patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,209,978 comments by 14,383 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President, NewGuy online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 97 - 111 of 111 Search these comments
PermaRenter: Nobody is forcing middle class people to hold "overpriced" assets. They are free to hold physical assets or productive assets.
Peter P
2009 Feb 22, 7:52am
Nobody is forcing middle class people to hold “overpriced†assets. They are free to hold physical assets or productive assets.
Exactly. It is sad that many of my friends still think 201K is the holy grail.
>> Nobody is forcing middle class people to hold “overpriced†assets.
The Barrack Obama administration is ... otherwise they would have recognized that let the foreclosure take its courese would have been the best course. Look the government is owned by the rich ... and the middle class is desperate trying to be rich ... and politicians are feeding to this with a message of "change and hope" -- sound familiar??
The Barrack Obama admin, is simply following the destined path of Hoover. Anyone in that situation, even including you PermaRenter, has only one option left, or you will be kicked out of the office the next day, or have a bullet in your head.
Btw, as an independent thinking middle class, you are not *required* to buy house at high multiples of your salary, and you are not required to buy a house at all. You can even find ways to go along with the admin and profit from it. That is probably the only merit of the residual capitalism we have left in this country.
Most middle class, 99% of us, are destined to NOT become rich, or everyone would have become rich then "being rich" will be completely meaningless. So it is perfectly ok that the system screws the 99% of the middle class and rewards the very few who have the brains and opportunities to rise above.
The Barrack Obama admin, is simply following the destined path of Hoover. Anyone in that situation, even including you PermaRenter, has only one option left, or you will be kicked out of the office the next day, or have a bullet in your head.
Sadly I have to agree with this. He simply does not have a choice other than to make an appearance of doing something.
Peter P
2009 Feb 23, 1:09am
Obama does not even have an effective Secretary of Treasury like Andrew W. Mellon.
Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate!
justme
2009 Feb 23, 3:52am
[my browser cache was stuck and did not show the new thread]
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/806418a0-0140-11de-8f6e-000077b07658.html
Citi is trying to force the US taxpayers to convert the taxpayers ownership of preferred shares (purchased under TARP-1 in Oct/Nov) into common shares.
The motivation is obvious:
1. Citi does not want to pay back the preferred shareholders (THAT’s YOU!!) the principal, nor the interest.
2. Citi wants to convert the preferred into essentially worthless common stock
3. Citi is going to ask for another capital injection in the form of selling preferred stock to the public (US taxpayers), but not until the previous batch of has been made worthless.
JUST SAY NO !! Under TARP-1, Paulson overpaid tremendously for the preferred stock, thereby shifting the losses to the taxpayers.
justme
2009 Feb 23, 4:09am
Peter P,
What about George Bush, did he have an effective secretary of the treasury?
Peter P
2009 Feb 23, 5:37am
What about George Bush, did he have an effective secretary of the treasury?
No.
justme
2009 Feb 23, 7:10am
The media is getting completely snowed about what is the real issue with public ownership of the banks.
Right this moment some dude from Financial Times on PBS Newshour with Gwen Eiffel prattling on about how this is a question of how and whether the public will own the banks.
It is not. The real question is how much the public will pay for the ownership. The whole discussion of "nationalization" is just a smokescreen and a decoy to avoid attention on the much more important topic: How much is the public going to pay for their.
The market cap of Citi today is 11.66B. Converting the preferred shares would imply paying 45B-11.66B=33B too much.
Spread the word. The MSM is completely snowed by the "Nationalization/Socialism" angle. They need to keep their eyes on the ball, for the taxpayer.
thenuttyneutron
2009 Feb 23, 7:11am
Justme,
This is why I now support nationalization. It was far better to let them fail and just watch the train wreck from the sidelines. As a tax payer we now have a dog in this fight. I support the complete annihilation of all the shareholders, debt holders and employees of Citi bank.
I want the debt holders to be left with nothing so true market risk is brought back to the economy. This crap of saving other people by backstopping them pisses me off. I would rather face the crazy times post massive bank failure than see those people get any more of my money.
-TNN
justme
2009 Feb 23, 7:18am
TNN,
We agree. The problems is that Geithner is pulling a Paulson on us, AGAIN !!
Fight back!
Don't buy, DON'T RENT, live with relatives, save every cent!
Every time you use a credit card, you enrich your enemies.
« First « Previous Comments 97 - 111 of 111 Search these comments
Americans are enslaved and controlled when they submit to mortgage debt.
The government is not only a willing participant in this enslavement of Americans, it actively seeks to sacrifice American lives to the banks, which live on mortgage debt. All government "affordability" programs drive up prices and increase debt:
The mortgage interest deduction, which fools buyers into spending a dollar on interest to save 30 cents in taxes
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the FHA, which push the promise of enslavement onto taxpayers after the inevitable defaults
The trillion dollar bailout, which forces us to pay for our neighbor's foolish mortgage
What we need is less mortgage debt. What is the most effective way to tell the government we are not fooled? What is the most effective way to tell them we want less debt, lower prices, and no more false and harmful "affordability" programs designed to trap us in more debt?
Patrick
#housing