Jump to content



Recommended Posts

I'm against the $85,000,000,000.00 bailout of AIG.

Instead, I'm in favor of giving $85,000,000,000 to America in a We Deserve It Dividend.

To make the math simple, let's assume there are 200,000,000 bonafide U.S. Citizens 18+.

Our population is about 301,000,000 +/- counting every man, woman and child. So 200,000,000

might be a fair stab at adults 18 and up..

So divide 200 million adults 18+ into $85 billon that equals $425,000.00.

My plan is to give $425,000 to every person 18+ as a We Deserve It Dividend.

Of course, it would NOT be tax free so let's assume a tax rate of 30%.

Every individual 18+ has to pay $127,500.00 in taxes.

That sends $25,500,000,000 right back to Uncle Sam.

But it means that every adult 18+ has $297,500.00 in their pocket.

A husband and wife has $595,000.00.

What would you do with $297,500.00 to $595,000.00 in your family?

Pay off your mortgage - housing crisis solved.

Repay college loans - what a great boost to new grads.

Put away money for college - it'll be there

Save in a bank - create money to loan to entrepreneurs.

Buy a new car - create jobs Invest in the market - capital drives growth

Pay for your parent's medical insurance - health care improves

Enable Deadbeat Dads to come clean - or else

Remember this is for every adult U S Citizen 18+ including the folks who lost their jobs

at Lehmann Brothers and every other company that is cutting back.

And of course, for those serving in our Armed Forces.

If we're going to re-distribute wealth let's really do it...instead of trickling out a puny

$1000.00 ( "vote buy" ) economic incentive that is being proposed by one of our candidates for President.

If we're going to do an $85 billion bailout, let's bail out every adult U S Citizen 18+!

As for AIG - liquidate it.

Sell off its parts.

Let American General go back to being American General.

Sell off the real estate.

Let the private sector bargain hunters cut it up and clean it up.

Here's my rationale. We deserve it and AIG doesn't.

Sure it's a crazy idea that can "never work."

But can you imagine the Coast-To-Coast Block Party!

How do you spell Economic Boom?

I trust my fellow adult Americans to know how to use the $85 Billion

We Deserve It Dividend more than I do the geniuses at AIG or in Washington DC.

And remember, The "plan" only really costs $59.5 Billion because $25.5 Billion is

returned instantly in taxes to Uncle Sam.

Ahhh...I feel so much better getting that off my chest.

Kindest personal regards,

PS: Feel free to pass this along to your pals as it's either good for a laugh

or a tear or a very sobering thought on how to best use $85 Billion.

Now they are talking about a 1 to 2 trillion dollar rescue plan!!! Just think

what we could do with that!!

We could all retire if they would divide up the 700 billion. I think that would give us about 2.8 million each. Of course no one would want to work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The folks who lost their life savings with Enron didn't get bailed out. They lost everything & so should AIG investors. Let the multimillion dollar big buck CEO's of AIG sell off their 6 houses each and all the other assets they aquired & pay off the stockholders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah but when you look at aig you have to look at the global monster that it really is. Think about the cash in annuities, cash value in life policies, etc. All would go belly up and there would be nothing to pay out. Also not only americans but people across the world. Cause remember when signing those documents at the bottom they have those disclosures.. may lose value, not guaranteed, not fdic covered. Basically no help... so before they lost everything the good old us gave em 85 billion and they did put a clause in there that the exec's of the aig could NOT benefit from it at all. I hate that the gov't has to step in but i don't think one person would not like to see their 401k start going back up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

even though i have an annuity with aig i am not in favor of the bailout.either with or without a massive bailout,things will probaly get worse before they get better.a simple rule-the bigger the boom,the bigger the bust when it ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually you shouldn't worry about annuities in ny state, this is the most highly regulated insurance state. NYS makes the insurance company put every cent of your money in a separate account for bankrupt issues. So if aig ever would go out of business you would get ever cent back. NYS did something right!!!

Also yes i do agree with you on bigger boom equal bigger bust but the boom has already happened and if something doesn't happen soon you are going to see the big bust!! can you say a 7k point dow.. They have screwed up big time and now we have to deal with it. This just comes down to weighing risk vs reward. I really blame the hedge fund managers that have been betting on this thing to go boom and making tons and i mean tons of money off of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just want to clear up a point concerning an email that is going around about giving the $85B that went to AIG to every person 18 years of age and over, The decimal point in the math is wrong. Instead of $425,000.00 for each person, the real math shows it to be $425.00 per person. However, please continue to impress upon your Representatives and Senators that a bailout/loan is not the answer. Can we all say FAIR TAX?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nobody blames the people that couldn't pay these loans back???

When i took out my mortgage i knew exactly what i could afford and what i couldn't and i even factored if i lost my job and had to pay for it with my 6 month emergency fund.

not saying i am perfect but nobody talks about the people not paying the loans back.

There is a document in your loan papers called a promissory note, Its your promise to pay the bank back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly salmonite. Speculation of making a fast buck in the housing industry by folks who already owned a home was a big factor in the increase of those loans. It wasn't by folks who were just starting out and wanted a home to live in. My guess is the folks who speculated are the ones who are defaulting on their loans, and not the ones who just wanted a roof over their heads. I'd also bet dollars to donuts that the ones who just wanted a home to live in are still making the payments, no matter what it takes. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, and unfortunately for the folks that just wanted a home to live in, they are paying a LOT more than they had to because the @#$%& house flippers artificially raised property values way beyond where they should have been.

Now the market is correcting and those legit homeowners are also stuck dealing with trying to pay off a mortgage that is much higher than the actual, real value of their house.

Those speculators piss me off far more than the oil speculators did.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just read the papers and watch the news channels like everyone else and don't claim to be an economist, hell i don't even have a collidge educaion but isn't this the 2nd. round of bailouts? a.i.g. already received 85 billion about a yr. ago in the first 300 billion round which obviously wasn't enough and this 85 billion would actually make it 850 per person. and that's just a.i.g. and it ain't over yet. fannie and freddie are even worse examples. eliminate them from the equation and i might start to warm up to a real "rescue plan". not trying to sound like the grinch who stole chrismas because obviuosly something needs to be done to stimulate the economy and loosen up the credit markets but as hucklebee said,why would you want to give you're money to the same people who burnt your thansgiving turkey to cook your christmas dinner?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should make Clinton and his group pay for it. Read this and you will understand why.

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending

E-MAIL Print Single-Page Reprints Save Share

LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalinkBy STEVEN A. HOLMES

Published: September 30, 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...