Bailout Alternative???

[Joseph Ward]

Mark my words people will be made(direct or indirect), to make a choice of having an ID on/in their bodies, that will make them a slave. My mission in life is to help, have the US make its own money. I am willing to die and live for it because I believe in the freedom of the US citizens and the rest of the world.

[Steven M. Bailey]

I am one of those poor smucks that is losing my house, business, assets ect...

Last year my house appraised for 1.2 mil, this year I can't sell it for $699.000

There are so many foreclosures on the market that I can't even find work in the construction field. I can't liquidate my assets and I can't make money in my field. Its a real cluster.

I had one more house to build before I started my feature film. If I don't get bailed out personally I will be paying on this mistake for the rest of my life. I don't want anything for free, I would settle for selling my house for half its value.

It just happens that right now it is more beneficial to the upper end market to wait for you to crash, then buy your house from the bank.

If you know anyone looking for a 5400 sq ft vacation home near Shasta lake let me know. The third floor is a 1500 sq ft bar and grill

pics @ http://www.blownapartstudios.com/hou...?page=pictures

[Pawel Achtel]

...This math brought to you by a Canadian high school dropout.:whistling:

I think you are on to something, Clint. Maybe the problem with US economy is in fact a problem with elementary education, especially up at the decision-making level

I think G.W.B. would drop out of primary school in any civilised country... :whistling:

[Steve Sherrick]

Honestly, we're probably screwed either way. I see Washington as a bunch of people who are out of touch with reality right now. Not all of them, but unfortunately, a good amount of them. I don't favor either of the political candidates right now, and was not convinced after tonight's debate either. But Mccain is right to a certain degree. We have to hold people accountable for their mistakes. The average person in this country is held accountable. Don't pay your mortgage, they'll take your house. Don't pay your car loan, they'll repossess it. Break the law, go to jail. The only difference between us and the high powered executives and politicians - lawyers.

With lobbyists and high powered attorneys involved, politics will probably always be susceptible to corruption. If McCain is for real and would truly embark on a mission to clean up washington, stop the irresponsible spending (if you want to see where your hard earned tax dollar goes, check out the deserted prisons we started to build in Iraq, only to abandon the projects due to construction overages and corruption) and bring a sense of responsibility back to government and the citizens of the US, it could be a step in the right direction. Problem is, I'm not sure his economic policies are going to get us out of this mess anytime soon, nor do I think Obama will be able to do everything he talks about if the economy takes the kind of hit we expect it will.

Is this gloom and doom? Well, the US has been resilient in the past. We do seem to step up when challenged. But if this turns into the Great Depression, the world gets screwed up because it's all tied together now, a global economy. And that can only lead to tension, possibly more conflict throughout the world, and maybe even more wars.

It's an understatement to say this is a critical juncture. Lawmakers need to step up and do what's right. How "right" is defined is up for debate and I'm not optimistic they are going to do the right thing, at least not in the long run. But maybe they will come together and come up with a brilliant plan that will surprise us all. It's the brilliant part I worry about.

[Clint Johnson]

I am one of those poor smucks that is losing my house, business, assets ect...

Last year my house appraised for 1.2 mil, this year I can't sell it for $699.000

There are so many foreclosures on the market that I can't even find work in the construction field. I can't liquidate my assets and I can't make money in my field. Its a real cluster.

I had one more house to build before I started my feature film. If I don't get bailed out personally I will be paying on this mistake for the rest of my life. I don't want anything for free, I would settle for selling my house for half its value.

It just happens that right now it is more beneficial to the upper end market to wait for you to crash, then buy your house from the bank.

If you know anyone looking for a 5400 sq ft vacation home near Shasta lake let me know. The third floor is a 1500 sq ft bar and grill

pics @ http://www.blownapartstudios.com/hou...?page=pictures

And that is the worst part of the whole thing. Tens of thousands of perfectly reasonable loans are being made untenable by the mess created trying to give unreasonable loans to people who could not possibly pay them off. With thousands upon thousands of foreclosures, the equity that a lot of solid middle class people built into something that should have been a good bet, homes, has been pulled out from under them by a flooded market.

The politicians will spin it so that they are the heroes come to rescue the economy (never mind that they're the ones who's oversight and regulations caused this), the companies and managers will get billions of dollars in bailouts and golden parachutes if they have to leave (never mind that they took advantage of the governments oversight and regulations to cause this) and thousand of people got to live above their means for years (I can't build up animosity toward these folk since they are in bad financial straights and tend to work hard at physically demanding and low paying jobs... they just shouldn't have been able to get loans for those homes).

While folks like you, who should have been on solid financial footing, get hammered by all of them. I checked out the link to the house and it looks like an interesting design with some nice unique touches- it's a shame that it sits there while people wait for you to go under.

[Mark B.]

Well, speaking from the extremely poor perspective, if house prices don't drop then there's no way the lower class can ever afford to buy a place of their own.

My thought on the issue is that it's cruel to allow life's fundamental necessities to be subject to the capitalist system. Capitalism is based on the concept that there is profit to be made when demand exceeds supply... so to make money on food, water, housing, clothing, and medical care, requires that there be an intentional limitation of those items, in order to create a profitable state of demand. If houses AREN'T built, then people will pay more for the few that exist. If medical training is withheld, and fewer hospitals are built, then the few hospital owners will make lots of money from the higher demand.

We have the machines and the resources to provide housing to everyone in the country (albeit not all at once, there will have to be a roll-out period). The houses might be basic little condos, but they'd keep people warm and meet basic needs. We can plant enough food and provide water for everyone, if the government simply allocates resources to meet demand. Basic clothing could also be provided to everyone, although the bulk of clothing sales would probably remain in the capitalist realm as most people would want something more stylish than the government standard issue clothing.

Power (electricity... not that carbon burning junk) is another thing that should be readily free to people. Green technologies are enough to power the country, if we'd simply implement the infrastructure. It will cost some money initially, but with the entire country backing it we would have it finished and paid for in no time.

The remaining luxury items would be left to the capitalist system... nicer places to live, boats, cars, video cameras, toys, etc. would all be earned using money that comes in from jobs.

Key to getting the money problem fixed is to take money from the rich (corporations in particular) to pay for the country's debts, instead of taking it from the poor working class. Restrictions should be put on the total wealth any one person can have during their lifetime. If they hit that cap (say, $500m), then any other money they make should automatically go to the government to pay for the infrastructure. When the greedier members of society (Wall Street execs for instance) hit the cap, they won't be able to earn any more money, and so they'll stop trying to profit off the other people in society. Maybe they'll be replaced by another greedy person, but at least some of the money will be spread around that way.

[Andrew Walker]

This whole thing is a farce. In that the FED and the GOV, which are two separate things but still very much connected in their plans, have been planning this for a while. Its not like they woke up one day and there was a huge problem with the economy. And if anyone thinks that they just made a mistake and this whole thing happened you have been mislead. The FED knows exactly what its doing. When your dealing with trillions of dollars people don't just do a quick night study session on our economy...they make a life out of being able to know what the effect will be when they cause something.

This country and its economy aren't the problem. Its the greedy and power hungry that have destroyed this country and turned it into a socialist country. I want my hard work to count for something. People that just sit on their asses all day long shouldn't get nothing for me. There's always work to be had. If its not in your area move to where it is. I'm only in LA because of the work. If the studios weren't here I wouldn't be.

Key to getting the money problem fixed is to take money from the rich (corporations in particular) to pay for the country's debts, instead of taking it from the poor working class. Restrictions should be put on the total wealth any one person can have during their lifetime. If they hit that cap (say, $500m), then any other money they make should automatically go to the government to pay for the infrastructure. When the greedier members of society (Wall Street execs for instance) hit the cap, they won't be able to earn any more money, and so they'll stop trying to profit off the other people in society. Maybe they'll be replaced by another greedy person, but at least some of the money will be spread around that way.

I think this is a horrible idea. Not everyone that makes $500M in their lifetime is as evil as you seem to think the Wall Street Execs are. People that are billionaires can do great things for other people. Look at Jim and RED. I truly believe Jim is passionate about what he does and looks to revolutionize the industry and to give us people that would have never had a chance to get those big price cameras. A chance to have a camera that is way better and a fraction of the cost. People can be good. No need to punish the rest of us for greedy assholes that are running a muck.

[Clint Johnson]

Well, speaking from the extremely poor perspective, if house prices don't drop then there's no way the lower class can ever afford to buy a place of their own.

My thought on the issue is that it's cruel to allow life's fundamental necessities to be subject to the capitalist system. Capitalism is based on the concept that there is profit to be made when demand exceeds supply... so to make money on food, water, housing, clothing, and medical care, requires that there be an intentional limitation of those items, in order to create a profitable state of demand. If houses AREN'T built, then people will pay more for the few that exist. If medical training is withheld, and fewer hospitals are built, then the few hospital owners will make lots of money from the higher demand.

We have the machines and the resources to provide housing to everyone in the country (albeit not all at once, there will have to be a roll-out period). The houses might be basic little condos, but they'd keep people warm and meet basic needs. We can plant enough food and provide water for everyone, if the government simply allocates resources to meet demand. Basic clothing could also be provided to everyone, although the bulk of clothing sales would probably remain in the capitalist realm as most people would want something more stylish than the government standard issue clothing.

Power (electricity... not that carbon burning junk) is another thing that should be readily free to people. Green technologies are enough to power the country, if we'd simply implement the infrastructure. It will cost some money initially, but with the entire country backing it we would have it finished and paid for in no time.

The remaining luxury items would be left to the capitalist system... nicer places to live, boats, cars, video cameras, toys, etc. would all be earned using money that comes in from jobs.

Key to getting the money problem fixed is to take money from the rich (corporations in particular) to pay for the country's debts, instead of taking it from the poor working class. Restrictions should be put on the total wealth any one person can have during their lifetime. If they hit that cap (say, $500m), then any other money they make should automatically go to the government to pay for the infrastructure. When the greedier members of society (Wall Street execs for instance) hit the cap, they won't be able to earn any more money, and so they'll stop trying to profit off the other people in society. Maybe they'll be replaced by another greedy person, but at least some of the money will be spread around that way.

Their meddling in (what was supposed to be) a small sector of the mortgage market lead to a financial disaster that will take years to dig out from under... and you want to hand them the reins to pretty much every market sector?

Socialism and collectivism may infatuate you with an idealized vision where the people in charge always make the right decisions and only with the best intentions... in the real world you end up with the Soviet Union, East Germany or North Korea.

Those aren't anomalies, they are inevitabilities.

Capitalism isn't perfect by any means and the state has a legitimate role in making sure that individual rights aren't trampled by money... but what you are calling for has, every time it has been tried over the last hundred years, lead to abject poverty for everyone but the politically connected and powerful.

Please, forget what your heart insists is real- emotions and wishful thinking sometimes have to take a back seat to what happens in the real world outside of coffee house discussions, musty books and philosophical table thumping.

What would be cruel is to put the fundamentals of life into the hands of the ruling class that has historically mismanaged everything they touch... let the government handle the police, judicial system and the military and leave the market to the market. The state's role is to have a near monopoly on the threat and use of extreme violence... but that means the also need to be tightly regulated in how they are allowed to exercise that violence.

If you insist they control anything in the market, please let it be luxury goods. People don't starve to death when there is a shortage of $80 million dollar yachts.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

I hope that the US manage to solve this, cause the chain reaction would be rather bad for pretty much everybody. :umm:

[Priyesh P.]

...and leave the market to the market...

Your ideas are also not really based in reality either. Big corporations have greater power than most governments, and they aggressively exert influence. You`re against regulation of markets, but that leads to perverse excrescences like tvs running advertisement in schools, so called "press" to promote views and surreptitious advertisement for affiliated corporations. The list goes on and on. You`ll probably say "shit happens". But this is the exact shit that also led to the iraq war.