget mess. Everybody is squawking. They all want
the other guy's pork to be cut, not theirs. We are all feeding at the
trough.

Exactly correct - both parties do it, the biggest difference is where the
pork goes and the size of it. The democrats flip pork to infrastructure
type companies - which by the way does create jobs. Republicans flip the
pork to the MIC and oil companies - this did not start with Bush.
Size difference - how loud would you conservative type folks screamed if
Bill Clinton simply GAVE 12 BILLION in CASH to his favorite supporter?
That
is exactly what Bush did, he flew 12 billion in cash into the open waiting
hands of he military contractors. Our troops did not have Armour for their
humvees or body Armour - but military contractors got 12 billion in
cash...

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...billions200710

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security...05/0629appalli...

Is anyone surprised that out of the three main candidats, only Billary
will not list their earmarks history?
=================================

Here's on she didn't get.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,303376,00.html

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008 16:27:04 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...


More than a year ago, the financial sector was issuing very serious
warnings about the problems of these sorts of loans, along with the
problems of the sales of subprime mortgage instruments. A more engaged
administration might have expressed enough interest and concern to see
if something needed to be done. Being "cheerleader in chief" isn't
enough when the economy is heading into the crapper.

Eisboch wrote:

The POTUS isn't a babysitter for our personal lives and investments. Or
at least he/she shouldn't be. In a free society, adults are
responsible to research risks, weigh the advice of experts and be
responsible for their choices.

If those collective choices lead to a significant risk to the *US*
financial structure as a whole, then the POTUS should act, as Bush did
this weekend, supporting the sale of Bear Stearns.

I see. Help the rich retain what they have, screw the little guy.

This is the core of conservative versus liberal philosophy differences.

Liberals tend to put the responsibility for their personal welfare on the
government.
Conservatives tend to assume responsibility for their own personal welfare.

The role of the government is to ensure those choices continue to exist.

Absolutely. And, to their credit, that's what the FOMC did today.

For all his reluctance to recognize the base problem, Bernacke finally
got it right. You protect the market because that's the economic
engine for the world. If you don't believe it, check what happened in
overseas trading yesterday and what's happening right now.

The one area I think they are making a mistake is not taking the
current non-performing ARMs off the market and establishing a value
floor. Part of the problem is that nobody can make a market for the
mortgage securities because nobody knows how to value them - the good
is mixed with the bad because of the structured nature of the
underlying securities. To my way of thinking (which oddly is in total
agreement with Senator Dodd and Representative Frank), the best way is
to go to the servicers and value the non performing and performing
mortgages. Take the performing mortgages out of the loop and sell
them to other investors and the under performing or non-performing
mortgages and junk bond them. The taxpayer will win because the
government will be making money.

You know, the odd thing about this Stearns bailout is that the
government is actually in the position of making money off the 30
billion security - about 2 billion in return.

That's how government should work I think in managing markets.

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
...

It isn't just Congress, it's us. We have a Governor here in NJ, who
is
trying to fix our budget mess. Everybody is squawking. They all want
the other guy's pork to be cut, not theirs. We are all feeding at the
trough.
Yup. And people who bought houses with interest only loans thinking
they could "flip" it in a couple of years at a big profit are now
blaming Bush for the mess they are in.

It could have just as easily been Clinton at the helm. People like to
blame everyone else for their own screw-ups.


Eisboch
More than a year ago, the financial sector was issuing very serious
warnings about the problems of these sorts of loans, along with the
problems of the sales of subprime mortgage instruments. A more engaged
administration might have expressed enough interest and concern to see
if something needed to be done. Being "cheerleader in chief" isn't
enough when the economy is heading into the crapper.


The POTUS isn't a babysitter for our personal lives and investments. Or
at least he/she shouldn't be. In a free society, adults are
responsible to research risks, weigh the advice of experts and be
responsible for their choices.

If those collective choices lead to a significant risk to the *US*
financial structure as a whole, then the POTUS should act, as Bush did
this weekend, supporting the sale of Bear Stearns.

Eisboch


I see. Help the rich retain what they have, screw the little guy.

The government isn't your baby sitter.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


The POTUS isn't a babysitter for our personal lives and investments.
Or at least he/she shouldn't be. In a free society, adults are
responsible to research risks, weigh the advice of experts and be
responsible for their choices.

If those collective choices lead to a significant risk to the *US*
financial structure as a whole, then the POTUS should act, as Bush did
this weekend, supporting the sale of Bear Stearns.

Eisboch


I see. Help the rich retain what they have, screw the little guy.


Name one person who got or remained "rich" from the Stearns bailout.

Eisboch

Someone who was/is short Stearns stock?