Please see ///// below for my response --- Marty Carbone = (mrc) On Mar 27, 3:03 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Greetings Members! > > I have been giving this some thought, and have some ideas for submitting > this idea, (once I get the premise of this agenda perfected and ironed out, > researched and in a proper format) to the National Republican Committee, as > well as the Cato Institute, and (possibly) the Council on Foreign > Relations, and several other think tanks.
/////////////// Good idea -- please keep me informed -- (mrc) > > I would really like to hear input, "yea's"; "nay's"; "This stinks"; "Horse > Hockey"; or even "Sounds Pretty Good" from anyone and everyone. The more > bullets that folks can shoot at this, the better I might be able to perfect > what it is that I am proposing. ///////// OK (mrc) > > Thanks to Marty Carbone and to Mr. Joe Fritz, Esq., ///////// Is Joe Fritz a relative of a Mike Fritz who works in Washington DC? I communicated with a Mike Fritz last Sunday (mrc) (Tampa Florida) for > planting the seed of this idea with me, and if you haven't been to Marty's > web site, it is an interesting read, whether you agree with all of his > premises.....Or not!! > > http://www.alphabeticalist.com/ /////////// Thanks for the plug. (mrc) > ============= > > As I understand it, there are approximately five million immigrants that are > allowed to immigrate into the United States annually. (I have not checked > the statute on this, but I have been told this is correct). I am personally > aware, that sometimes, the waiting list to immigrate into the United > States, by (United States Customs/Department of Homeland Security) is at > least three years, and sometimes as long as ten years. > > Currently, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, ("FDIC") has mandated > that any and all of the housing foreclosures must be written off ///////////// "Written off" -- means, in plain English. "TAKE THE LOSS". Any Accountant or bookkeeper knows that as well as they know their own name. The problem is that the investment part of the banks, being the simps they are and do not want to 'fess-up and take the loss. They are expecting a miracle -- and it looks like our government is getting ready to create a miracle for them -- by buying those bad assets at inflated prices. They are hoping nobody will notice that -- because that money comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers -- and how can they really complain? (mrc) of any > financial institutions' books, as of NOW. /////////// My comment may be a little beside the point -- but I question whether or not the FDIC has the right to issue such a mandate considering the enormous implications and unintended consequences such a mandate might have. I would think such a move would have to be passed by Congress or at least the President. We can't have the regulatory tail wagging the economic dog. (mrc) This is currently the crux of > our banking institution's problem; *e.g*.; the "toxic assets". //////////////// I have a hard time seeing how this "mandate" is the crux of the problem. Please explain. I think you might be making a common mistake that has been rampant recently. You can't solve operational problems and losses by moving words and numbers around on the related books and records. This type of thinking is, I believe, what got us in trouble. The Investment bankers thought they could make money by manipulating words and numbers and thereby create wealth. That is, for the most part, impossible. Wealth simply can't be created by what is normally called investing. Virtually all investing simply moves money from one person to another -- it does not create wealth. If I buy a stock today for $100 and sell it next week for $200, I can legitimately say I made a profit of $100 -- but I did not create $100 or create wealth worth $100. All I did essentially was to make $100 that was lost by the person who sold me the stock. Stock trading is a zero-sum game. Although people have gotten wealthy by buying and selling stock -- it is a game for people who do not know how to create or produce wealth. Stock trading and most (perhaps all?) investing can't produce wealth. Most investing should be seen as what it is -- it is a gamble. And like most gambling the gains and losses are exactly equal -- they can't produce wealth -- except for the house or the bookie. In business, if a good businessman loses money -- he accepts the loss, records it as a loss and , hopefully learns a lesson that he swears not to repeat. The knave, the fool and the scoundrel, on the other hand, look for ways to manipulate the books so no-one will ever know they had a loss. Those who can create wealth, work at producing goods and services that are worth more than it cost to produce those goods and services. Those who can't produce wealth call themselves investors and simply shuffle papers and move words and numbers around and make money (not wealth) thereby -- (mrc) In a > nutshell, these toxic assets are total losses to both the bank that > guaranteed the loan, and companies that underwrote the loan, like A.I.G. /////////// Agreed -- partially. It depends on the contract between the original lending bank and the subsequent buyers (and bundlers) of the loan. I would wager that MOST of the loans were sold to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- and the original lending bank did not guarantee those loans. In fact, Fannie and Freddie were originally set up to take the loans and remove the responsibility for the loans from the lending banks. And the original loans can't be "total losses" -- the property is still there and so are most of the houses -- although perhaps a little bedraggled by squatters. And there must have been some collateral put up by the original buyers. I would bet that the total of all the foreclosed homes were not less that 50% 0f the original purchase price -- hardly anywhere has the housing market dropped more than that. The loss from that 50% to whatever those houses would bring now is the fault of whomever owns that paper -- and that loss is their direct fault. They should have protected whatever they have purchased. But not to worry -- the government will come in and subsidize that loss completely, passing the bill to the taxpayer. (mrc) > > I propose that the Congress (and the Executive Branch Agencies) mandate, (in > Administrative Code versus statute; *e.g*.; Code of Federal Regulations > versus United States Code); ////////// I doubt if that is Kosher. If it is -- couldn't they get around the Constitution and simply call all their actions "administrative codes"? I will bet ther have been lots of court cases where it has been ruled that all, rules, regulations and whatever must not cotradict or otherwise subvert the written law passe by Congress. Your suggestion smells a little like a wispy manipulation of words. (mrc) that a certain percentage of new immigrants who > are applying for immigration visas into the United States, get moved up to > the "head of the line" of the "immigration waiting list", and be allowed to > immigrate into the United States immediately, if they agree to purchase > outright, with cash money, one of these "toxic assets"; at the real value of > the home. /////////////// Why would they get that right IN FRONT OF US CITZENS? And why would those with cash get ahead of those that can get loans? Do I have to consider any further argument until you answer those two questions??? If I do comment further -- I hold the right to change my views when I learn how you answer. (mrc) When I say "real value", I am talking about what the property's > actual pay-off is, versus what the property might now be appraised at. > > This would do a number of things, to instantly correct the financial > imbalances in our Nation, and the "recession/depression". > > First, let's look at the numbers. Assuming that there are 5,000,000 > immigrants applying to come into the United States annually, ////////// That figure has to be verified??? (mrc) if we took just > 10 percent of those five million, to "bump" them up in line, providing that > they had the wherewithall to purchase one of these homes, (and believe me, > there are literally millions of folks clamoring to get into the United > States that have the ability to do this!!) then that would be 50 thousand > individuals. Assuming that these 50 thousand individuals were to purchase > a home for two hundred thousand dollars, that is one hundred billion dollars > pumped into our economy IMMEDIATELY!! ////////////// Wrong. I am sorry to be so blunt -- but you are playing the investor's game. The buyers simply traded cash for an equal dollar value in houses -- there is nothing created -- so there is no real new money pumped into the economy A private owner of the homes simply sold those homes at market value. There was no new money involved any more that their would be if you sold your house to your neighbor. And it does not make any difference that the buyers were from another country. If it did -- we could all get really wealthy, wealthy. wealthy by selling all our hoses to foreigners. (mrc) > > More importantly, what would happen, is that these toxic assets, which have > been written off, and are on the books as a loss, now become a valid, > legitimate asset. /////// They are always a legitimate asset at a market price, ALWAYS -- you can't change their value by changing their names. (mrc) This frees up the credit crunch, literally overnight! > Besides the fact that it pumps into the American economy over 100 billion > dollars annually, (and probably considerably more than that, because the 200 > thousand dollar amount is a lowball figure) these assets can now be > utilized by banks as assets to collateralize and to make loans upon..... > > What am I missing here? ///////////// I think I have explained what you are missing (mrc) > > Thoughts, ideas, suggestions? > > I really do think the Republican Party needs to run with this idea. The > only downfall I see, is that those on the far left; e.g.; those that are, > "More tolerant, kinder, gentler, and more enlightened", (in other words, Far > left extremists!!) could possibly be opposed, because we are going to bump > up in line, immigrants who have expendable income, versus the poor, > downtrodden, and dependent types, that the Democrat Party wants to allow to > immigrate, who would immediately be clamoring for government handouts. > > Again, I sincerely welcome input here!! ///////////////// I gave you my sincere, detailed, polite (I hope) response. I would appreciate your response in kind. And I would also appreciate a more complete reply to the things in my plan. (mrc) > > Thanks, > > Keith > > Let's assume for a moment, --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
