Proposal to add buying of CC Debt

[Mi Bankruptcy]

One would almost think the U.S. is setting itself up to actually claim bankruptcy..not philosophically but, to actually claim bankruptcy?? I know history.. however, It seems like I heard Spain or some other country doing that at one time??

"power to buy up virtually any kind of bad asset — including credit card debt or car loans"

[treehugger1]

The payments against unsecured debt are not covering any assets; they cover the accounts receivable side of the balance sheet. There can be some short-term and long-term economic benefits to completely absolving (or temporarily deferring) all payments to unsecured parties. What would consumers do with the billions of dollars that might flow into their pockets over 6 - 18 months? I would guess that some would go into savings accounts (not such a bad idea), some would be used to get control of secured debt, and some (probably a great deal) would immediately be pumped into the economy. Who would suffer? Guess who...current financial institutions.

It will be interesting to see if the PLAN works any better than the BK reform did. Keep in mind that consumers drive the greater majority of our economy. Put the relief in the hands of those most likely to keep products and services moving, and I don't mean $600 tax refunds. Then build in strong oversight in terms of how credit is handed out. In the end, we all learn something, and we build in tough oversight to build a new economy not so dependent upon credit. Can it be done? I don't know, but look where the current system led us. LOL

[magyar123]

OK, govt. "buys" all bad debts. How would they determine what's "bad"? "Relieves" creditors of those.
You know what will happen? Govt. will send out 1099s, and your indebtedness total will become taxable income.
And that's when anti-war type of riots will start.

[treehugger1]

Not a pretty thought. What about a temporary moratorium on debt? Instead of injecting money, we don't inject anything. This would be painful as a lot of companies would fold up, unemployment would increase, etc., unless the moratorium was good for consumer and corporate debt.

It seems as if we are attempting to rescue "credit." At the consumer level, I have tons of debt I can't pay on as agreed. On the other hand, I have now learned to survive without credit. I guess this doesn't "trickle up." Giggle

[banca rotta]

Now you know why I am finished with supporting either party. For the longest time I thought the dems were pushing us to socialism. I never in my wildest dreams would have though the suits on wall st. would be the ones.

They have just socialized us better then Hillary and Obama could have ever imagined with this proposal.

[fltoo]

Sickening that they want to include all bad cc debt.

When we get the 1099 on forgiven debt, there should be a mass protest. Shred the 1099 and mail it back to the IRS.

Hmm, I might have a tea party and invite everyone.

[justbroke]

They have just socialized us better then Hillary and Obama could have ever imagined with this proposal.

Well, that's contraindicative. It's the Congress as an entity. Not any individual party.

This has always been my point. You can elect anyone to White House you want. The Congress is who truly controls the country and the spending. The 434 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate are who control spending and the passing and authoring of law.

For any one of them to stand up now and say "I have a plan"... just makes me sick.

I would really like to see a business-person run the country, with CEO like skills. Treat Congress like your board members. However, it's not as easy as it looks. Just saying "when I'm president..." is dumb. You only need ask William Jefferson Clinton what's it is like to "promise" to make change... and what happens when you actually attempt to change Congress.

I like the old comparison. If "Pro" means for and "Con" means against. Then if "progress" means to move forward, what does "congress" mean?

[banca rotta]

Well, that's contraindicative. It's the Congress as an entity. Not any individual party.

This has always been my point. You can elect anyone to White House you want. The Congress is who truly controls the country and the spending. The 434 members of the House and 100 members of the Senate are who control spending and the passing and authoring of law.

For any one of them to stand up now and say "I have a plan"... just makes me sick.

I would really like to see a business-person run the country, with CEO like skills. Treat Congress like your board members. However, it's not as easy as it looks. Just saying "when I'm president..." is dumb. You only need ask William Jefferson Clinton what's it is like to "promise" to make change... and what happens when you actually attempt to change Congress.

I like the old comparison. If "Pro" means for and "Con" means against. Then if "progress" means to move forward, what does "congress" mean?

I hear what you are saying. Typically when you think of a "wall street suit" we associate them with "conservative values" and the ones on wall st. that caused all this are anything but.

Not that I am defending congress since they aren't worth defending but this has to be difficult for them. They either have to spend OUR money to restore confidence or ignore it and risk a serious market crash with just about all of our retirement accounts and pensions. I really don't know if there is anything in between that can control this fire.

[Never_Again]

I would really like to see a business-person run the country, with CEO like skills. Treat Congress like your board members. However, it's not as easy as it looks. Just saying "when I'm president..." is dumb. You only need ask William Jefferson Clinton what's it is like to "promise" to make change... and what happens when you actually attempt to change Congress.

You know, while I agree with what you are saying in principal, when this person rises up, everyone will be so eager to follow him, that we will move in a direction that will make socialism seem like a positive. Can't you see it happening?

Mr Strong Leader: "Of course, I value freedom above everything else, but, we can't argue here, that we need to take emergency control. Of course, it is only temporary, until we have our markets stabilized, and we restore peace and order."

Can anyone see the slope here?

[treehugger1]

This just in

Just a bit ago, the AP released more news with this embedded:

"Other economists have a more optimistic view about the chances of success for the whole program. They believe a sizable number of financial institutions will jump at the chance to unload their bad debt on the government and freed of the bad loans, they will resume more normal lending operations, giving a boost to the economy."

How does anyone not giggle at this! If you give me the chance to write off my bad debt, then perhaps I can resume more normal BORROWING. What a joke! What the h*ll are normal lending operations! Give me a break.

[banca rotta]

Just a bit ago, the AP released more news with this embedded:

"Other economists have a more optimistic view about the chances of success for the whole program. They believe a sizable number of financial institutions will jump at the chance to unload their bad debt on the government and freed of the bad loans, they will resume more normal lending operations, giving a boost to the economy."

How does anyone not giggle at this! If you give me the chance to write off my bad debt, then perhaps I can resume more normal BORROWING. What a joke! What the h*ll are normal lending operations! Give me a break.

This is the part that really scares me about all this. It's kinda like how some of us got into trouble by "borrowing our way out of debt" by taking out home equity or borrowing from retirement to pay debt only to accumulate more credit card debt on top of the other debt that was supposed to fix the problem.

Imagine the government buys this toxic debt and the financial institutions "resume more normal lending operation"? If this happens then we will all be speaking Chinese for sh!t sure. You can bet your right are that will happen.

[JRScott]

Just a bit ago, the AP released more news with this embedded:

"Other economists have a more optimistic view about the chances of success for the whole program. They believe a sizable number of financial institutions will jump at the chance to unload their bad debt on the government and freed of the bad loans, they will resume more normal lending operations, giving a boost to the economy."

How does anyone not giggle at this! If you give me the chance to write off my bad debt, then perhaps I can resume more normal BORROWING. What a joke! What the h*ll are normal lending operations! Give me a break.

That's why it will not work long term. This bailout is a temporary solution. Business as usual is what got us here. 10 years down the road we'll be right back where we are, that's why I'm against any bailout.