Comments



  • Mike, I am not blaming only Democrats, they had plenty of help from Republicans.  The Fed also did much to create this fur ball.  I am disgusted with every politician in Washington and especially Bush 43.    
    The primary function of the government (and the Fed) is to maintain a sound currency so that business can make the normal daily adjustments that produces a relatively stable economy.  A whipsaw currency creates chaos. This combined with the asinine policy of making housing affordable and the government backing/rating mortgage back securities created the opportunity for Wall Street to throw a big unregulated party.
    Now the politicians are having a feeding frenzy over the so-called stimulus package. Like most addicts I guess we have to hit bottom before we can start the long road to recovery.

    January 17, 2009 at 8:09 p.m.

  • Mike,
     You understood what the CEO of B of A  said in the interview as being truthful, however, now it appears he was not truthful about his answers.

     That was my my point.

    January 17, 2009 at 3:12 p.m.

  • Believe it or not rollinstone I am staying open-minded on this issue....In fact I just finished reading an article "Why 'Stimulus will not work" by Louis R. Woodhill because this current predicament we are in,intrigues me.
    BTW the affordable housing and home ownership are the titles the democrats and Republicans chose in labeling their own  plans.....But the credit default swap,speculation legislation,and Wall Street schemes are products of the free market left unfettered.

    January 17, 2009 at 11:57 a.m.


  • I think this all demonstrates what a tar-baby has been created by the government trying to make housing "affordable."  It's hard to tell when, how or if we will ever work our way out of this mess.

    January 17, 2009 at 11:49 a.m.

  • Legion
    I was only providing a little extra information on the subject(60 Minute segment) not buying the concept lock ,stock. and barrel.
    I provided the source to prove I was not lying.

    January 17, 2009 at 10:23 a.m.

  • "According to a 60 Minutes segment BOA was forced to take stimulus money because that way all the majors would be involved and for example if Wells Fargo took 25 billion and it was known that BOA was solvent and did not need money,the general public would pull their money out of WF and put in in BOA....."

     Ok, that might have worked THEN, since then there was a additional 10B, put in to Morgan Stanly, so B of A could acquire them, then a additional 20B since then.

     Come on now if they did not need the bailout to begin with since they where solvent, then why oh why did  B of A  ( the solvent bank) need 10B to take over a investment firm and now another 20B?

     So ok, a solvent bank, only needs 45B in bailout money, gee that says alot.

    January 16, 2009 at 7:24 p.m.

  • I can't argue with that but the CEO of BOA swore to it.
    Before some of my enemies think I lied ,here is my resource.
    The largest of the banks is Bank of America (B of A) - now partly owned by the United States of America.

    The head of Bank of America, Ken Lewis, says that when he and the others met at the Treasury Department, it became clear that Secretary Paulson's "offer" was an ultimatum - no negotiations.

    "In other words, take it or leave it?" correspondent Lesley Stahl asked.

    "Right. Right, right."

    "It’s said that he told the bankers and you, "This is your patriotic duty," Stahl said.

    "I don’t remember if he used the word, but there was an element to that," Lewis said, "that this was the right thing for the American financial system, and therefore it was the right thing for America
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/1...

    January 16, 2009 at 6:29 p.m.

  • ABC world news tonight, Bank of America reports a 2.9 billion dollar loss in the 4th quarter right after a additional $20 billion bail out.
     CITI bank 6.9 billion loss.

     Ok now where in the world, no universe is it going to stop?

     I am sure they will ask for more, and Mike your point that B of A had to take the bailout money DOES NOT hold water now. The "they had to or Wells Fargo would lose customers" argument  is false now, a good excuse at the time that has now been proven wrong by B of A 's own actions.

    January 16, 2009 at 5:57 p.m.

  • It is not my intention to argue either and this will never happen. The government will not allow people that much control. It would be the relinquishment of too much power. If people could actually see the money before the government takes it they would revolt once it began being deducted again. Most people live for that “tax refund” every year and some, maybe most, I don’t know actually think they are getting money from the government not realizing they are only getting back some of the money they loaned the government interest free for the year. Either that or it is the closest thing to saving they can muster. Then they run out and spend it. I also don’t mean to sound condescending but I talk to too many people that live this way.

    January 15, 2009 at 10:09 p.m.

  • How much does it cost to put a zero in the slot where they usually deduct federal payroll taxes?

    January 15, 2009 at 8:53 p.m.


  • The bailout of the banks is done under the assumption that if they don't the whole economy will collapse - that's what they say.   Collapsing banks is a way to rapidly turn a recession into a depression.  But I will admit we are seeing some real bottom feeders here rising to the surface to feed off the public as disgusting as that is.
    I'm all for eliminating payroll taxes I think it is an abomination to tax employment.   As far as entitlements, look up the projections for future deficits.  Entitlements overwhelm the federal budget by 2030 or sooner - then what ?  We are leaving a terrible mess for our children and grand children to cleanup. 

    January 15, 2009 at 7:45 p.m.

  • dobama ,I am not trying to be argumentative but wouldn't that put the cost on the employer?..Software adjustment before and after,tech guys etc.

    January 15, 2009 at 7:06 p.m.

  • According to a 60 Minutes segment BOA was forced to take stimulus money because that way all the majors would be involved and for example if Wells Fargo took 25 billion and it was known that BOA was solvent and did not need money,the general public would pull their money out of WF and put in in BOA.....

    January 15, 2009 at 6:57 p.m.

  • all these give aways have the potential to become entitlements.
    I don't think so,well I hope not because we still have to tackle Social Security and Medicare.
    Printing money is what we will have to do especially since China is reluctant to buy our securities and they do not a large reserve anymore,so we can't borrow as much.
    If not for a world economy slowdown ,our country would almost be down on its knees.

    January 15, 2009 at 6:51 p.m.

  • gee Rollinstone,

     A entitlement, hmm, that's the way Bank of America is looking at it IMO

    n October, BofA received $15 billion in TARP funding under the Treasury’s Capital Purchase Program for banks. At that time, Treasury also pledged to inject $10 billion into Merrill Lynch, once its acquisition by BofA was complete. When the purchase of Merrill was completed on January 1 the injection was completed.
    The source said BofA will use the additional $15 billion or so in TARP funds to help the bank digest and integrate Merrill.
     They need MORE $$$$$ !!!!!!!!!

     Disgusting, that's all I have to say.

     And if it was so expensive to "digest" the acquisition, WTH  did B of A agree to it in the first place?  Oh that's right because us taxpayers would pay for it.

    January 15, 2009 at 6:46 p.m.

  • That is a  good answer rollingstone but I was talking a different direction. Mr. Obama promised another round of stimulus checks for each working family. The amounts, $500.00 or $1000.00 were discussed. I only meant that we could avoid the overhead of sending out checks and let people keep the money they already earned. Let the employers simply not withhold federal taxes from paychecks for a given period of time. Three months, six months- whatever. This would serve to "stimulate" the economy by putting more spending money in people's pockets and save money as well. We could even call it a pre-tax tax cut or tax savings.

    January 15, 2009 at 6:45 p.m.


  • In 2007 about 136 million people filed an income tax return.  The average adjusted gross income was $60,000 per filer.  Assuming each filer paid the 6.2 percent tax about 500 billion dollars was collected.  if you include the 6.2% from the employer about a trillion dollars was collected.  These numbers are a little high but they are well within the ball park.  In fact I looked up the federal budget for 2007 the receipts from social security are about $900 billion dollars for both employee and employer.
    But whatever is done with the stimulus package there is one gruesome possibility; all these give aways have the potential to become entitlements.  That means they don't stop they go on forever ad infinium.  We will be in real trouble then sort of like the great inflation of the German Weimar Republic, they could hardly print money fast enough.

    January 15, 2009 at 6:14 p.m.

  • 1. How would that repair the infrastructure that is dire need?
    2. How would that create jobs?
    3. What would that do for the move for alternative energy?

    The economy is two fold.
    1)Credit crunch: banks are not lending
    2) Money is stagnant, consumer confidence is down
    The private sector is not entirely innocent (wall street) and unsecured loans,and crooked practices.
    Do you know of anyone that has crunched the numbers for the suspension of the payroll tax? I don't think it adds up to $825 billion.

    January 15, 2009 at 5:23 p.m.

  • Instead of spending all that money in overhead to administer, print and distribute stimulus checks why don't they just set a moratorium on federal payroll withholding taxes for a certain period of time? Let the private sector administer it and let folks simply keep more of their own money.
    I believe I know the answer but I'm curious about yours.

    January 15, 2009 at 5:03 p.m.

  • Yea,coolgranny that $7,500 new home buyer credit was just a loan because each year (for 15 years) you would have to pay it back.
    Well if you made  $3000 or more in income (social security included but not Medicaid) then you were supposed to get one ,unless or you were reduced by 5 percent of the amount of income in excess of $75,000 .
    I heard we didn't have over 30 legislators (out of 535)that could explain how wall street credit default swaps worked...How were they supposed to stop if they didn't understand it?....LOL

    January 15, 2009 at 2:54 p.m.

  • The $2500 will help with the cost of books, and that is about all. There goes another tax credit of $7500. Just when I was getting the hang of this Freddie and Fannie stuff. ##$%^R%&%*&^

    January 15, 2009 at 2:44 p.m.

  • Stimulus check, what stimulus check? I never saw a stimulus check, and you say there is another one coming. I better go tell the mail lady to keep an eye out for me. Mine must have gotten lost in the mail.

    January 15, 2009 at 2:38 p.m.

  • LOL...You are right but I can invision CSPAN becoming a reality show with the legislators wanting their piece of the gigantic pie.

    January 15, 2009 at 1:12 p.m.