Here's a thread from another forum that mightl give you some of my and others ideas.
http://groups.google.com/group/abc_politics_forum/browse_thread/thread/a5d616d654f1eb55/ba9abb1a4282beca?hl=en#ba9abb1a4282beca Peace, Doc On Mar 29, 3:23 pm, martycarbone <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
