<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: While Lawmakers  Reach Credit Crisis Compromise, Money Morning Bailout Plan Expert Displays  Doubt</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/26/creditcrisis-compromise/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/26/creditcrisis-compromise/</link>
	<description>Investment News Provider</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:36:16 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Even After the Bailout, Bank Stocks are a Bad Deal for Investors Right Now</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/26/creditcrisis-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-11010</link>
		<dc:creator>Even After the Bailout, Bank Stocks are a Bad Deal for Investors Right Now</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2008 13:12:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2300#comment-11010</guid>
		<description>[...] rescue plan contains two provisions that represent improvements on the original TARP (the provisions of which have been fudged to accommodate [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] rescue plan contains two provisions that represent improvements on the original TARP (the provisions of which have been fudged to accommodate [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ann rothman</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/26/creditcrisis-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-10073</link>
		<dc:creator>ann rothman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 14:55:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2300#comment-10073</guid>
		<description>I just found out that the Dems are forcing a provisiom in the bill to give 20% of the profits (if there is any) to ACORN. I think that was the reason we are in this mess to begin with....que no? Ann Rothman</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just found out that the Dems are forcing a provisiom in the bill to give 20% of the profits (if there is any) to ACORN. I think that was the reason we are in this mess to begin with&#8230;.que no? Ann Rothman</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: VR</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/26/creditcrisis-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-10072</link>
		<dc:creator>VR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 13:43:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2300#comment-10072</guid>
		<description>Most Americans are deeply opposed to this bailout. But it seems like
congress is going to do it anyway, &quot;to save us&quot;.

If we taxpayers are going to be paying the bill, shouldn&#039;t we see some
benefit from it too?
If they are going to spend the money, shouldn&#039;t they spend it in the way
that helps the most people?

What $700 billion to $1 trillion could do:
Instead of giving the money directly to the banks, the gov could send checks
for $14,000 - $20,000 to every single owner occupied home in America with a 
mortgage. These
checks could be made out directly to the mortgage companies. So people could
not use it to go out and buy a car or a mink coat. The checks could only be
used to pay down an existing mortgage.

The banks would be getting the full $700 billion to $1 trillion that they
want. But it would pass through our hands first. They are spending our money
on the bailout. At least let us touch it for a few seconds.

This would:
1. Rescue the banks from themselves. (they still get bailed out)

2. Rescue private investors of mortgage securities. (they still get bailed
out)

3. Give people who are 30 - 90 days late a reprieve. They will be caught up,
and gain equity. $20,000 is more than a year of payments for most people.
(this is a bonus benefit, at no additional cost)

4. Builds equity for those who are not behind, by paying down their mortgage
by $20,000. (this is a bonus benefit, at no additional cost)

5. Removes negative equity for many home owners. People who owe $200,000 on
their $180,000 homes would now be able to sell them for the $180,000 value,
without going bankrupt. (this is a bonus benefit, at no additional cost)

6. Provide a soft deflation of home prices, rather than a crash in prices.
(this is a bonus benefit, at no additional cost)

7. Grease the economy. Those who are not behind on their mortgages and
already have equity built-up in their homes, will have even more equity.
These people will be flush with cash and will spend it on cars, washers,
dryers, etc. (this is a bonus benefit, at no additional cost)

8. Expose the mortgage brokers and banks who issued fraudulent loans. If 60%
of the &quot;customers&quot; of a broker or bank &quot;don&#039;t send their checks in&quot;, they
can be looked at for fraud. Then they can be put in jail. (this is a bonus
benefit, at no additional cost).

We would all get a giant do over, instead of just the banks. We are the ones
paying for it anyway. Why should we pay the full cost of our mortgages, and
pay for the bad ones too?

Any banks that can not make it after this massive inflow of cash, they
deserve to fail.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Most Americans are deeply opposed to this bailout. But it seems like<br />
congress is going to do it anyway, &#8220;to save us&#8221;.</p>
<p>If we taxpayers are going to be paying the bill, shouldn&#8217;t we see some<br />
benefit from it too?<br />
If they are going to spend the money, shouldn&#8217;t they spend it in the way<br />
that helps the most people?</p>
<p>What $700 billion to $1 trillion could do:<br />
Instead of giving the money directly to the banks, the gov could send checks<br />
for $14,000 &#8211; $20,000 to every single owner occupied home in America with a<br />
mortgage. These<br />
checks could be made out directly to the mortgage companies. So people could<br />
not use it to go out and buy a car or a mink coat. The checks could only be<br />
used to pay down an existing mortgage.</p>
<p>The banks would be getting the full $700 billion to $1 trillion that they<br />
want. But it would pass through our hands first. They are spending our money<br />
on the bailout. At least let us touch it for a few seconds.</p>
<p>This would:<br />
1. Rescue the banks from themselves. (they still get bailed out)</p>
<p>2. Rescue private investors of mortgage securities. (they still get bailed<br />
out)</p>
<p>3. Give people who are 30 &#8211; 90 days late a reprieve. They will be caught up,<br />
and gain equity. $20,000 is more than a year of payments for most people.<br />
(this is a bonus benefit, at no additional cost)</p>
<p>4. Builds equity for those who are not behind, by paying down their mortgage<br />
by $20,000. (this is a bonus benefit, at no additional cost)</p>
<p>5. Removes negative equity for many home owners. People who owe $200,000 on<br />
their $180,000 homes would now be able to sell them for the $180,000 value,<br />
without going bankrupt. (this is a bonus benefit, at no additional cost)</p>
<p>6. Provide a soft deflation of home prices, rather than a crash in prices.<br />
(this is a bonus benefit, at no additional cost)</p>
<p>7. Grease the economy. Those who are not behind on their mortgages and<br />
already have equity built-up in their homes, will have even more equity.<br />
These people will be flush with cash and will spend it on cars, washers,<br />
dryers, etc. (this is a bonus benefit, at no additional cost)</p>
<p>8. Expose the mortgage brokers and banks who issued fraudulent loans. If 60%<br />
of the &#8220;customers&#8221; of a broker or bank &#8220;don&#8217;t send their checks in&#8221;, they<br />
can be looked at for fraud. Then they can be put in jail. (this is a bonus<br />
benefit, at no additional cost).</p>
<p>We would all get a giant do over, instead of just the banks. We are the ones<br />
paying for it anyway. Why should we pay the full cost of our mortgages, and<br />
pay for the bad ones too?</p>
<p>Any banks that can not make it after this massive inflow of cash, they<br />
deserve to fail.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sunshine Kills Vampires &#187; An Alternative to a $700 BILLION Blank or Counter-signed Check</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/26/creditcrisis-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-10062</link>
		<dc:creator>Sunshine Kills Vampires &#187; An Alternative to a $700 BILLION Blank or Counter-signed Check</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Sep 2008 02:29:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2300#comment-10062</guid>
		<description>[...] While Lawmakers Reach Credit Crisis Compromise, Money Morning Bailout Plan Expert Displays Doubt [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] While Lawmakers Reach Credit Crisis Compromise, Money Morning Bailout Plan Expert Displays Doubt [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Allan Wilson</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/26/creditcrisis-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-10048</link>
		<dc:creator>Allan Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:05:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2300#comment-10048</guid>
		<description>Shorn of the (expectedly) evident attempts to &quot;decouple&quot; any later adverse effects of proposed &quot;rescue legislation&quot; from being sheeted-home to either of the two major parties, the proponents of the unilateral U.S. remediation initiatives may need to refocus momentarily.
What the U.S. Taxpayers are currently being asked to do, amounts to a series of handouts of doubtful quantifiability, and offering little incentive to those bearing the cost of the &quot;rescue&quot;....
A more practical approach, then, lies in approaching the remediation, in the light of the Taxpayers -through Congress- being &quot;White Knights&quot;, prepared to fund a purchase of distressed assets - a principle followed by Warren Buffet, notably, with his dictum of &quot;Buy a Dollar&#039;s worth of Assets for fifty cents&quot; -(or less). U.S. Taxpayers (through their Government, admittedly) are in a powerfully leveraged position to do just that - and Congress has the power to do their &quot;due diligence&quot;-(while at the same time rendering future Markets much more stable through legislatively mandated transparency)- and drive a healthily hard bargain. 
With an extension of time, and appropriate management; there is no reason why those same Taxpayers ought not eventually realise a cash profit on the overall deal from the rehabilitation of underlying assets; besides the benefits accruing to them from redefining legislated standards for disciplined , accountable governance, by financial market participants down the line. 
Having to focus upon the present issues may also raise the bar in regard to U.S. Taxpayers standard of education in understanding the financial system that they must depend upon to function for their prosperity- and being more aware of it; cause their representatives not to be inattentive to the development of dangerous changes occurring, as they have been; but rather to act promptly to bar, curb, or offset them in future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shorn of the (expectedly) evident attempts to &#8220;decouple&#8221; any later adverse effects of proposed &#8220;rescue legislation&#8221; from being sheeted-home to either of the two major parties, the proponents of the unilateral U.S. remediation initiatives may need to refocus momentarily.<br />
What the U.S. Taxpayers are currently being asked to do, amounts to a series of handouts of doubtful quantifiability, and offering little incentive to those bearing the cost of the &#8220;rescue&#8221;&#8230;.<br />
A more practical approach, then, lies in approaching the remediation, in the light of the Taxpayers -through Congress- being &#8220;White Knights&#8221;, prepared to fund a purchase of distressed assets &#8211; a principle followed by Warren Buffet, notably, with his dictum of &#8220;Buy a Dollar&#8217;s worth of Assets for fifty cents&#8221; -(or less). U.S. Taxpayers (through their Government, admittedly) are in a powerfully leveraged position to do just that &#8211; and Congress has the power to do their &#8220;due diligence&#8221;-(while at the same time rendering future Markets much more stable through legislatively mandated transparency)- and drive a healthily hard bargain.<br />
With an extension of time, and appropriate management; there is no reason why those same Taxpayers ought not eventually realise a cash profit on the overall deal from the rehabilitation of underlying assets; besides the benefits accruing to them from redefining legislated standards for disciplined , accountable governance, by financial market participants down the line.<br />
Having to focus upon the present issues may also raise the bar in regard to U.S. Taxpayers standard of education in understanding the financial system that they must depend upon to function for their prosperity- and being more aware of it; cause their representatives not to be inattentive to the development of dangerous changes occurring, as they have been; but rather to act promptly to bar, curb, or offset them in future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick R. Pelley</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/26/creditcrisis-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-10038</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick R. Pelley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:15:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2300#comment-10038</guid>
		<description>My reply to Robert Barclay:

Thank you for responding to my comment.

Moving US currency into a Canadian, or into any other national counterpart, is but a very temporary exercise, at best.

The proverbial “bag of feathers”  have already been scattered to wind. Who can gather them back?

Perceived strengths outside the US are by way of false indicators, as desperate financiers and world authority figures now struggle for answers to the inevitable:

Unprecedented falling dominoes worldwide!

The “unthinkable” is now occurring in our lifetime.

“Pray, that your flight does not occur in wintertime”</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My reply to Robert Barclay:</p>
<p>Thank you for responding to my comment.</p>
<p>Moving US currency into a Canadian, or into any other national counterpart, is but a very temporary exercise, at best.</p>
<p>The proverbial “bag of feathers”  have already been scattered to wind. Who can gather them back?</p>
<p>Perceived strengths outside the US are by way of false indicators, as desperate financiers and world authority figures now struggle for answers to the inevitable:</p>
<p>Unprecedented falling dominoes worldwide!</p>
<p>The “unthinkable” is now occurring in our lifetime.</p>
<p>“Pray, that your flight does not occur in wintertime”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Republican Opposition to Paulson's Bailout Plan Stalls Talks</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/26/creditcrisis-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-10037</link>
		<dc:creator>Republican Opposition to Paulson's Bailout Plan Stalls Talks</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:03:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2300#comment-10037</guid>
		<description>[...] group of negotiators Thursday expressed hope that a deal would pass sooner rather than later after discussions with Secretary Paulson led to an agreement in principle. That framework included $250 billion in immediate relief with another $100 billion available [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] group of negotiators Thursday expressed hope that a deal would pass sooner rather than later after discussions with Secretary Paulson led to an agreement in principle. That framework included $250 billion in immediate relief with another $100 billion available [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert Barclay</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/26/creditcrisis-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-10030</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert Barclay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:26:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2300#comment-10030</guid>
		<description>Q. If the US is currency is already worthless ... U.S. Banks in difficulty and before this situation detoriates even more, would it be advisable to move out some USD$ out of the United States, and let&#039;s say to Canada, as the Canadian economy is actually in good shape, therefore their CAD$ is strong ... What will be your best advise on this matter 
Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Q. If the US is currency is already worthless &#8230; U.S. Banks in difficulty and before this situation detoriates even more, would it be advisable to move out some USD$ out of the United States, and let&#8217;s say to Canada, as the Canadian economy is actually in good shape, therefore their CAD$ is strong &#8230; What will be your best advise on this matter<br />
Thanks</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rick R. Pelley</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/26/creditcrisis-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-10022</link>
		<dc:creator>Rick R. Pelley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:30:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2300#comment-10022</guid>
		<description>Any so-called “bailout plan” born in the US, and by way of US dollars alone, regardless of figure size, definitely will not work. This is because US currency is already worthless within an international interdependent marketplace.

The US has no more valid spending power. It continues to live, but by way of “credit” yet still ongoing, granted to it by its rivals, and many of them are enemies in disguise.

The fix, therefore, “if” one were possible, can come about “only” by way of “global” consensus, absolutely. 

Any such agreement, however, is not forthcoming at this late stage in time, amid an international climate of mistrust and betrayal among individual nations, and collectives of nations, withdrawing unto themselves, as they see the “numbers” valuation regime expire.

A whole “new” paradigm of human exchange is already on our doorstep.

Each of us does well to investigate to see what that is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Any so-called “bailout plan” born in the US, and by way of US dollars alone, regardless of figure size, definitely will not work. This is because US currency is already worthless within an international interdependent marketplace.</p>
<p>The US has no more valid spending power. It continues to live, but by way of “credit” yet still ongoing, granted to it by its rivals, and many of them are enemies in disguise.</p>
<p>The fix, therefore, “if” one were possible, can come about “only” by way of “global” consensus, absolutely. </p>
<p>Any such agreement, however, is not forthcoming at this late stage in time, amid an international climate of mistrust and betrayal among individual nations, and collectives of nations, withdrawing unto themselves, as they see the “numbers” valuation regime expire.</p>
<p>A whole “new” paradigm of human exchange is already on our doorstep.</p>
<p>Each of us does well to investigate to see what that is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carlos E. Comesaña</title>
		<link>http://www.moneymorning.com/2008/09/26/creditcrisis-compromise/comment-page-1/#comment-10019</link>
		<dc:creator>Carlos E. Comesaña</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:27:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moneymorning.com/?p=2300#comment-10019</guid>
		<description>The proposal would be more palatable for taxpayers if in addition to the future caps to executive compensation,  
financial fines are also apply to present and past top officers  in charge that originated this mess.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The proposal would be more palatable for taxpayers if in addition to the future caps to executive compensation,<br />
financial fines are also apply to present and past top officers  in charge that originated this mess.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
