Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 4:14PM

@ 4:09: What a smuck you are! Of course the average american hates you types. Ocular herpes? You prep-school ninny! Ass wipe!

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 4:15PM

In all fairness, right wing nitwits legislate reality too. It's just a question of which reality you want to legislate.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 4:17PM

Yeah except these people are not the least among our people. All the money spent bailing out these idiots could be much better spent on a real social program. I'm sorry but preventing someone from the indignity of becoming a renter instead of a homeowner with a house in which they have no equity is not exactly humanitarian work.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 4:26PM

Sure wish I'd purchased a home beyond my means between '05 and mid-07.

Our government consistently rewards irresponsibility and punishes prudence. What a great system.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 4:34PM

I think with the tide back out and the electorate back towards the middle, you can start to really see how completely detached true blue conservatives are with and form of logic or reason. It's really kind of frightening that people, ostensibly smart and reasonable, are psychotic.

That being said, this plan is disgusting and I am ashamed of the Dems.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 4:37PM

Yeah, good Republicans like Bernanke and Paulson would never try to legislate reality.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 4:38PM

I couldn't have put it better than Random Banker...

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 4:40PM

@ 4:34

Very well said. I applaud your analysis and use of prose.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 4:44PM

I wonder what kind of fiscal stimulus package I'll be sponsoring (but not receiving) next year.

Too bad it's not like when you donate to a charity in Africa and get updates on how a needy individual spent the money. My guess for this year's fiscal stimulus payout - probably money well spent on an HDTV or some badass mag wheels.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 4:46PM

ep - many of the douchebag right-wingers are non-religious... and the religious wing of the party is far less damaging to America than the Romney-Giuliani tax-cuts-for-the-rich-and-endless-war crowd.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 4:59PM

right. romney isn't religious. mormons are notoriously liberal and atheistic.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 5:04PM

So many idiots on this forum...

EP's reference to aetheism had nothing to do with religeon - she was clarifying the fact that she doesn't believe in either party (Dem or Rep).

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 5:08PM

@4:59 - Romney may be religious, but he's not really a social conservative, though he tried to fake it. He was transparently changing his mind on issues like abortion to fit whatever voters wanted to hear.

The thing that Romney really, really cares about is unrestricted capitalism and tax breaks for his private equity buddies. He would have been a dream come true for the economic free-marketeers.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 5:10PM

first off-i'd like to apologize to DB and EP for the fucking retards that seem to find the message boards and post their ridiculous views with no financial background.

Point 1: If the fed didn't step in and save BSC, there would be a fucking shitstorm going down right now that would make the current crisis seem like the golden age. If BSC goes bankrupt, every other bank on the street would have so much shit dumped on the market there would be such massive writedowns on their own securities it would be a fucking domino effect no one has ever seen.

Point 2: The issue with the shitty mortgages isn't cut and dry...One side says fuck 'em all and the other one bitching about prudent homeowners getting screwed in the bailout. It's a much more complicated and screaming about your particular view on the this thread helps noone. Go fuck yourselves.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 5:12PM

I'm having a hard time understanding how ep has some real serious pe job yet finds the time to write her own blog, guest edit and write for another blog, and converse with commenters...

This liquidity crisis is really hurting the pe firms i guess, its kind of sad

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 5:15PM

Hm. So if I'm an atheist and against the war, but also agree with EP's post, then what does that make me?

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 5:17PM

@5:15 - Paultard?

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 5:22PM

i think RB and EP should get married. It would be like that alien Carville and his wife.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 5:25PM

@5:18,

The assets the Fed is taking on from BSC were selected by its advisor, BlackRock, not "cherry picked" by JPM.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 5:31PM

"Mugabe It Ain't So, It Ain't So"

JD you rule...

I like EP better than Carney i feel like the comment wars have became more interesting then most posts.

That being said, I do appreciate random Alf videos

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 5:50PM

random banker is a dick riding tree hugging liberal. instead of posting on db, the dude should be at an obama fundraiser with other trustfund kids while getting fucked in the ass by with his other fag friends

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 5:52PM

I resent people being bailed out of unsound mortgages. I own a studio apartment in Manhattan. I can't afford a one bedroom. I've tried - Oh I could if I took out an adj rate mortgage and let half my salary go to payments But I'm not stupid.

I read somewhere the average sq ft of new American houses is 2400 sq ft. My apartment is 550 sq ft. I want to buy a one bedroom at 1000 sq ft. Ok? So I can't. But now I have to pay taxes towards bailing out someone who has a huge house in Arizona, and air conditioning (I have none) and two SUVs and a new kitchen. Mine's original to the apt. ...so I'm a bit pissed off. why do I have to bail these people out?? And the Bear thing was not a bailout, it was to prevent a meltdown. Not the same thing at all...

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 5:53PM

random banker belongs in france

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 6:07PM

@Johnny Debacle Remember the color coding for Terrorism warnings??? Interesting how we don't have those anymore, they just disappeared. Threat gone? Or the fear mongering didn't work? that was bullshit. And who could remember what color meant what anyway. And what were we supposed to do about it?

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 6:22PM

@diablo - yeah...so they don't have to pay taxes...? but I do?? If this passes we should all buy stock in Citi and Merrill and Morgan...sigh. See this is a bailout...who voted for these people?

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 6:22PM

Random Banker - all of your assertions about EP are predicated on the idea that she'd turn into a socialist if things went south for her. Not only do you lack a basis for this argument (aside from pure speculation), but if this is true shouldn't EP have been the one buying up overpriced homes with overly aggressive leverage for the past 3 years?

Cayne endorsed the deal at $2, I would hardly interpret this as begging for government cheese.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 6:30PM

Random Banker, I have to say that you're being pretty overbearing, condescending, sexist, self-righteous and generally kind of a dick. Chill the eff out, dude.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 6:33PM

Random Banker you are a communist douche and unfortunately not alone.

You say "Its people like you that make the average American hate people in finance. Privatize the the gains, socialize the losses, isn't that what old Peterson taught you?"

Privatize the gains? For the 'boom' periods, all these financial companied and their employees have poured money hundreds of billions into the treasury in the form of taxes. If anything, they havent even taken back a fraction as much even if there were to be a bailout.

On the other hand - most of the deadbeat homeowners being bailed out are the absolute scum of society who are suckling on every bit of welfare (which - just to be clear - is not their own money). The contributing citizens for the 80% who have not defaulted on their loans and are paying on time. Those folks are also the ones who are paying taxes. The issue here is that the money is flowing to absolute deadbeats who have never contibuted anything nor ever will.

I come from a very middle class family where my parents stuggled in rented apartments and didnt even buy a new car until they were well into their middle ages to provide for their children. Any opportunity available to me was alse open to millions of others. Yet today if average people hate me even though I am involved in no crime and have paid more in taxes that 50 of them put together then FUCK THEM. And FUCK YOU for trying to impose your own guilt from your priveleged upbringing onto others.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 6:40PM

"But, yeah i'm pretty sure if Equity Private were starving and the government offered her food she'd take it. Can I prove it? no."

What retarded logic is that? So if EP intentionally destroyed all her food, should someone even offer here any?

And if someone opposed the PRINCIPLE of offering her food then is that person to be ridiculed because he also would take food when hungry?

And if that is so, I sure hope that you fucking donate EVERY penny of your income beyond 200 dollars a month to charity because when millions of people are dying everyday in the world without food - you have no right in hell to be saving millions for you fucking French beach-house.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 6:43PM

@Random Banker - fine if you think they're capitalists, then they should take the good with the bad. They risked it all (though what "all" I can't guess, lots of these people bought houses on no down payment basis) and part of being a capitalist is losing sometimes. Listen I buy stock (like you all I'm sure) and I'm a capitalist, but stocks go DOWN sometimes. (like most of the time lately) and you lose sometimes. So they lose their houses. Fine that's capitalism. They should lose their houses. Banks should take their houses and re-sell them to people who can pay (fixed) mortgages. the guy who invented ARMs should be shot.
But I don't think everyone in the country should bail me out on my (long) stock loses. Why should I bail out someone on their house? --studio chick

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 6:50PM

In as much as dead polar bears are floating down the Mississippi, every soccer mom and her boy-toy have 4000 sq. ft. houses and a Hummer (and a $1000/mo. heating bill) and the planet is dying and everyone thinks the government is smart enough to fix ANYTHING, I suggest we let the shit hit the fan and bail out NO one. A meltdown? Great. Sounds Darwinistic to me. The crowds with pitchforks will sort out those over a million net worth. Classic redistribution of wealth.
Wait- this isn't Craigslist? I'm looking for a five gallon bucket of 9mm x 19 with corrosion-free primers. I have a wheelbarrow of Schrottgeld I'll trade you.
My little boy and I had a beer and soda and fries in Germany last week for $20 and the assholes at the Fed gave me some scrip that wouldn't pay the bill. And while I was gone the market gained a trillion in valuation. Why? Because the Fed kept its cronies from taking a trillion dollar hit. Which they promply used to pump up the market. And did you know if the dollar drops 3%, the stockmarket will inevitably rise 3% just to maintain the same value.
Sounds like math to me. (Or like the same way we printed money after Vietnam- but without ink).
Anyone out there old enough to remember the back-to-back recessions of the 70's? Keep reading. I have 3000+ sound bites and anecdotes. While you're fuming and thinking up clever rebuttals, chaos is sneaking up behind you. And no amount of Fed or otherwise can stop this one. Shades of '29. Oh it can't happen- we're too sophisticated. Yeah- so sophisticated you can't understand your own derivitives. Or gravity. Or the seven deadly sins. Have I made myself clear? Enjoy. Schaden freude.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 7:00PM

@RB,

While not understanding an ARM doesn't make you scum, it does make you a fool if you enter into one. The mortgage on a person's primary residence is the most important financial agreement the vast majority of Americans enter into in their lives, and if they don't take the time to understand how it works or hire someone to do explain them if they can't, I can't see a good reason to bail them out if/when it resets and the bank forecloses. Likewise, nobody should have any pity for the bank when it has to take a charge if it can't sell the loan at a price high enough to recover the principal. That's capitalism.

Let's also not forget the significant portion of subprime loans that are "liar loans." Even less defensible for the borrowers an the lenders.

I have as much bad taste in my mouth over the BSC "bailout" as anyone, but only because the equity holders received any consideration at all. Sadly, paying them off was necessary to get a deal done and keep it from going BK, which may or may not have had catastrophic consequences for the U.S. (and potentially global) economy. Even though that's not a sure thing, I'd rather err on the side of caution.

As distasteful as the BSC "bailout" was, it doesn't justify bailing out people who were foolish enough to enter into a major financial contract without understanding it. Hypocritical as it may seem, the difference is the "people aren't too big to fail" point you made earlier. Given the pain felt by BSC equity holders, there's probably a minimal moral hazard from that situation - the plan from Frank et al on Capitol Hill, on the other hand, would create a massive moral hazard for anyone who entered into a mortgage in the last 2.5 yrs and would almost certainly cause long-term damage to the economy through higher interest rates (to compensate from increased risk to principal recovery should such a situation arise again) and the incremental debt / tax burden on taxpayers.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 7:12PM

@Random Banker - because I have to pay for it. I don't want to pay for those other things either. I didn't vote for this "president"...I know that the republicans are ripping off the country. That we're in a war for the Carlyle group and Haliburton (and Chaney). I get that. And I too think corn is a stupid way to make fuel - it takes more fuel to make it and grow it and refine it then we get (supposedly Sugar is better, but American farmers don't grow sugar)

So I agree with you on all those things...but seriously - what is really hard to understand about Adjustable Rate. I'm an artist, not really a numbers chick and I get it. "Oh, you mean my mortgage payments might double? guess I won't buy this 2400 sq ft mcMansion then..." See, how hard is that? So just 'cuz this country does lots of other random stupid wasteful things that I didn't vote for either (Did we get to vote for no-bid contracts and petroleum exploration subsidies? ) do we have to keep it up? Just cause the gov does stupid things does it have to keep doing them? This is a bigger boondoggle than the prescription drug thing -- It'll be "Oh, we never expected it to cost this much. Gee it's almost as much as the War, who would've thunk it???"

(though I know this is a lost cause and no point arguing with anyone on this site...this bill is going to pass...sigh)

But if this didn't pass (by some miracle) then if people lose their houses then they'll rent. and other people will buy their houses cheaper and housing prices will get normalized. And then people who have jobs and do understand what "adjustable" means, and instead ask for "fixed" will buy them. Survival of the fittest.

Besides what have they lost? Not like they actually put in a down payment most of them.

Fine if you want to bail people out, just unwind the thing and give people back their down payments. There. that's a solution. It will cost less.

I don't think the people couldn't read a contract. They just didn't care. It was speculating. Housing prices always go up. -- studio chick

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 7:14PM

government random banker:

you have some VERY serious anger issues to work out.

what are you going to do if you lose your internet connection for a few hours? try actually reading some of EPs stuff and you'll quickly find her pretty socially liberal, anti-financial engineering, anti-leverage and with a nearly puritan work ethic. well, not recently maybe, but everyone gets their pass once a year.

all that jealous-rage you have been directing even at moderates like EP turned inward would be a pretty ugly sight. pure socialism seems like what you are aiming for.

that is pretty radical stuff and tends to be the political doctrine of choice for bitter, disowned children of the rich, trust fund kids trying to anger their parents (it works) because they aren't allowed to date muffie benson-perella anymore or yale undergrads before they actually have to start paying real taxes.

how about you just relax and try to breathe pink fluid out of holes in your feet or something. either that or tell us what city you work in. i can hear the ticking if i stand too close to you and i would like to be somewhere far away when you go off and shoot up Citi's lobby.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 7:16PM

"You are not the product of manifest destiny. Any one of our lives could have been dramatically different with only slightly different turns of chance. "

Spoken true to your communist roots. All success and failure is determined by 'luck' or guided by some communal movements - the individual is just incidental.

Let me tell you what is totally fucked up in your though process. There is always tail risk in anyone's life which one cannot plan for. However, that does not mean that there iis NO risk an individual can plan for.

Yes, if there was a depression then my parents - who were working class people - would get wiped out. All the same, we lived in a lot shittier apartments (rented mind you) when others with similar levels of income were living in houses. The first new car my family had was the one I bought after my job. I was pissed as a kid because my folks would not buy a shiny new computer for me or a new TV even though I knew that they could afford it.

And carrying on, I probably pay as much for my apartment in the city as first year analysts do (as I collect from forums) and yet I earn in multiples of what they do. I may lose my job but have planned sufficiently to be able to live out at least a few months without any income.

Am I cheap? Maybe relative to others. But when these 'others' get fucked - why the fuck should they be bailed out? Look at all the storied they catalogie on CNN about 'destitute' home owners. One family was crying about money and I could see a 21 inch flat panel computer monitor in the background! One woman was crying about having to go to a food shelter for food and at 32 she had 2 kids, was divorced and with $70k in annual income has a $3k mortgage on a bog house! When I was an single analyst earning that much base without any kids or anyone to support - I was spending a third of that, and that too on RENT.

So if today that bitch is getting fucked over - how on earth is that 'just bad luck'?

The only people peddling that are communists and people like you whose life is actually a series of accidents (probably mommie and daddie had too much money to start with) and hence have no sense of pride in themselves. People like you like to attribute everyone's success (and failure) to just 'luck' and 'chance' simply because you see no input into wherever your life is at currently.

Just how many times have I heard liberals say that successful people are 'lucky' and hence should share with others? No fuckers. I do not deny that luck is also a factor - the tail risk which can strike. But tail risk - when appropriately planned for - hits just that often. The 20% of the 'homeowners' who are now being bailed out are NOT victims of tail-risk. They are victims of assuming NO risk at all. And if you are trying to somehow equate their plight with responsible people being REALLY unlucky then that says a lot about you. I can bet anything that not even 1% of all these deadbeats have faced some catastrophic illness or unexplained job loss.

And ya, fuck you.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 7:18PM

@7:00
Couldn't have said it better myself.
@RB
"why pick on the home owner who can't read a contract?"
Who's picking on them? If they didn't realize the RATE could ADJUST on their ADJUSTABLE RATE mortgage, I have no more sympathy for them than the BSC shareholders who didn't realize a highly leveraged balance sheet could lead to a liquidity crisis. In fact, let's "bail out" those homeowners just like the Fed "bailed out" BSC holders - foreclose on their house and give them 1.2% of what it was worth last year (like the BSC holder got $2 when it was worth $170 last year).

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 7:19PM

Random Banker - you have some relatively legit gripes, I'll certainly give you that much.

As far as characterizing subprime homeowners in default as innocent, confused folks who either misunderstood ARMs or experienced financial setbacks, I would tend to disagree with this, and so would the Boston Federal Reserve:

"A study from the Boston Federal Reserve destroys the myth of the victimized subprime borrower. Boston Fed economists examined 1.5 million homeownerships over nearly 20 years and found that the overwhelming reason for subprime foreclosures is not unsustainable debt foisted on ignorant borrowers or even financial setbacks. People walk out on subprime mortgages when the value of their home declines."

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 7:21PM

@Random Banker - fine. Retards belong in a home, not owning one.

Why do you want to protect people from themselves? How will they ever learn?

And why should I have to pay for the retards to live in a 2400 sq ft house??? when I live in a 550 sq ft studio?

I don't want to protect people from themselves. But since you do -- let's make a new rule, those who feel as you do get to pay twice as much in taxes..you can even get pictures and letters from the people your largesse is going to. They'll send you photos from their backyard cook outs so you can see how happy your helping them to stay in their home makes them.

I will subsidize people who need help (like starving children in Africa) but clearly someone who bought a $680,000 house in Arizona on an $80,000 income, doesn't deserve to be subsidized by me. You can though. So let's make it voluntary.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 7:36PM

@7:18, 7:00 here.
1) Thanks.
2) Love the bailout plan. The question now is "Where can I find enough $2 bills to tape them to every house / condo in FL, CA, AZ, NV, etc?" Whatever the answer is, I'm now long $2 bills.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 7:37PM

the fact that random banker is typing on a internet connected device reminds us that he was born with seats in the stadium just as nice as the rest of us. i think he summed it up nicely for us. he knows whats good for you. he will protect you from yourself. his genius is so beyond that of the rest of the world, the hive mind of the market and any other intelligence that his benevolent hand will guide us from the darkness to the light. the largest growth in wealth, progress and technological innovation the human race has known, sustained over the last three generations is a fluke and in danger of collapse. his little green book will lay down the precepts that we will live by.

we better be careful and do what he says, or the national razor might trim our little heads right off.

HE will decide if we manufacture salsa, or oven mitts this month. he knows best.

no more troublesome decisions or responsibility for us. how easy it will now be! mcmansions for everyone (to the extent the tax base can build enough, but if there's a shortage it is because of the lazy among you)!

all hail random banker!

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 7:38PM

"Alas, the very concept of bankruptcy by your metric could be deemed "socialist" after all it is the government intervening in the market. And yet we have learned that such intervention can create more value than it destroys. "

Socialism has so completely fucked up your head that I doubt you even know what you are talking about other that calling others names and wishing diseases on them.

Bankruptcy imposes SEVERE penalties upon the bankrupt in exchange of reduced liabilities. That is not a moral hazard. Yes, the liberal version of bankruptcy is totally hazardous because there you get to keep all your assets and the lenders get screwed.

And for the love of god THESE FUCKING DEADBEATS ARE NOT HOMEOWNERS! They dont own a NEGATIVE part of that home. The investors own the home. Someone communists has to please please fucking tell me why these people should not be asked to simply rent an apartment and use the money that now will 'supposedly' flow into the FHA in form of mortgage payments towards rent payments instead? Why do they need to have ownership rights?

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 7:40PM

7:37, you could have just summarized it by saying that he is the typical elitist liberal democrat.

And what riled him up terribly in the first place was EP's mention of the Democratic Party. Hit home too hard for him.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 7:41PM

@Random Banker - I looked it up -- "national razor"- the guillotine. You think people who lose their houses will start cutting people's heads off? So what is this, saving idiots from themselves means we can sleep well at night because they won't come and kill us? A bribe?

Look - I think if the government was going to do a good job at anything - "helping the people" as it were, it should have helped the people who really needed (and still do need) help..like Katrina victims. Who were really poor, who really lost their homes.

Why are we choosing to help the "retards" rather than helping the people in New Orleans - there are people down there STILL LIVING in Fema trailers -- after all this time. Help them. That makes sense. Not this.

Your "Retards" can JUST MOVE. It's not like a hurricane is taking away everything they own. They can get foreclosed and then MOVE into a rental apartment. I've lived in rented apartments and lived to talk about it. And SAVED up for a down payment. Really, it can be done. And I bought a studio because that's what I could afford!

You're acting like losing a house you can't afford to pay for is a huge calamity. It's really not. It's life.

What happened in New Orleans was a huge calamity and still is. -- studio girl

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 7:41PM

Jesus. I take a nice spin up to Napa for the day and I come back to a shit storm.

-NSD

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 7:48PM

7:37, you could have just summarized it by saying that he is the typical elitist liberal democrat.

--

whats the fun in that? actually, i think he is a bit worse because hes convinced hes a market economy guy. like one of those chicks who thinks shes not high maintenance, but really is. hes not as charming as meg ryan though.

also, to come out with something as obscure as ocular herpes suggests he has some experience with the virus. perhaps this is the source of his bitterness.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 8:58PM

RB, I love the fact that somebody who spends (wastes?) as much time as you do posting on DB has developed the skills to be such a great armchair Fed Chairman. You can view the Fed's actions through the narrow lens of partisan politics and insist that a "bailout" of BSC without a matching bailout of the speculative branch of the American home-buying public is "unfair" (boohoo) or you can take the Fed chairman at his word and accept the fact that he took these actions to prevent a meltdown of the financial system. If you want to debate whether he was correct in assuming that the BSC actions were necessary, fine. But please don't deny that all participants in the economy benefit from an averted financial disaster. The Fed's actions with respect to BSC make me a little queasy too, but I doubt I would have come up with a better solution with the gun to my head over that particular weekend (and given your intense DB posting schedule, I doubt you would have had time to craft a better solution either).

Publius

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 9:08PM

@publius, I'm thinking RB is actually retired. This is his hobby. and he lives somewhere far away.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 9:37PM

I don't mind human decency - just make it voluntary. If you want to be decent - do so. It's called charity. But those of us not born with silver spoons, who worked like hell to get any place at all, don't want our hard earned cash to be taken out of our pockets and handed over to your "retards" .

You go right ahead, just don't make me be decent to the morons who bought a house twice as expensive as they could afford.

Really, it's not a tragedy for them to rent. Seriously, you're acting like it's the worst thing in the world. They're not going to be homeless and on the street. They'll get a crummy or even good apartment somewhere. they'll stop feeling entitled to a middle class or upper middle class lifestyle they haven't EARNED. like the rest of us who have to work for a living.

Don't make me pay for their excesses in the name of human decency.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 10:12PM

Random Banker has some awesome logic.

He says you should be 'nice to your neighbors' not matter how fucking retarded they may be. He almost puts it as a voluntary effort.

Then he scares everyone saying if those retards are not helped soon then they will (by sheer force of number) come and kill the responsible ones.

In other words - pure undiluted socialism. If all liberals were to seriously believe in 'helping out' these homeowners then they would open up their own pockets and help them out! If Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, the silicon valley socialists, trial lawyers and hollywood came together and created a homeowner rescue fund - it would be WAY bigger than anything the govt is currently envisaging. Then why dont they?

Because they dont want to. They want to see the impose their own will on others. They want to achieve their own misplaced sense of moral superiority on the backs of others. Fucking moochers - thats what they are.

And in classic socialist style they threaten violence by the masses if such blackmail is not attended to - just like the Russian Revolution, Chinese Revolution, Cambodian Revolution or any other such communist revolution started.

Listen fucker - at least fess up to the truth - the fact that you are a communist. Dont worry, you are not alone. You fucking liberals work on two tracks. One is that of elitist fucks like you who have somehow been born into riches or accidentally made your way into it (actors, singers, 25 year old software billionaires) and hence you do not value hard work, sacrifices, saving and investing in yourselves and your families one bit. You similarly assume that any other successful person must have achieved everything in a similar undeserving fashion. And unfortunately, you dishonestly or delusionally actually even think that you are NOT communists.

And the other liberal fucks are these deadbeats - the ones who screw and produce 5 illegitimate children and have not earned one honest day's living in their lives - forever living on welfare. Those criminals provide the other 'mob' that you elitist fucks use to shake down other hardworking people.

So fess up. And join the class warfare openly. Dont mouth platitudes about the free markets and individual freedom and liberty that you TOTALLY dont believe in.

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 10:51PM

well said sir

Posted by guest , Apr 03, 2008 11:45PM

Random Banker -- I'm not sure I follow all of your logic, or share all of your political views, but you provide valuable commentary. Don't listen to those who are so inexplicably hostile.

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 12:14AM

RB is my hero.

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 12:19AM

It took you over 7 hours to finally come out of the closet but at least now you have given the class warfare speech. Stalin, Lenin and Marx would be proud of you.

It is communist philosphy to attribute everything to luck or chance and nothing to individual effort / capability / talent / harwork. Which is why it kind of makes sense that they want to average out everyone's income to the same level.

So are you implying that ALL people are equal. Leave aside comparing a school dropount with a Harvard grad - but all the incoming analysts at BBs every year are the same and there aren't 5% stars and 10% dopes amongst them? Of all the people who passed out of HLS last year - the top 10% are not different from the bottom 10%?

That is the most fundamental flaw with communism (and hence your thinking) where you refuse to give credit to individuals for being unique. And that is what terminates all communist societies - the fact that when you try to reward all people equally - the productive get pissed and work less and the unproductive become even more unproductive as they realize higher productivity wont pay more. And then the society implodes. I do not know how many more REAL incident are required before people get the point.

Also, you clearly like communists somehow are unable to dissociate physical labor involved from payout. The reason a truck driver earns what he does is because there aremore than a billion people in this world who possess the skills to perform his dumb fucking job for way less. And he will actually not even stand a chance outside this country to earn a fraction.

And a Wall Street analyst can command the same compensation in at least 50 other countries. Yes - from your perspective it is just linking formulae in excel sheets. But if it is so dumb fucking simple, then why are a billion other people not doing it?

Also, even within this mind numbing job - it is not exactly the analysts who are raking it in. Kravis and Schwarzman were also analysts along with a 1000 others at some time. Yet they ended up with a 1000 times as much as most of the others. And both came from middle class families to start with. Jimmy Cayne was a fucking scrap salesman. He went from there to be worth over a billion over the next 35 years and then came down to 15 million. If it was all so stupid and simple, why did other scrap salesman not make as much?

If someone's skill education levels are low then he deserves the lifestyle he gets! If you cannot feed yourself then why the hell would you go and have 3 kids to perpetuate your misery and poverty? Isnt there also a correlation here? Well to do parents have fewer kids and devote their resources to them whereas the unskilled have a dozen without any means of taking care of them. Why should such irresponsible breeders not be called deadbeats and criminals?

And finally, 'poor' people are not being called deadbeats. For all the fake croc tears you shed - even the poorest of the poor in this country are better of by multiple orders of magnitude than 80% of humanity. If human suffering were to be the only thing we were to care about, then these people are at the end of a VERY VERY long line of individuals deserving charity.

And if liberal hearts bleed so much, why do they not go out and help these people? I am sure that hollywood, silicon valley, trial lawyers lobby, warrent buffet, bill gates and bill gross combined are sitting on MASSIVE wealth - probably more than the GDP of hundreds of countries combines. What are they and other liberals whose heart is so moved by the plight of hard working people doing for these folks? How much money have you donated to ACORN or some such organization? And if you are stashing cash for your French beach house , how do you even have the gall to demand that other people - many with probably fewer resources - contribute more? If more than 50% people are liberals and they want to help these people out - WHO THE FUCK IS STOPPING THEM FROM DOING SO?

And finally, it is not as if their babies are being taken away for their organs to be harvested or these people are being deprived of their personal wealth. THEY ARE BEING ASKED TO MOVE OUT OF A HOUSE THAT THEY DO NOT OWN AND START RENTING? Why on earth is that catastrophic?

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 12:36AM

I'd like to propose a general policy: in all political debates, the first person to call their opponent a Nazi, communist, terrorist (basically anyone we have fought a war against) automatically concedes the argument.

Agreed?

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 1:37AM

12:36 - it's called Godwin's Law.

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 1:40AM

"We still have space up here. And don't forget about the health care system!"

--the usual guy from western Canada

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 2:05AM

First off, states in this country spend upwards of $10,000 on kids (based on taxes paid by the aforementioned hard working people). And yet, poor Asian kids with 1/50 the investment and worse living conditions hand these over-privileged 'poor' kids their asses in educational achievement. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the cost of failure there is ridiculously high and here you can be a lousy deadbeat and still claim free healthcare, unemployment insurance, free homes and what not. Thank god for some conservatives in this country that it has not gone the way of France where it is actually more profitable to NOT work than to work in many instances (and when NYT points that out, that is worth something.)

And your privileged elitist liberal upbringing may not have exposed you to real hard-working people and hence you build up your notions of them but coming from a very weak background I have seen kids go everywhere - from being very successful to being utter deadbeats - all starting from similar economic backgrounds and educational backgrounds. There are still hardworking people - actually a majority of them - who took out mortgages on homes they could afford, who are still paying on time and who live within their means and save for their futures. However, you reflexively do not stand for them, you stand for the deadbeats - because those are the ones bawling the loudest in this situation. And all the while the REAL hard working people are silently paying off their bills.

I do not think that you deny the fact that people ARE born with unequal attributes (you were the one who brough up sub-100 IQs). Hence, based on skills people WILL be disproportionately rewarded. I see people having no isses with Tiger Woods, Shaq and 50 cent raking in hundreds of millions while thousands of athletes and musicians live in abject poverty. 'Talent' we are told.

However, when Schwarzman - a very middle class Jewish kid like millions of others makes his billions - he is somehow s sinner, a criminal, a fraud and every other thing you can imagine. So whereas difference in physical skill (resulting in higher reward) is most natural, difference in mental skill (and converting that into rewards) is somehow immoral and more importantly - impossible. You thought process is that given a chance - everyone's mental abilities would be the same. Wierd is the least I can say.

You are no more a patriot than the Nazi socialists, the bolsheviks or Fidel Castro were for their countries. I mean serious - you should go read up Castro's speeches (unless you are already quoting from them). EXACT SAME THOUGHTS, there is not an ounce of originality in your thoughts. Some good it did to his country! Hey, maybe do not have access to ANYHTHING thay the rest of the world has but at least the lack of access is equal (well, maybe not but forget it for now).

And leave everything aside - maybe I am the real scum, teh greedy capitalist who would feed all poor people's babies into a power plant (as you just suggested I probably should). But then you my friend are the elitist liberal whose heart bleeds for the working man. What the fuck have you or your brethren done from your own pockets for these people?

Oh wait. YOU don not want to do something. You want to take MY money to do something about it - isnt it. I mean seriously - if you and all Democrats (as I believe you people are already in majority) were to go out and help these poor people out I would not even utter a single word. Noble thoughts, noble deeds.

But the question is - why do you not? Why to take my blood-stained illegal money at the threat of putting me into jail if I do not pay to help people YOU think are not deadbeats? You have ANY answer?

And why should a child born in Africa who will die for lack of any water to drink not be helped before a deadbeat who wants to stay in a 200sp ft house?

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 2:38AM

I find it funny that whereas the elite liberals will call the 'right-wingers' nitwits, knuckle draggers and what not - when it comes to their pet schemes they go after the very same nitwits and knuckle draggers for all the money!

Oh and EP, being religious has nothing to do with being right wing. After the events of the past month, I do not see how the right wing can claim exclusive rights to religious and racial bigotry.

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 3:22AM

I already pay the 'toiling deadbeats' for whenever they toil. I pay for all the goods and services that I consume. And I also pay a disproportionate share of all the common infrastructure that I and the deadbeats share - if aything they utilize it more than me, be it public transportation, public schools, public hospitals, welfare whatever.

And the 'free rider' issue arises when lets say you pay for a common bridge which I also may end up utilizing. However in this case - your giving is not towards any common cause, it is towards specific individuals. Extreaneous individuals cannot partake of your generosity hence the 'free-rider' hazard is the flimsiest excuse you and other liberals can hide your hide their lack of spontaneous charitable giving behind.

The point here is spending EVEN more and literally giving them money in their hands for no work done simply because they are deadbeats. Given that that is YOUR belief - giving people money for no work - I think it is but fair that you and people like you shell it out.

Also, the question was why YOU do not give more money. I see that you have neatly sidestepped that question.

And if you hate the unequal and hearltess capitalist society so much, why dont you move to Cuba? They have perfect equality out there which gets all you liberals wet. At the very least when you are standing in que waiting for the equal ration of govt provided food or queing up to 'rent' tools from the govt to work on a communal farm you will feel elated knowing that you are living in suck an egalitarian, progressive and 'equal' society!

They also have universal 'free' healthcare!

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 3:30AM

And I see that you are prone to daydreaming too!

See, if the policies you espouse were to be actually implemented then anyone's income above $1MM would have to be taxed @ 90% or more. Otherwise there is no way you can pay for social security, medicare, universal free healthcare, mortgages, universal free schooling (@100k per student as clearly 15k is not doing shit) and college, roads, bridges, museums, parks whatever.

I would love to know how people can plow back those kinds of retained earnings into a big fortune. But then again - maybe we will have full blown communism by then and your plan is to be an inner committee member of the party. And as we all know - those dudes have SWEET lifestlyes.

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 7:38AM

to quote a comment from a much earlier post, "petulant child"

but good for you, get your vacation on, girl.

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 7:40AM

EP -- Sausage making is a bi-partisan effort: always has been, always will be. Your post would have been more honest (and no less funny) had you just replaced the last line with

"Welcome to Congress, my son."

No political party has a monopoly on such behavior. And if you do not think that Congress can "legislate reality," as you put it, you have not been observing carefully.

I like my finance humor non-partisan. After all, the color of the money in my wallet is green whether the Democrats or the Republicans control the government. And the color of money is what the DealBreaker readers really care about, isn't it?

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 8:58AM

@RB - I grew up without the benefits you speak of. I'm in sales in NYC in a highly competitive industry. There are 6 other sales people in my office, all guys. I'm the only girl. They tried to get other girls but they all washed out (and my company gives everyone the longest chances to succeed ever) I am 5 x more successful than any of the other sales people - they all went to college, they all "look the part" but they're all "order takers" they sit on their butts and work with the orders. I go out there and meet people. I'm out of the office 70% of the time. They're in the office 90% of the time. They had the great education, I had a mentor. My mentor told me no one is going to hand me anything in this life, I have to work for it.

I grew up in the inner city. I got married young and was eligible for food stamps for a while. (tho didn't take them) I got divorced and then worked my butt off ever since. Do you know what is the difference between me and the 6 guys in my office - I work harder and smarter. I'm not in the league of the people on this site money-wise, but I do make more money than I thought possible for my life with my background and my prior low expectations for myself.

The point is lots of people would rather drive a truck (my ex-husband did) and watch TV and shoot pool and have a low key life than work their asses off. My husband used to bounce checks. Since I've been divorced never have I bounced a check.

And I don't feel like I should donate my money to the cause of people with big screen TVs who drink beer and who wanted the big houses for their egos. (in the midwest they engage in competitive home decorating, and who has the biggest house -- I'm sure it's worse in CA). I know those people. Not everyone can be looked at thru rose colored glasses of the blue collar workers. You act like they're all saints and you act like everyone well off got there from luck. I came to NYC only 10 years ago. I came with nothing. It wasn't luck it was hard work that I got this far.

I know a quant at a hedge fund. He came from a very lower middle class blue collar background. He worked his ass off, got into college, worked thru college and still does. He does very well, but it wasn't luck. He works hard (and likes math - how many people in America today are willing to do math? )

I have a friend who's a teacher in the Bronx - middle school. She teaches math and the struggle is to get kids even to pay attention in school. She's a great teacher and I'm going to try and help her inspire the kids; me and some of my friends, because math is important. But someone here pointed out that people in other countries come to school already inspired. It's very sad that this great teacher has to struggle to get kids to pay attention in class, or to do the work or to think it's important. It's because their parents don't care. And our culture (their culture) doesn't care. That's the biggest problem - thug culture says it's not cool to be in school and to study. Be a rap star instead. Besides studying is hard work. People (in my office) and kids don't want to do it. It's human nature. People are lazy. It's not lack of opportunity. Seriously, if you try and hire people today (at entry level or mid-level) lots of times it's hard to find people who want to work. In my office people surf the web rather than do their jobs. And we're all on commission!!! idiots. I should help them out with my hard earned income (long time ago my boss suggested pooling commissions..I told him I'd quit)

I think a lot of people here who are making it, are hard workers. I can tell the difference when I meet them - people willing to put in the time and pay their dues and learn things on their own are rewarded here. But it isn't luck. And lots of people in NYC were not born well to do. So don't ascribe it to luck. You don't know what you're talking about. Or you've only met the well-to-do and live in an ivory tower. What about all the immigrants - I work in Wall St too - the immigrants are kicking America's ass. People from India and China are doing great here. Because THEY WORK.

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 9:16AM

8:58, I totally see where you come from because I come from a similar background. But the point is that elitist liberals like Random Banker dont because it is most probably their parents or grandparents who did this grind. They were born into money, daddy got them into an Ivy and then got them an internship leading to a job - hence they think that everyone else who achieves something is similarly undeserving. Recall the guy who recently made a Michael Moorish film about the follies of the rich. The guy was born a billionaire and never earned a penny - his ancestors actually but together that fortune by toiling hard, something that such numbnuts will never realize.

I also have no issues with them thinking anything - neither do I have any issues with them giving away their money to help someone who in their view may be 'unlucky.' Its freedom of any individual to do whatever they wish to do. However the problem is that they want me to ALSO think the same as them AND pay out of my pocket irrespective of whether I believe in the same or not. So I am NOT allowed to hold my views (which I am not imposing on anyone) at the threat of jail!

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 10:15AM

"THAT is my point. What separates the hard working guy who makes it and the one that does not, is often luck."

But the fundamental issue here is that not all people are hard working / talented and yet expect everything! You have completely changed the basic premise to something wierd. Violence is bad - ya fine agreed. Hence we should not fight terrorists?

Also success is a combination of talent, hard work and luck. And hard work DOES NOT MEAN extent of physical labor (as you are so fond of assuming) - it means level of effort and optimum usage of available resources.

The valid comparison of the Indian guy kicking ass in medical school is with the thousands of others who went to public school with him and yet are on their way to the welfare rolls. Why should this guy be penalized for the failure of others?

Similarly the entire incoming batch of IB analysts is hard working. But the ones who go on to become the Schwarzmanns and Kravis' do so simply because it was 'dumb luck' and nothing else?

In my earlier job in an a financial analyst at a Fortune 500, I used to work 8-6. I had a roomate who worked at some local trucking logistics company and he and his friends considered my job to be hellish and said there was no way that company was going to attact people if it made them work so hard! I actually moved (after a huge amount of effort) into a bank where I work twice as long much and earn 5 times as much and those guys are still at their 10-4 jobs with an hour long lunch break. They were actually from richer families than I was. So my earning more than them is 'dumb luck'?

And what is your solution to all this? that given that all outcomes are anyway random (and as per you EVERYONE is a hard worker) wealth should be perfectly redistributed between all people to reflect the random nature of its collection in the first place?

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 10:49AM

I dont think akk of Random Banker could be classified any better anywhere

"http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/02/10/62-knowing-whats-best-for-poor-people/"

"....It is a poorly guarded secret that, deep down, white people believe if given money and education that all poor people would be EXACTLY like them. In fact, the only reason that poor people make the choices they do is because they have not been given the means to make the right choices and care about the right things....."

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 11:27AM

Random Banker, I suppose it was a revelation to you (no doubt while reclining stoned in your dorm room between beer busts) that not everybody in this country starts with the same educational opportunities or family support. But to many of us, that's not news because we lived it. And yet we used what talent we had to soldier on and work for a better future.

We aren't denying that there is some variability in the opportunities presented to people as they come out of the gate in life. The debate is over what to do about that. Should we replace a system of arbitrary starting points with an even more arbitrary system in which a central government redistributes wealth according to which element of the mob is whining the loudest at the moment?

Your problem is that you actually believe that every injustice can be corrected by government action. But remember that government confiscation of property is itself an act of great injustice. It should only be undertaken if we are quite sure that the justice it delivers outweighs the injustice of the confiscation. I think it is an immense stretch to say that helping faux-owners stay in their homes as opposed to becoming renters is a manifestation of that sort of countervailing justice.

So rather than referring to us as somehow lower than monkeys, please understand that we are all aware that not everyone starts with equal opportunities. We just happen to believe that this system of ours, though flawed, is still the best way to sort things out. I would rather compete hard (yes, even starting at a disadvantage) in a system where I know the rules than live in a society where angst-ridden trust fund liberals busily make plans to redistribute whatever wealth I manage to acquire.

Publius

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 12:10PM

random banker is a typical self loathing barking minature poodle.

guess what random banker? 2% of the population of this nation pays 98% of the taxes, and receives back 2% of the benefits.

so save the rich guy socialism crap for a bunch a of self loathing college kids.

now even though i'm a rich guy, i hate people of privilege more than anyone, including you.

but the reality is that ~3.5mm new millionaires were created in this nation in the last 7 years.

by defintion, those people weren't born rich, so aren't deserving you indignation, asshole.

pick on their kids if you wish. you seem like a bully so it's right up your alley, so to speak.

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 12:18PM

random banker seems to lack a fundamental understanding of randomness.

there are tens if not hundreds of thousands of men all over the world who would be better better baseball players than say alex rodriguez if they played baseball.

so what the fuck does that have to do with some street vendor in calcutta?

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 12:28PM

Also in my experience, almost all the Chinese and Indian immigrants who come into this country - mind you mostly from impoverished backgrounds as compared to American standards - follow only one income path - upwards.

Given Random Banker's random 'dumb luck' success hypothesis, we should have seen many of these people fail and become poorer than what they were when they came into the country. But surprisingly almost ALL of them significantly improve upon their economic status. I find it hard to attribute such steady progress to 'dumb luck.'

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 4:27PM

Random Banker -- I disagree with a lot of what you say, but must admit you make some very interesting points.

That said, it's not fair for you to reach a conclusion, based on some posters' responses, that conservatives as a whole are dumb. I'm sure that if I were to go trolling on some liberal forum, I'd likely boil the blood of some of the lesser intellectually endowed liberals.

Posted by guest , Apr 04, 2008 9:12PM

I wish there was instead of Republicans and Democrats/ Liberals and Conservatives -- that there was the "Common Sense" party.

I can't be a Republican - even though I'm for fiscal responsibility (but they're not these days with the 3 trillion dollar war) (used to be) because I believe that gay people should be able to get married if they want and I'm pro-choice.

I can't be a Democrat anymore - because both Obama and Hillary want to raise taxes to silly levels. And their other economic plans (like this one to help 70K a year people stay in a 3,000 monthly mortgage payment home) or get rid of Nafta.

Why can't there be a party that makes sense? Low taxes, small government. Not go to war for oil...let people alone to decide their moral fate if they want...

I want to elect people who believe in evolution, for cripes sakes....

And who won't make me buy a big house for stupid people....sigh...

This new benefit for home owners is going to pass. And the country as a whole will be poorer for it. And we can blame the American people who elected this bunch of bozos.
Bread and circuses...

Posted by guest , Apr 05, 2008 12:49PM

@ 9:12

So how long have you been letting the editorial board of The Economist do your thinking for you?

Seriously, you posture as though your "plague on both your houses" mentality is so much more sophisticated and intelligent than the standard right & left policy dichotomy, but in reality you simply represent the median views of your age & socioeconomic cohort.

Things will go better for you once you realize that vilifying people who disagree with you is a universal cognitive bias that only clouds your thinking.

Posted by guest , Apr 06, 2008 10:56AM

how come the bear/holocaust post is not the top ranked post?

Posted by guest , Apr 06, 2008 11:40AM

@12:49 ...I do read the Economist. And what do you think my age and Socioeconomic cohort is? Just curious.

Posted by guest , Apr 06, 2008 9:04PM

@12:49,

Nowhere did 9:12 'vilify' the people who disagree with him/her. In the political philosophy quadrangle - he/she clearly pointed out that the libertarian-leaning side is the one he/she leans towards.

And the biggest issue I have with the democratic party is that it (at least at the campaign stage) no longer reflects left-of center or classical liberal philosophy. It has taken a massve swing towards big-govt statism, opposing the very free ecomomic and free trade principles that are the bedrock of classical liberalism.

What 9:12 has stated is what most reasonable educated productive working professionals would expect. Time and again I have arguments with my peers (urban, late 20's, high income / upwardly mobile) about why they will never vote Republican. It always comes down to their view of the Republican Party as that of racist, religious nut jobs (and not without reason). However, on delving deeper it is very clear that their economic beliefs are way mroe aligned with those of the Republican party than those of the Democratic party (which is the combination that 9:12 refers to above).

However, justifiably or not so - they tend to give more weightage to the social platforms, and hence their leanings. Similarly, I have seen immigrant Chinese and Indian professionals lean 80/20 towards Democrats. Which belies basic logic because the only reason these highly paid professionals are here and have jobs is because the system was desgined for and to cater to the interests of Republican big-business. Democratic principles would shut down the entire worker-visa business for highly qualified people to 'protect jobs' here and 'stop the free fall in salaries.' Ideally, you would have seen them leaning strongly Republican.

Yet the perception of Republicans being racist does that in. Which overall is ironic.

Posted by guest , Apr 08, 2008 6:43PM

@:9:04, yes, exactly. Thank you.

I would have voted for Rudy. He's clearly socially liberal and at the same time fiscally responsible. But everyone I talk to in NY hates him, due to his law and order stance. Too late anyway, he ran a brain dead campaign, sigh.

But now I have to vote for John McCain but I don't want to because of the perceptions the Republican party. I think my friends will disown me if I vote Republican. I might disown me. But both dem's are terrible choices right now....sigh.

Posted by guest , Apr 09, 2008 7:24PM

To Random Banker - I found this on "Long or Short Capital" BlogBarney Frank is The Mass Mugabe
by Mr Juggles
Politicians are generally great at what they do. We know that. It’s a group that self-selects for blowhards and megalomaniacs with a thorough understanding of Zimbabwenomics. And certainly, Massachusetts politicians typify these tendencies. But even by the Mugabian standards of politics, things are getting out of control (in a good way).

[Barney] Frank’s idea is that, for mortgages originated between the start of 2005 and mid-2007, a lender and borrower would be able to agree on a federal refinancing plan. Lenders would have to write down their loan to no more than 85% of the current appraised value of the property – which means the banks will use this opportunity to unload the biggest stinkers in their loan portfolios.

For the borrower, the deal is even sweeter: a low fixed monthly payment and a reduction in the principal to market value. The Federal Housing Administration would then guarantee the loan, up to a total of $300 billion in total Frank Refis. The deal is so sweet that even Mr. Frank is concerned that otherwise reliable borrowers may “purposely default” to be eligible for assistance.

Just to be clear, what Mr. Frank is proposing is to bail out anyone who took risk on a house they couldn’t afford. Many of these people will have, smartly, put little to no money down to take that risk and benefit from the potential upside were the house to appreciate. How is he planning to finance this proposal? Taxes, of course. So those who dumbly did not take risks with large potential upside will now pay those who did. This is an extremely Mugabe efficient proposal and will be a resounding success with no downside.

Recommendation: Long excessive risk-taking, just make sure to do it in a group large enough to form a voting bloc. Also, I have found that Zimbabwenomics is much funnier when it is not happening in my country.

Posted by guest , Apr 09, 2008 10:49PM

Forget it 7:24. The poor stupid people are incapable of thinking all this up, as per Random Banker - hence this scenario is not possible. The do not get it, you cannot incentivize them. But mind you - they are equal, but sort of stupid.

Stupid but equal, the verion of 'Separate, but equal' and 'All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.'