Anyone watching/listening to the news?

[SterlingAcres]

Quote:
http://pathtofreedom.com
That is a 'homestead'. I want to be self sufficient. It's why we bought this land. I have the chickens. The goats will be coming in the spring. I still want ducks, geese, gamebirds for food, and meat rabbits. The rest I'll have to hunt myself.

 

[SterlingAcres]

Quote:
Honestly, after reading every article in the Wall Street Journal for the last week, your idea is the best I've seen. We're well on our way and hope the best for you and your family as well.

Aww thanks

 

[Mahonri]

I'm glad they voted 'NO" on the bailout and 65% of Americans agree with me!

No blame... just the facts....
Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.
Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.
But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.
Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.
In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.
The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.
Turning Point
Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.
It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.
Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.
Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.
Greenspan's Warning
The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''
What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.
Different World
If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.
But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. Greenspan exits the scene.
That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''
Mounds of Materials
Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.
But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.
Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.
Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.
There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.
Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

_________________________________________

PS: And I am no fan of John McCain

 

[redhen]

thanks for the info sterling!..

..and good luck!...what a great idea!..Wendy

 

[d.k]

*Here's a list of some stuff we import (on credit)-- uh, in 2 parts, since I time-out so durn fast. . . #1) CRUDE OIL, 7O% of all our supplies, from OPEC nations (Saudia Arabia, et al) #2) AG PRODUCTS: Organic/Inorganic Chemicals, Fertilizers & Animal Feeds, #3) ELECTRONICS: Computers, Telecom, Office Machines, Video, etc. #4) Iron & Steel; Industrial Machinary, ELECTRIC POWER INDUSTRIAL, Motors, MOTOR VEHICLES AND PARTS . . . .Pt.2: #5) TEXTILE PRODUCTS: Yarns, Fabrics, Finished Textiles; Upholstery, Clothing, Bedding and Shoes #6) MEDICINES #7) FURNITURE/FURNISHINGS. . . If the list seems vague and the order kinda iffy, that's because they don't make it real easy to "decipher" a lot of the euphemisms for some of this stuff. I imagine some of the specifics are, uh, "protected".

 

[hereachick]

Yup, It sure is scary! Just wondering how this will affect all us little people? I hope people don't start losing their houses and things.Things are tough enough in normal situations.I hope people don't panic and rock the market more.

 

[chookchick]

I am so discouraged to see that so few people understand the enormity of what is at stake here! Lunachick seems to have a grasp on the concept...We are talking Great Depression again, but worse. I have been reading about the Great Depression and New Deal for some time and the similarities to our situation are incredibly frightening. We are not just "bailing out" the "fat cats" on Wall Street that did "bad deals", we are saving the entire financial system of the United States from complete meltdown! I'm talking huge bank runs (FDIC has a limit to their resources), no credit for anyone (including the money your employer needs to pay you), Wall street tanking, taking your 401k along with it, and eventually massive unemployment. The firms that have gone down are bedrock of our financial system firms and more are ready to fall if we don't act. What the "bailout" does is buy up securities that are massively undervalued now and hold on to them--in the future they will be resold and might actually make a profit for taxpayers. This is all very risky, but we have no choice at this point--WE NEED THIS YESTERDAY!! Please look beyond the surface and try to understand how this really affects everybody--no one can afford to ignore what is happening right now.

 

[OHMYCHICKIES]

Quote:
So how do we buy? We print more money? How about hyperinflation? We don't need to suddenly fix todays problem by credit and printing money, when it'll just be worse for the future. That is why we're in the problem to begin with.

 

[Zookeeper9000]

Your right we can't ignore it but reality is that we can't do anything about it.

For too long our votes have been for the person we feel is the lesser of 2 evils. We need someone who will come in and take the hard road.

We need to stop borrowing and start paying back. Do what us little people have had to do. Start making min payments on everything and sock all the extra money we can on the smallest bill, when that one is done then move all that money to the next smallest. Till we are debt free.

We have to pay the necessary things first, get out of the war. Stay in our yard and get us up and running. If we can't pay for it with cash we don't need it. Stop importing and start making it in the good old USA. Stop paying retired goverment officals their full salary for life. Get rid of all the perks some of these officals enjoy.

I don't know about you all but if my family and I am eating Mac and Cheese I don't send steak to the neighbors. We need to stop sending money to everyone else and start taking more interest in the needs of the people here.

We sent 80 billion $ to Africa for a game reserve. A GAME RESERVE. We send free meds there because they have such a outbreak of HIV. This has to stop what we spend over seas would take care of the medical needs of the people in the USA. I am sorry it is harsh but Africa should be taking care of their own and so shouldn't every other country.

America has to hit rock bottom before we can go up and people we are just about at rock bottom.

Dave Ramsy would say beans and rice America beans and rice.

Sorry folks my opinion not asking anyone to share it.

Year ago I decided that if I can't pay for it I don't need it. That makes it hard some days but hey I survive.

 

[redhen]

zookeeper..i have to say...

...i agree!..we have to start taking care of our Americans!!..not sending money to other countries...i mean..how are we sending money to them anyways?..when we are borrowing from other countries!...

..is that like 3rd grade math or what?.........yeah..were sending money to africa for HIV patients..wow!..guess we dont have any of that over here!?...huh?..we are sending money to feed other countries childern...geez!..no starving kids in shelters here in America..nope!..huh?..

..dont get me wrong..i do feel for people suffering anywhere....but..we HAVE to start taking care of our own people first!!..