Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Some mortgage meltdown math
09/28/2008 | PhilosopherStones

Posted on 09/29/2008 7:20:29 PM PDT by PhilosopherStones

Current value of mortgages in the US: $12 trillion
Current 90 day late/default rate (all loan types, sub-prime/Alt-A, jumbo, prime): 4%
Current exposure: $480 Billion

Hypothesis: 90 day late/default rate doubles.

Hypothetical 90 day late/default: 8%
Hypothetical exposure: $960 Billion
Hypothetical value of underlying Real Estate (based on worst-case as in CA Central Valley, Las Vegas, Florida): 60%

Total exposure risk: $576 Billion.

That's it folks. If (worst case) defaults double and the underlying assets sell for only 60% of their original selling price, our total exposure is less than the "bailout" amount.

Now all the housing experts can flame away!


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 110th; bailout
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

1 posted on 09/29/2008 7:20:30 PM PDT by PhilosopherStones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones

Problem is we have become an incredibly risk averse country. We want government to help us out of every little bump and scrape.


2 posted on 09/29/2008 7:22:44 PM PDT by Thane_Banquo (George Bush was eight more years of Bill Clinton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones

No flame from me (25 years in mortgage banking). Sounds like you may have overstated the worst case scenario.


3 posted on 09/29/2008 7:22:57 PM PDT by mcenedo (lying liberal media - our most dangerous and powerful enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones

So let’s start selling the bad debt now. Why don’t the banks want to do this? Locally banks are getting bids of 70 cents on the dollar or so for foreclosed houses and won’t sell — there was a piece on local TV last night. Why not? Waiting for the bailout to make them whole I would bet.

Do you have any idea what is going on at the banks holding the mortgages?


4 posted on 09/29/2008 7:24:25 PM PDT by Tarpon (Barrack Obama will ban all the guns he has the votes for ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones
If (worst case) defaults double and the underlying assets sell for only 60% of their original selling price [...]

What...you mean that prices come down to where they should be? Making them more affordable?

Gee..letting the market work...what a concept!

5 posted on 09/29/2008 7:24:42 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones

The big problem isn’t the underlying mortgage values. The big problem is the Credit Default Swaps that were written on top of it all.


6 posted on 09/29/2008 7:25:34 PM PDT by Mr. Jeeves ("One man's 'magic' is another man's engineering. 'Supernatural' is a null word." -- Robert Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
Why not? Waiting for the bailout to make them whole I would bet.

Sure! Nothing like taxing someone who doesn't own a home...to provide a bailout that props up home prices artificially even more!

7 posted on 09/29/2008 7:26:11 PM PDT by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones

For point of reference, $1.3 TRILLION of market wealth was wiped out today in the U.S. alone. Over $3 TRILLION globally.


8 posted on 09/29/2008 7:26:59 PM PDT by ProtectOurFreedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones

Is the exposure the DIFFERENCE between the loan amounts and the asset values? In this case $384 billion?


9 posted on 09/29/2008 7:28:12 PM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
So let’s start selling the bad debt now. Why don’t the banks want to do this?

That home I said used to sell for $435,000 and was listed at $260,000. It is now at $134,000.

What do the banks do with the houses. Just give them away?

10 posted on 09/29/2008 7:28:16 PM PDT by gogov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones
"Current exposure: $480 Billion"

That current exposure is $480 billion for THIS 30-DAY PERIOD. Why only double the default rate? What about 30 days later when the 60-dayers go 90, and 60 days later when the 30s go 90, and 120 days later and 150...? Do we spend 576 billion per month (or half that by your calculation) until all the deadbeats are out of the system? How long will that take? Are we shutting down govt. backed loans for good to prevent further hemoraging?
11 posted on 09/29/2008 7:29:47 PM PDT by DRey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones
Just a question, no flame:

What is the estimated value of the worthless credit default swaps on these estimated defaulted mortgages? How does that affect the situation?

12 posted on 09/29/2008 7:30:45 PM PDT by RochesterFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Jeeves

As I’ve posted elsewhere, MBS derivative risk is a convergent series (toward zero) because any deravtive will have LESS risk than the original obligation. And given the premium for off-setting the risk, the derivative risk is generally substantially less.

So first order derivatives are less risky than the original.
Second order derivatives less risky than the first order, etc.


13 posted on 09/29/2008 7:31:51 PM PDT by PhilosopherStones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones
Okay, I'll bite. Include the effects of the elimination of mark to market on the CDOs.

Second, include the market-based insurance program which was part of the plan.

Third, realize the bailout is initially only $250B, not $700B.

Combine mark to market elimination, the private insurance program, and the phase one $250B on the CDO market, and estimate the stabilization effects of those actions.

Compare to your $576B.

14 posted on 09/29/2008 7:32:56 PM PDT by magellan (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones

As I understand it, although the bad mortgages are the underlying cause of the financial problem, it is the derivaties that these banks/investment institutions bought and sold that is the driving force for the meltdown.


15 posted on 09/29/2008 7:35:14 PM PDT by Fishing-guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones
Let's see. $576B possibly bad debt out of $12T total outstanding in mortgages. That is less than 5%. This is a crisis? I think the market can correct itself.

The flip side of the coin is the psychological part. It appears that banks are not lending money until they understand where they are with respect to their own assets. How to deal with that?

16 posted on 09/29/2008 7:35:25 PM PDT by mlocher (USA is a sovereign state.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ProtectOurFreedom
For point of reference, $1.3 TRILLION of market wealth was wiped out today in the U.S. alone. Over $3 TRILLION globally.

How do you replace that kind of money in the economy?

There isn't really anyone left to borrow from. Just printing up the money creates other huge problems.

If we don't recapitalize the markets soon, the entire economy grinds to a screeching halt. I've never been an alarmist before, but this is the most serious financial crisis I have ever seen in my lifetime.

17 posted on 09/29/2008 7:35:52 PM PDT by comebacknewt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: gogov

I think someone is blowing smoke 3:1 spread is a lot. My wife is an inactive Realtor, houses don’t price this way for no reason. There are 16,000 houses up the road, that are on the books as foreclosed. None have this sort of swing. Most are 20-30% drop. Some maybe 50% if they are in a bad location. Average price in our area is down 27% or so.

What do you think is up with that? Someone just got taken in the bubble? But then why did the bank finance, don’ they know about appraisers?

Unless — Could be just an outlier, bank desperate, I do know of rings of bad apples that were flipping homes that just got indicted, so ... We had local waterfront homes that were priced double what they should have been, but those were speculators.


18 posted on 09/29/2008 7:36:44 PM PDT by Tarpon (Barrack Obama will ban all the guns he has the votes for ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

“Is the exposure the DIFFERENCE between the loan amounts and the asset values? In this case $384 billion?”
The exposure also includes the securities that are derived from the original debt, very leveraged, multiple of 12-30 times the original debt exposure.


19 posted on 09/29/2008 7:36:44 PM PDT by grandpa jones (Responding To The Epic Threat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones

Here’s my math:

$12 trillion in mortgages

5% in trouble = $600 billion

95% are performing and banks are making, say, 5.25% PER YEAR in interest on the outstanding principal = $598.5 billion in interest revenue made EACH YEAR by the lenders.

Difference = $1.5 billion

They leant the money. They charge interest to cover their risk. The interest made in one year completely covers their losses if the 5% of bad mortgages are utter losses.


20 posted on 09/29/2008 7:36:49 PM PDT by Royal Wulff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
"Locally banks are getting bids of 70 cents on the dollar or so for foreclosed houses and won’t sell — there was a piece on local TV last night. Why not?"

Interesting. Once foreclosed, the asset is the house, not the mortgage. There is no mortgage anymore.

"Waiting for the bailout to make them whole I would bet."

There is no provision in the bailout for foreclosed houses. Of course, if credit loosened up, there would be more demand for the house and the price would increase.

70 cents on the dollar is a bargain. Housing prices have declined by 20 percent. Add in the foreclosure costs, and the bank would be making money at 60 cents on the dollar.

21 posted on 09/29/2008 7:37:12 PM PDT by magellan (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DRey

That’s why I posted the hypothetical doubling.

Most of the sub-primes are already out of the system.

Next up is Alt-A (No doc, but good credit rating).

After that will be prime.

At each level, we get a greater percentage of the total US mortgage market, but a lower percentage of defaults (Primes had their ability to repay checked and, generally, were smarter about the types of loans they took).


22 posted on 09/29/2008 7:37:14 PM PDT by PhilosopherStones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: gogov
"What do the banks do with the houses. Just give them away?"

When the cost of carrying them exceeds the market price of the house, then yes.

23 posted on 09/29/2008 7:38:37 PM PDT by magellan (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: RochesterFan

The entire credit default swap market is over $60 trillion.

I don’t know how much of that is on mortgages.


24 posted on 09/29/2008 7:39:10 PM PDT by javachip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones

Not an expert, but didn’t this bill also put us on tap for failing debt riddled municipalities and cities and towns? I was kinda scared there for a minute I’d have to help bail out Detroit and Chicago, Cleveland, Providence, LA, New Orleans (oh, wait I did that one already)...and maybe the slums of Brazil, oh, yeah and Kenya...and maybe cities under the ocean, Barney Frank’s bath-house and all of Hyde Park, Frankfurt, Bin Laden’s cave network, as well as every roadside attraction, tennis court and shabby Dentist office in America. I was going to help a beekeeper in Muncie, too (Page 77 of the Bill) So I was a bit worried.


25 posted on 09/29/2008 7:39:34 PM PDT by februus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blood of Tyrants

If 8% of the $12 Trillion worth of mortgages in the US go into foreclosure and are sold at 60% of the original loan value, lenders will be on the hook for $576 Billion.

That’s what I meant.


26 posted on 09/29/2008 7:40:03 PM PDT by PhilosopherStones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Thane_Banquo

Thane_Banquo: “Problem is we have become an incredibly risk averse country.”

Definitely! That’s the same thought process that said the war was lost after we’d suffered 5000 casualties. Unfortunately, our political class is very adept at feeding on our fears in order to stay in power.


27 posted on 09/29/2008 7:40:13 PM PDT by CitizenUSA (Voting proudly for GOVERNOR Palin for VP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Royal Wulff
"95% are performing and banks are making, say, 5.25% PER YEAR in interest on the outstanding principal = $598.5 billion in interest revenue made EACH YEAR by the lenders."

You are not including the decline in the value of the collateral asset (i.e., the house).

Mortgage lending at 5.25% APR is a loosing proposition if housing prices are declining by 10% a year.

28 posted on 09/29/2008 7:40:54 PM PDT by magellan (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones

Have you taken into account the truckload of ARMs and had low initial 3 year to 5 year rates that are about to kick up adjust to the current higher rate.

And what about all the people who have now seen the value of their houses fall below the amount they owe on the mortgage and decide to that they’d rather default and take the credit hit than be pay $300,000+interest for a house that’s only worth $250,000.


29 posted on 09/29/2008 7:41:17 PM PDT by Truthsearcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones

And yet the legislation is still in effect to grant high risk loans when the market recovers....


30 posted on 09/29/2008 7:42:05 PM PDT by WVNight (We havn't played Cowboys and Muslims yet....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones

The real exposure is less than that because there are assets and partial income streams behind those mortgages. The problem of course is not mortgages, it would take 100 or 200B at most to fix that. The problem is worthless securities that are NOT mortgage backed, not backed by anything. One example is credit default insurance resold or booked as an asset. It is nothing but a piece of paper. There are many trillions of that.


31 posted on 09/29/2008 7:42:09 PM PDT by palmer (Some third party malcontents don't like Palin because she is a true conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: magellan

As I understood it, the banks still have the asset(house) on the books at the full original value. If they depreciate it to what they could sell it for, doesn’t it force a write down at the bank, their assets shrink?

Why else would they not want to sell now, even at a loss. It will be years before prices recover and they have to maintain the property.

We have had a decrease in house prices of about 27% in the local area, but it is starting to tick up.


32 posted on 09/29/2008 7:42:47 PM PDT by Tarpon (Barrack Obama will ban all the guns he has the votes for ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones
"After that will be prime."

I see. You need to add 15% for misc. and earmarks, and 25% for administrative fees.
33 posted on 09/29/2008 7:43:07 PM PDT by DRey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RochesterFan

It’s all the same risk, just parceled out into different forms.

People keep thinking that CDS are some sort of multiplier. They’re not. They just take the same original risk and try to hedge against it.


34 posted on 09/29/2008 7:43:44 PM PDT by PhilosopherStones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Tarpon
"But then why did the bank finance, don’t they know about appraisers?"

There is the crux of the problem. The bank lent because it had the money because the mortgage industry was awash in cash because Fannie Mae was guaranteeing all of these crap loans.

Dump money into the system and you get inflation. Economics 101.

35 posted on 09/29/2008 7:43:51 PM PDT by magellan (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones
One more comment on this. Mark Steyn has a analogy which is apt.

Assume 95% of the loans are good, and 5% are bad.

So to model this, take 9.5 ounces of vanilla ice cream, and mix in 1/2 ounce of dog feces. Eat the mixture. Can you taste dog feces? What? You threw up? But it was only 5% dog feces, why did such a small amount make you sick?

36 posted on 09/29/2008 7:47:28 PM PDT by magellan (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gogov

gogov: “What do the banks do with the houses. Just give them away?”

It depends. If the bank can afford to hold the house, it might appreciate. They might even be able to rent it until the market turns. On the other hand, they might need to sell it for whatever they can.

Where most people see disaster, I see incredible opportunity. For those who have cash, this might be a one-in-a-lifetime chance to pick up some valuable assets for pennies on the dollar.


37 posted on 09/29/2008 7:47:48 PM PDT by CitizenUSA (Voting proudly for GOVERNOR Palin for VP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: magellan

I’m talking about the existing mortgages. 95% of them are performing and generating a revenue stream of $600 billion per year for the banks.

That should be the first place we look for bailout funding.


38 posted on 09/29/2008 7:47:57 PM PDT by Royal Wulff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: februus
Not an expert, but didn't this bill also put us on tap for failing debt riddled municipalities and cities and towns? I was kinda scared there for a minute I'd have to help bail out Detroit and Chicago, Cleveland, Providence, LA, New Orleans (oh, wait I did that one already)...and maybe the slums of Brazil, oh, yeah and Kenya...and maybe cities under the ocean, Barney Frank's bath-house and all of Hyde Park, Frankfurt, Bin Laden's cave network, as well as every roadside attraction, tennis court and shabby Dentist office in America. I was going to help a beekeeper in Muncie, too (Page 77 of the Bill) So I was a bit worried.

Thanks for the laugh! ;Oh it was funny because it was too true.

39 posted on 09/29/2008 7:49:58 PM PDT by antonia ("Be the person your dog thinks you are....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: magellan

It sounds like the fed keeping interest rates so low for so long may have added considerable fuel to the fire. Plenty of people suspected that long ago.

I know we kept getting calls about interest only home loans ... didn’t sound like a good idea to me — LOL.


40 posted on 09/29/2008 7:50:22 PM PDT by Tarpon (Barrack Obama will ban all the guns he has the votes for ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Truthsearcher

ARMs generally go into the Alt-A category (which is where we are now after clearing most of the sub-prime).

IF lenders could (or would) refinance, most ARM buyers could get a reasonable 30 year fixed at less than whatever their ARM reset to.


41 posted on 09/29/2008 7:51:27 PM PDT by PhilosopherStones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones

That’s not it. Multiply that ten fold because of derivatives.


42 posted on 09/29/2008 7:52:45 PM PDT by Porterville (Im no economist- getting a PHD in economics wasn't economical... it didn' make cents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Porterville

Once again, derivatives have LESS risk than the original underlying debt (otherwise why would anyone buy them?).

The only problem with derivatives is that no one wants to put a value on the underlying debt. Once that happens, the derivatives will have a value, and a GREATER value than the underlying mortgages because they (by their very nature) have LESS risk.


43 posted on 09/29/2008 7:55:54 PM PDT by PhilosopherStones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones
It’s all the same risk, just parceled out into different forms.

People keep thinking that CDS are some sort of multiplier. They’re not. They just take the same original risk and try to hedge against it.

I admit I cannot fathom why someone would take out credit default swaps for more than the value of the mortgages. Then I read something articles that suggests it is relating to the subsequent tranching and packaging into derivative securities. For example consider this:

Investors may be forced to settle contracts covering the mortgage giants’ $1.6 trillion in outstanding debt because the government seizure constitutes a credit event that triggers the payment or delivery of their bonds. The International Swaps and Derivatives Association announced on Monday that it would establish a protocol to facilitate the settlement of CDS trades involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
How does one sort this out?
44 posted on 09/29/2008 7:57:35 PM PDT by RochesterFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: javachip

Let’s just pretend that the CDS are spread equally. 5% of 60 TLN is 3 TRILLION dollars.

THAT is the problem. For the life of me I do not understand why these are allowed.


45 posted on 09/29/2008 7:58:15 PM PDT by Drill Thrawl (Drill Baby, Drill - Drill Thrawl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: comebacknewt

It does not have to be replaced. It is a paper loss and will recoup over time. Always has, always will. Using those numbers, we are down 5 TLN (15 TLN globally) this year. The market routinely “creates and destroys” 100’s of billions a day. It’s not real wealth until you take it out of the market.


46 posted on 09/29/2008 8:02:50 PM PDT by Drill Thrawl (Drill Baby, Drill - Drill Thrawl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones

This is a good analysis for outstanding mortgage debt.

One reason the proposed bailout is so much larger than calculated here is because only a percentage of the toxic debt they want us to buy is mortgages.

This isn’t about covering bad mortgages - it is about restoring the lender’s original investment in all kinds of bad debt. Paulson wants to give the lenders liquidity (cash) so they can get back to buying/selling debt. Right now their working capital is tied up in bad debts that will never return their investment, let alone give them a profit.

A very big percentage of the trash debt they want us to buy is bad consumer debt - uncollectible credit card charges, unpaid student loans, car loans, signature loans, etc. Very little of this debt is backed by any kind of collateral. Maybe some of the car loans but usually they only return 20% - 30% on the dollar, when and if you can locate and reposess the vehicle.

And we are not going to get a package of mortgages with only a potential 4% or 5% bad home loans.
The packages we get will have some mortgages mixed in with other debt but almost all will be bad - already foreclosed or far in arrears and they will mostly be undersecured.

Remember - part of the original problem is that lenders assigned unearned and false high credit ratings to unquialified lenders.
So some mortgages were made to lenders with poor credit but the mortgage contract shows they have a good or fairly high credit rating. Another reason why no one really knows what is in these packages.

Here is the way it works. A lender takes a big chunk of low rated and bad debt - say $95 million - and adds just enough higher rated debt, maybe $5 million in up to date mortgages, to bump the whole package rating up enough so they can raise the sell price.
The next buyer buys five packages like that and adjusts the ratio of good debt and bad debt to justify an even higher selling price, and so on.
It ends up that no one really knows what they have bought or what it is really worth. The want the cash flow and a chance to resell at a profit.

But when borrowers stop making their monthly payments the whole house of cards collapses.


47 posted on 09/29/2008 8:09:43 PM PDT by Iron Munro (Congress: every law they make is a joke and every joke they tell becomes a law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: comebacknewt

In 2001 there was a huge decrease in the market also. The loss was a paper loss and only became a real loss if you sold at that time.

If you held your position you eventually recovered excepting the Enron, World Com, crap that we had to endure.

This situation is very much like 2001 only with bigger numbers and compounded by the swaps.

It will work out as well but may take longer. I would also point out the loss today while larger in abosolute numbers was smaller on a percentage basis.

Take a deep breath and sit still. If you were really concerned you would have liquidated at least a year ago and taken delivery of gold or silver. Unless you took that action the best thing is to continue to sit still.


48 posted on 09/29/2008 8:10:21 PM PDT by pcpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RochesterFan

“Investors may be forced to settle contracts covering the mortgage giants’ $1.6 trillion in outstanding debt because the government seizure constitutes a credit event that triggers the payment or delivery of their bonds.”

Uhm... Unintended (or intended) consequences?

Still all the same money despite the “tranches”.

Here’s an example of how it works:

Tranch A gets 80%
Tranch B gets 10% if there’s anything left after Tranch A.
Tranch C gets 4% if there’s anything left after Tranch B.
Tranch D gets 1% if there’s anything left after Tranch C.

So let’s take a hypothetical $1 million dollar home.

If the buyer defaults and the foreclosed house sells for 90% of the lending price, both Tranches A and B get paid. Tranches C and D get hosed.

If the foreclosed house sells for 80% or less, all Tranches but A get hosed.

But buyers who bought Tranches B, C, and D payed relatively little given ungodly risk that they took in buying in these tranches in the first place.


49 posted on 09/29/2008 8:10:57 PM PDT by PhilosopherStones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: PhilosopherStones

The problem isn’t just with the amount of money. Frankly, that’s the last thing on my mind. The objections I, and a lot of other people, have to the bailout bill are in the realm of unconstitutional executive power. The money’s just the most visible problem of this bill.

It’s good to see a big government program voted down for once, though, even if just for a day.


50 posted on 09/29/2008 8:11:22 PM PDT by y2gordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-97 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson