Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $67,563
79%  
Woo hoo!! And now less than $17.5k to go!! We can do this. Thank you all very much!!

Posts by cinives

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/05/2008 2:18:12 PM PDT · 285 of 320
    cinives to null and void

    So then why was it an appropriate action again ?

    Those who are causing the problems are being rewarded and will certainly do it again.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/05/2008 2:17:09 PM PDT · 284 of 320
    cinives to investigateworld

    I agree with you. The problem is that we are all so weary of all the misuse of taxpayer dollars for foreign aid, AIDS, bailouts, earmarks yada yada yada that at some point we all need to say Enough ! Just stop spending already ! No more to anything ! None of this is good use of taxpayer money.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/05/2008 2:14:04 PM PDT · 283 of 320
    cinives to irish guard

    Hello - Dimon sits ON THE FRICKIN BOARD of the NY Fed. If he didn’t know the window was open to Bear and the other IBs, then he’s a moron. Hindsight had nothing to do with it.

    Tell me - when the negotiations were going on that weekend, which hat did Dimon wear - that of th Fed or that of JPM. Just a little conflict of interest, no ? Secondly, Bear was the counterparty to a lot of the crap JPM owns. Don’t you think JPM tool/were forced to take BSC BECAUSE it allowed JPM to stay solvent, and that’s why the 30B was a necessity ?

  • Scientists downplay global warming's effect on hurricanes

    04/05/2008 7:30:17 AM PDT · 3 of 19
    cinives to devane617

    I thought NASA said the seas were cooling ?

  • GOP vs. Paulson

    04/05/2008 7:20:16 AM PDT · 10 of 11
    cinives to moderatewolverine

    We need a rule - no more Treasury Secretaries from Wall Street.

    I vote for David Walker. Heck, let’s run him as President, then maybe we’d stop with the crony fascism.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/05/2008 7:14:26 AM PDT · 230 of 320
    cinives to irish guard

    You need to read post #222.

    Jamie Dimon said JPM and everyone would have been just fine if BSC declared bankruptcy. Bernanke said it was to avert systemic meltdown.

    So - do you believe Bernanke or Dimon testifying at the SAME HEARING ?

    If Dimon was not lying, then the Fed did not need to step in, now did they ?

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/05/2008 7:11:44 AM PDT · 229 of 320
    cinives to nicmarlo

    Good post, I hadn’t seen that yet.

    Kinda puts paid to those who said raiding the taxpayers was justified because it “saved” us all.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/05/2008 7:08:54 AM PDT · 228 of 320
    cinives to investigateworld

    So if joe taxpayer goes bankrupt and other joe taxpayers are asked to bail him out, you’re good with that ‘cause it’ll only cost you $5 and he gets to walk away with all his toys ?

    Hello, socialism.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/05/2008 7:01:23 AM PDT · 226 of 320
    cinives to Toddsterpatriot

    Your post is so useless. You like to act superior but you don’t post jack to support any statement.

    All hat no cattle.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/05/2008 7:00:00 AM PDT · 225 of 320
    cinives to Toddsterpatriot

    I realize that, but taking in the news that banks are recovering about 50% on most properties, there’s a huge backlog in the system where people who have not paid for 6 months are still living in the houses because they HAVEN’T EVEN BEEN CONTACTED by their lender, and a lot of people are trashing the houses on the way out, the actual % rate is hard to estimate.

    I kinda fudged it because the actual current foreclosure rate is well over 2% and it will go a lot higher when the latest rate resetting of ARMS that occurred in March start getting delinquent.
    http://activerain.com/blogsview/58601/FHA-vs-Subprime-default

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/04/2008 3:09:20 PM PDT · 143 of 320
    cinives to Petronski

    Chapter and verse, please.

    Put up or shut up.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/04/2008 2:22:14 PM PDT · 136 of 320
    cinives to Petronski

    Never said I was. So toddle off and find me that law, OK ? That’s a good boy.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/04/2008 2:21:36 PM PDT · 135 of 320
    cinives to nicmarlo

    Liar liar pants afire ! Unbelievable. Yet they put the Enron execs in jail over less.

    I know WaMu has a large exposure and there’s been speculation about their solvency for a few months. It’s getting interesting in a not so good way.

    Some discussion: http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=38473

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/04/2008 2:16:45 PM PDT · 132 of 320
    cinives to Petronski

    There is no “finding answers” because the point is

    THERE IS NO FREAKING LAW OR REGULATION THAT AUTHORIZES SUCH A DEAL !

    You can’t “find” a negative.

    Why don’t YOU find the law that says this is legal.. OK ? Cite me the law and the section under which this is legal.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/04/2008 2:11:24 PM PDT · 130 of 320
    cinives to irish guard

    OK. Let’s assume that in 2006, residential real estate in this country was worth, collectively, 22 trillion, as Case-Shiller says. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:6wSEMt16gasJ:www2.standardandpoors.com/spf/pdf/index/SP_CS_Home_Price_Indices_Factsheet.pdf+value+residential+real+estate+value+united+states&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    Let’s take a conservative number. If only 2% of the 22T goes into default/foreclosure, then that’s 440 billion of writedowns the banks will need to take. So far the banks have only written off less than 200 billion (I forget the actual number), and they are already out of reserves. They are existing on borrowed reserves from the Fed.

    Add in HELOCs worth about 1 Trillion, CC debt, and the leverage on all that, and the number starts to look fairly staggering.

    If you still think we aren’t in big trouble and that putting the taxpayer on the hook via the Fed is a good idea, then we will certainly disagree.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/04/2008 1:54:58 PM PDT · 128 of 320
    cinives to Petronski

    Why ? Have you found your mind yet ? Or are you a mindless apologist for the facists in government ? You need to stop parroting the party line and do some thinking of your own.

    I ain’t the only one asking the question.

    http://www.hussman.net/wmc/wmc.htm

    Bear Stearns is trading at $6 instead of $2 because unelected bureaucrats went beyond their legal mandates, delivered a windfall to a single private company at public expense, entered agreements that violate the the public trust, and created a situation where even if the bureaucratic malfeasance stands, the shareholders of Bear Stearns will either reject the deal or be deprived of their right to determine the fate of the company they own. Very simply, Bear Stearns is still in play. Still, when all is said and done, my own impression is that the ultimate value of the stock will not be $2, but exactly zero.

    In effect, the Federal Reserve decided last week to overstep its legal boundaries – going beyond providing liquidity to the banking system and attempting to ensure the solvency of a non-bank entity. Specifically, the Fed agreed to provide a $30 billion “non-recourse loan” to J.P. Morgan, secured only by the worst tranche of Bear Stearns’ mortgage debt. But the bank – J.P. Morgan – was in no financial trouble. Instead, it was effectively offered a subsidy by the Fed at public expense. Rick Santelli of CNBC is exactly right. If this is how the U.S. government is going to operate in a democratic, free-market society, “we might as well put a hammer and sickle on the flag.”

    What is a “non-recourse loan”? Put simply, if the homeowners underlying that weak tranche of debt go into foreclosure, they will lose their homes, and the public will lose as well. But J.P. Morgan will not lose, nor will Bear Stearns’ bondholders. This will be an outrageous outcome if it is allowed to stand.

    In my view, the deal would be palatable if J.P. Morgan was to remain fully responsible for any losses on the “collateral” provided to the Federal Reserve, assuming shareholders were to consent to the buyout. As it stands, Congress should quickly step in to bust the existing deal and demand an alternate resolution, by clearly insisting that the Fed’s action was not legal.

    The Fed did not act to save a bank, but to enrich one. Congress has the power to appropriate resources for such a deal by the representative will of the people – the Fed does not, even under Depression era banking laws. The “loan” falls outside of Section 13-3 of the Federal Reserve Act, because it is not in fact a loan to either Bear Stearns or J.P. Morgan. Bear Stearns is no longer a business entity under this agreement. And if the fiction that this is a “loan” to J.P. Morgan was true, J.P. Morgan would be obligated to pay it back, period. The only point at which the value of the “collateral” would become an issue would be in the event that J.P. Morgan itself was to fail. No, this is not a loan. It is a put option granted by the Fed to J.P. Morgan on a basket of toxic securities. And it is not legal.

    The deal was made under duress, to the benefit of a private company, on the basis of financial assurances that the bureaucrats involved had no business making. The Federal Reserve is going to put up public assets and accept default risk so that Bear Stearns’ own bondholders are effectively immunized?! That’s not sound monetary policy – it’s a picnic for insiders, bought and paid for through the abuse of public funds by government officials too unprincipled even to recognize the abuse. The only good thing about this deal is that it buys time while principled ways of busting and restructuring it can be settled.

    This is not an issue of letting Bear Stearns “fail” on the claims of its customers and counterparties. Nobody wants that. The issue is the method by which it was rescued – who was protected, and who was not; why a consortium was not used instead of a single firm; why the claims of Bear’s bondholders should be secure while the public bears the risk of the toxic waste foisted upon us. This deal should, and I believe will, be restructured. J.P. Morgan will cry foul, but that will be like a child who found the Easter basket and is now forced to share the chocolate. Bear Stearns is worth more than zero in acquisition, provided that the bondholders take an appropriate loss.

    http://www.aim.org/aim-column/bushs-big-bank-bailout/

    One of the feeble explanations was the Journal’s Saturday page-one story about Bear Stearns receiving “emergency funding backed by the federal government.” The paper explained that “A 1932 provision of the Federal Reserve Act allows the Fed to lend to non-banks if at least five of its seven governors approve. That provision was last regularly used during the Great Depression. It is meant to underscore that the central bank should lend to non-banks only in extreme circumstances.”

    But later, the article revealed, “The Fed, with two governors’ seats vacant and one governor overseas and unreachable, invoked a special legal clause to approve the loan with just four governors.”

    What is the precise legal and constitutional basis for what the Federal Reserve has done? How is all of this possible under a democratic system where the peoples’ representatives in the Executive and Legislative branches are supposed to make the decisions?

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/04/2008 1:38:12 PM PDT · 126 of 320
    cinives to Toddsterpatriot
    I didn't mention the gold standard. I was discussing the value of the dollar over time since the Fed came along - regardless of the gold standard or not. It's quite interesting.

    And for that matter, why do you call deflation "crushing" while inflation is not ?

    Sorry, creating money is not magic - it's called leverage. Don't be sarcastic. And when deleveraging occurs... but of course you think that's magic too ?

    Sorry, wrong figures - different bank. The BSC figures seem to be 13 trillion to, on the Wednesday before the firesale, about 12 billion in capital.

  • Senate Drops Plan to Help Homeowners

    04/04/2008 6:18:16 AM PDT · 11 of 22
    cinives to Diana in Wisconsin

    I think we should give individuals the same ability to write off losses as we do businesses. Why discriminate ?

    How about if you lose money on your home, you can deduct it against prior years’ taxes, just like they’re proposing to allow the homebuilders to do ?

    After all, don’t so many people say a home is an investment ?

    Wouldn’t that be fair ?

  • Common Cause chief assesses Pastor Wright

    04/04/2008 6:14:44 AM PDT · 6 of 15
    cinives to stan_sipple

    So I guess “ridin dirty” is a new Biblical description of corruption ?

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/04/2008 6:08:25 AM PDT · 115 of 320
    cinives to irish guard

    RE is continuing to fall in valuation, we haven’t even started to see the writedowns from underwater HELOCs and other consumer debt, 1Q 08 earnings reports are only starting to come in - no, we have a long way to go yet to get back to normalcy.

    Whatever normalcy is anymore.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/04/2008 6:06:21 AM PDT · 114 of 320
    cinives to GovernmentShrinker

    We are trading “security” for freedom. And I ask - how much security is there in a devaluing, paper dollar ?

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/04/2008 6:04:40 AM PDT · 113 of 320
    cinives to irish guard

    And what happens when Citi fails ? Or JPM ? Or UBS ?

    How much propping up can be accomplished when trillions are being lost in real estate - the very thing that set off this debacle in the first place. RE is not finished dropping - when a few more trillion are removed from backing all this paper, who can afford that bailout ?

    It will happen, and the next failure will just be bigger.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/04/2008 6:01:29 AM PDT · 112 of 320
    cinives to GOPJ

    Now that the government has trumpeted that any bank is too big to fail, then there is nothing to stop the banks from continuing down the path of more and more leverage and risk.

    What they all forget is that there is only so much debt the taxpayer can afford until we are all bankrupt.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/04/2008 5:59:40 AM PDT · 111 of 320
    cinives to GOPJ

    Then we have some painful reality. We are all poorer than we think, because debt cannot be money. There has to be value there.

    Once reality sets in, we can get back to a reality valuation of assets - in essence that what a bankruptcy is.

    It’s not pretty, but without it you just have complexity piled on complexity until the entire edifice collapses anyway.

    The end is certain - it’s how we get there that is still somewhat in our control. Congress, the Treasury, the Executive and the Fed colluding with banks to put it all back on the taxpayer is just postponing the inevitable.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/04/2008 5:54:36 AM PDT · 110 of 320
    cinives to nicmarlo

    Exactly !

    A mark-to-market is a needed event - but it will collapse the world financial systems. And, I think that would be very painful but a very necessary event.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/04/2008 5:52:45 AM PDT · 109 of 320
    cinives to bpjam

    The difference between us is that you think the economy should be managed. I’m saying that it’s the management that’s causing the problems.

    You said: because there would be nobody managing the US currency.

    I’m saying we’re far better off with NO management than with the Fed. The dollar is worth .02 today from 1.00 in 1913 - managed by the Fed. Deliberate devaluation over almost 100 years. Before the Fed ? The dollar was worth an almost stable 1.00 with normal fluctuations returning to the mean. Why ? A gold/silver standard.

    You said: without those financial markets creating the new types of loans, mortgages, derivatives, collateralized debt obligations and junk bonds we do not have capitalism or entrepreneurs in America

    I say: Bull. A fractional banking system can typically manage to stay out of trouble most years if leverage stays around 4-6:1. When leverage gets to 37:1 ? 100:1 ? Impossible. Why is leverage important ? It allows a bank to create money from debt, but it’s also an unsustainable cycle as leverage increases. Have you seen the Fed reports on reserves ? The banks have NO reserves - they’ve borrowed their reserves from the Fed. There is no capital underlying most of the debt. Why was BSC such a problem ? Because they had 37B of capital to 24T of obligations. What happens when just 2% of that debt goes bad ? How about 10% ?

    Capitalism is not served by massive amounts of leverage. We grew this country thru the 1800s without the insane leverage we have today. Let’s argue - which time was healthier for capitalism ?

    You said: Nobody won here except you and me

    I say: Joe 6-pack was screwed. Who were the shareholders of BSC ? Whose taxes went to and whose currency was debased to create the sorry edifice that was BSC ? The Fed is taking securities that cannot be sold in the open market onto its books, whereas before the Fed balance sheet was made up of T-bills and other as-good-as-gold-type assets. That’s a bonus ? I don’t think so. Was it a 1:1 swap, or is the crap paper discounted ? We will not be told - why ? Because we wouldn’t like the answer.

    And finally, I don’t personally think taxpayer money should be used to “do good”. Government is not and should not be a charity. Read Davy Crockett on the subject. http://www.theadvocates.org/library/christian-crockett.html

    Nope, by these actions we are now firmly entrenched in fascism. And some of you think that is good. I call it a disaster.

  • OBAMA'S BOUNCE-BACK NOW A MERE FIVE POINTS DOWN IN PA.

    04/03/2008 5:13:38 PM PDT · 38 of 44
    cinives to snarkytart

    This election just sucks. Can’t vote for McCain, Clinton or Obama.

    I want a do-over !!!!

  • US senators worry about taxpayer exposure to Bear Stearns

    04/03/2008 3:32:21 PM PDT · 30 of 33
    cinives to Petronski

    Yours is from the back of a matchbook ? One of these ?

    http://www.college-degree-fast.com/

  • US senators worry about taxpayer exposure to Bear Stearns

    04/03/2008 3:30:39 PM PDT · 28 of 33
    cinives to Petronski

    OK cite me the law that says the Fed can use taxpayer funds from the Treasury to prop up private institutions ?

    Even during the S & L crisis Congress had to approve the RTC and approve the funds.

  • US senators worry about taxpayer exposure to Bear Stearns

    04/03/2008 3:21:23 PM PDT · 26 of 33
    cinives to Petronski

    Really ? You don’t think your bank considers a loan to be an expenditure ? LOL and the money that they hand to you comes from ...

    You need to learn some accounting.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/03/2008 3:02:01 PM PDT · 55 of 320
    cinives to TruthConquers

    That’s the question we can’t answer, because it seems like anytime we get closer to an answer the Treasury, the Fed, or Congress steps in with taxpayer money, ie adds to the debt.

    All I can say is, have cash, lay in some supplies, get rid of debt, and keep any retirement or other investment funds in whatever you think will weather the storm and out of the clutches of the taxman.

  • US senators worry about taxpayer exposure to Bear Stearns

    04/03/2008 2:58:50 PM PDT · 23 of 33
    cinives to Petronski

    It’s a loan that is backed by the Treasury. That would be would be us, the taxpayers.

    All of you need to read this:

    http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2008/04/01/treasury-confirms-mbs-back-bear-loan/?mod=WSJBlog

    Here’s the money quote: “Since any profit or loss would affect the annual surplus that the Fed remits to the Treasury from the interest on its $800 billion portfolio of securities and loans, it would ultimately be born by the taxpayer.”

  • US senators worry about taxpayer exposure to Bear Stearns

    04/03/2008 2:55:56 PM PDT · 21 of 33
    cinives to Petronski

    It doesn’t matter. The Fed has no Constitutional authority to appropriate funds, spent or not. That right is reserved to the US House of Representatives.

    What the Fed did is illegal and unconstitutional.

  • US senators worry about taxpayer exposure to Bear Stearns

    04/03/2008 2:54:38 PM PDT · 20 of 33
    cinives to dashing doofus

    The Fed is backing loans worth - what ? Funny, they don’t know. These are mark-to-fantasy “assets” that BSC couldn’t even use to raise money, so they’re probably worth little or nothing.

    No, the BSC takeover was also the raid of one bank on another. Jamie Dimon was the only player offered the chance to acquire BSC, Dimon also sits on the board of the NY Fed, they have “hired” Black Stone to manage this with no fees set up front, and BSC was acquired by screwing the shareholders of BSC. The bondholders were protected. BSC was also not told that the following week the Fed TAF was to be opened to them, so they were not aware they had any options.

    This is fascism, crony capitalism, and market manipulation right out in the open.

    And all you sheeple buy the party line that it was for all our good.

    Bye bye America-it was nice knowing ya.

  • US senators worry about taxpayer exposure to Bear Stearns

    04/03/2008 2:48:11 PM PDT · 19 of 33
    cinives to nmh

    Actually, it’s fascism.

    Just as bad, probably worse.

  • US senators worry about taxpayer exposure to Bear Stearns

    04/03/2008 2:47:16 PM PDT · 18 of 33
    cinives to Resolute Conservative

    Yep. And guess what - people learned not to overleverage themselves.

    It seems like people need to learn it again, and they won’t if they keep getting bailed out by taxpayers.

  • US senators worry about taxpayer exposure to Bear Stearns

    04/03/2008 2:46:17 PM PDT · 17 of 33
    cinives to RC2

    So piling up lie after lie on the basis of taxpayer dollars is a good thing ?

    No, those who live beyond their means, including banks who over leverage themselves, need to pay the cost of their stupidity.

    Dodd, that idiot, got one thing right - we’re privatizing the rewards and socializing the losses.

    Bad, bad policy.

  • States could release inmates

    04/03/2008 2:38:36 PM PDT · 10 of 14
    cinives to Brilliant

    Here’s a concept. Let’s get rid of the War on Drugs. We’d probably free up at least 1/3 of the prison space in this country overnight.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/03/2008 2:28:28 PM PDT · 50 of 320
    cinives to untrained skeptic

    Amazingly enough, we survived the depression, and many people came out a lot stronger. Debt was minimal, people learned what was important, and they all learned that actions had consequences.

    Instead, the nanny state has decreed that the very people responsible for the mess, who are the Fed, the IBs, the commercial banks, the monolines, the ratings agencies, and the government oversight agencies, will be bailed out by joe taxpayer. The bank execs are still pulling down their multimillion $$$ salaries but joe taxpayer sees a huge increase in daily expenses and joe taxpayers children and grandchildren will live in a country that will either 1) be so underwater in debt that we inflate our way out of it or 2) we default on our debt and we become just another failed state with citizens paying the price in prosperity.

    You miss the entire point. If failure is not an option, then no consequences occur and no lessons are learned. Has JPM accepted any further regulations to the effect of unwinding their derivatives positions, deleveraging, bringing crap back on their balance sheets, running a transparent business so their shareholders don’t wind up paying for management mistakes ?

    No. There were no consequences to anyone other than BSC shareholders and lower-level employees. Did these people deserve to pay, or should the a$$hats in management who approved the overleveraging been the ones to pay ?

    Welcome to the nanny state, where people making 7,8,9 and 10 figure salaries and bonuses are considered worthy of bailouts. God, this stuff makes me sick.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/03/2008 2:18:58 PM PDT · 49 of 320
    cinives to TruthConquers

    Knowing JPM what they probably meant was they were both long and short gold.

    The “elite” are rearranging the deck chairs for their comfort while j6p has a very uncomfortable time in steerage, but I believe in the end we are all in the dumper unless transparency, honesty and ethics once again are a hallmark of our government and economy.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/03/2008 2:15:57 PM PDT · 48 of 320
    cinives to GovernmentShrinker

    You are obviously not a student of any past depression. You also missed some testimony. JPM was the ONLY bank offered the opportunity to buy BSC. Wonder why, or you don’t care ? Did you know that Jamie Dimon is a governor of the NY Fed ? Do you know who he is ? Did you think to ask what side of the table he sat on during the “negotiations” ?

    Even that idiot Dodd got it right - What the Fed is doing is privatizing the profits, socializing the losses. We are living under a fascist economy, and it won’t change when the next administration takes office. Both the Republicans and the Dems are in it up to their eyeballs.

    And yes, option 2 is far preferable IF it means we can finally get the transparency that is so necessary in our financial system. Don’t you care about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness ? Or are you more interested in your comfortable existence where you eat your hamburger every nite and fall asleep to American Idol ? As the Founders said, if we trade freedom for security, we are lost. Your post is proof of that mentality - just let the Fed hide the bad stuff so you don’t have to bother your pretty little head over it.

    And finally, the average American’s retirement and everything else they hold as an asset is already under assault. Inflation is heating up in the energy and commodity sectors, house prices are dropping like crazy, and the demographics of the boomers will ensure the market doesn’t recover in the next 10 years or more, unless you favor a greatly inflated immigration in years to come. You can’t trade the market because it is so manipulated by the Fed and other major institutional insiders that it has become quite irrational. Explain Tuesday’s 400 pt rally. What fundamentals or news showed up on Monday or Tuesday to justify such a thing ? Social Security and Medicare are a joke, especially after this year when every one of the Presidential candidates favors amnesty and giving SS and Medicare to the illegals.

    No, unless we get back to no corporate welfare, allow those highly leveraged individuals and institutions to fail and take their losses, and start promoting honesty and ethical action, there is no USA. We are no better than the USSR. Welcome to socialism, comrade.

    My house has already dropped maybe 10%, my retirement is as secure as I can make it because I’ve paid attention to the economy, I have no debt because I don’t live above my means, and I know we would suffer short term pain but long term we wold be so much better off.

    Short term pain, long term gain. Instead, just like Japan we’ll have short term “stability” with maximum long term pain.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/03/2008 12:20:49 PM PDT · 43 of 320
    cinives to untrained skeptic
    Ask anyone who has gone thru a bankruptcy whether it's a disaster. The answer is it's painful, embarrassing, but you don't die.

    Marking to market would cause a TU condition in the financial markets and bankrupt governments of any overleveraged parties, but we'd all come out better and more honest on the other side.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/03/2008 12:17:53 PM PDT · 42 of 320
    cinives to bpjam

    So you vote for fascism, cronyism, and bailouts by taxpayer dollars ?

    We deserve what we get - it’s no wonder our leaders are so corrupt. All the people want is to be given a lollipop and a pat on the head before going back to sleep to get fleeced by the “elite”.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/03/2008 12:15:17 PM PDT · 41 of 320
    cinives to TruthConquers

    http://www.fgmr.com/morgan-enron.htm

    Read this - you will find it interesting.

    All the more reason the bailouts and obfuscations papered over by the SEC and the Fed need to stop.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/03/2008 12:14:13 PM PDT · 40 of 320
    cinives to politicket

    The only thing that will restore this world to financial sanity is if all the “mark to fantasy” notes are instead “marked to market”.

    Will we all hurt ? Yes, but it’ll be a lot worse if we don’t- The pigmen will keep their billions and the middle class will cease to exist.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/03/2008 12:11:55 PM PDT · 39 of 320
    cinives to GovernmentShrinker

    That’s what you call proof ? You think a stock price justifies the Fed using taxpayer money to “encourage” one bank to loot another to save the pigmen of Wall Street is a good thing ?

    No wonder no one cares about freedom anymore and the Republican party puts up John McCain - you all are so busy begging the Fed to bail out the perps of the scam you will accept chains for you, your children and your subsequent generations if pretty please, we can just have another up day on the DOW.

    That’s just pathetic.

  • Regulators defend Bear Stearns rescue

    04/03/2008 10:24:32 AM PDT · 4 of 12
    cinives to Toddsterpatriot

    So tell me again why we the taxpayers want to or need to protect a corrupt system ?

  • Is Limbaugh subverting a sacred trust?

    04/03/2008 10:23:16 AM PDT · 75 of 81
    cinives to Current Occupant

    You mistake Rush’s audience. They think, unlike Obama’s audience, which just “feels”.

    Rush has a higher IQ class of groupies.

  • OBAMA'S BOUNCE-BACK NOW A MERE FIVE POINTS DOWN IN PA.

    04/03/2008 9:48:39 AM PDT · 24 of 44
    cinives to COUNTrecount

    If anybody thinks the blue collar and geriatric “typical white” voters in PA will vote for Obambi and his hate-white pastor, they are grossly mistaken.

  • Ben Bernanke admits Bear Stearns was hours from collapse

    04/03/2008 9:41:33 AM PDT · 6 of 320
    cinives to TigerLikesRooster

    So he basically admitted that JPM was the next domino to fall if Bear had declared bankruptcy. And JPM has, nominally, 24T dollars worth of derivatives at stake, of which Bear was the counterparty.

    http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_02/chapmand061302.html

    This is a story that bears repeating. J. P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM-NYSE) is one of the biggest banks in the world with assets of approaching US$ 700 billion, capital of about US$ 41 billion and a market cap of US$ 71 billion. By comparison Canada’s largest bank the Royal Bank of Canada (RY-TSE, NYSE has assets of about US$ 235 billion, equity of about US$ 12 billion and a market cap of about US$ 26 billion. J.P. Morgan Chase is roughly three times the size of Canada’s largest bank.

    But there is an area where J.P. Morgan Chase dwarfs the Royal Bank. Indeed J.P. Morgan Chase dwarfs everyone in this business. The business is derivatives. In the USA J. P. Morgan Chase is over 50% of the derivatives market. According to figures from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) as at December 31, 2001 JPM had notional amounts of derivative contracts outstanding of US$ 23,520 billion or US$ 23.5 trillion. That was out of total derivatives of reporting banks of US$ 45.4 trillion. The aforementioned Royal Bank of Canada had at the end of their second quarter a notional amount outstanding of approximately US$ 1.2 trillion.