Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
Deal Hunter
ParticipantYeah, it’s common practice in business to move money on a regualar bases. The banks report about 1 million SAR’s each month. I think Spitzer was targeted (or has been for a long time). He made lots of enemies and I’m sure it wasnt’ hard to find someone willing to put a tail on his accounts for some reason or another.
Another article showed he tried to deduct $48K in “non-food entertainment” on his Schedule C in 2006. I didn’t even know there was such a category on schedule C!
ParticipantYeah, it’s common practice in business to move money on a regualar bases. The banks report about 1 million SAR’s each month. I think Spitzer was targeted (or has been for a long time). He made lots of enemies and I’m sure it wasnt’ hard to find someone willing to put a tail on his accounts for some reason or another.
Another article showed he tried to deduct $48K in “non-food entertainment” on his Schedule C in 2006. I didn’t even know there was such a category on schedule C!
ParticipantYeah, it’s common practice in business to move money on a regualar bases. The banks report about 1 million SAR’s each month. I think Spitzer was targeted (or has been for a long time). He made lots of enemies and I’m sure it wasnt’ hard to find someone willing to put a tail on his accounts for some reason or another.
Another article showed he tried to deduct $48K in “non-food entertainment” on his Schedule C in 2006. I didn’t even know there was such a category on schedule C!
ParticipantYeah, it’s common practice in business to move money on a regualar bases. The banks report about 1 million SAR’s each month. I think Spitzer was targeted (or has been for a long time). He made lots of enemies and I’m sure it wasnt’ hard to find someone willing to put a tail on his accounts for some reason or another.
Another article showed he tried to deduct $48K in “non-food entertainment” on his Schedule C in 2006. I didn’t even know there was such a category on schedule C!
ParticipantYeah, it’s common practice in business to move money on a regualar bases. The banks report about 1 million SAR’s each month. I think Spitzer was targeted (or has been for a long time). He made lots of enemies and I’m sure it wasnt’ hard to find someone willing to put a tail on his accounts for some reason or another.
Another article showed he tried to deduct $48K in “non-food entertainment” on his Schedule C in 2006. I didn’t even know there was such a category on schedule C!
ParticipantAs long as there are tax payers the FED will never run out of money. They print it and hand it out and tax payers pay the interest on it. The $200 billion is in the form of T-bills and bank entry credit (which is the same thing).
The FED is not taking bad loans off the bank’s books (that is totally inaccurate). They are creating a market for subprime based derivatives. Since no one is buying these loan based investment products on the secondary market anymore, they announced that Investment banks could use their inventory of subprime mortgages as collateral for credit/cash.
In other words, since no investors would continue to buy these derivative products, they created a way for tax payers to buy them instead – hoping it would unplug the credit blockage.
This should enrage all tax payers since the FED is not a government agency answerable to tax payers. What right do they have to pledge our full faith and credit in this manner? Oh yeah, The Federal Reserve Act of 1914.
ParticipantAs long as there are tax payers the FED will never run out of money. They print it and hand it out and tax payers pay the interest on it. The $200 billion is in the form of T-bills and bank entry credit (which is the same thing).
The FED is not taking bad loans off the bank’s books (that is totally inaccurate). They are creating a market for subprime based derivatives. Since no one is buying these loan based investment products on the secondary market anymore, they announced that Investment banks could use their inventory of subprime mortgages as collateral for credit/cash.
In other words, since no investors would continue to buy these derivative products, they created a way for tax payers to buy them instead – hoping it would unplug the credit blockage.
This should enrage all tax payers since the FED is not a government agency answerable to tax payers. What right do they have to pledge our full faith and credit in this manner? Oh yeah, The Federal Reserve Act of 1914.
ParticipantAs long as there are tax payers the FED will never run out of money. They print it and hand it out and tax payers pay the interest on it. The $200 billion is in the form of T-bills and bank entry credit (which is the same thing).
The FED is not taking bad loans off the bank’s books (that is totally inaccurate). They are creating a market for subprime based derivatives. Since no one is buying these loan based investment products on the secondary market anymore, they announced that Investment banks could use their inventory of subprime mortgages as collateral for credit/cash.
In other words, since no investors would continue to buy these derivative products, they created a way for tax payers to buy them instead – hoping it would unplug the credit blockage.
This should enrage all tax payers since the FED is not a government agency answerable to tax payers. What right do they have to pledge our full faith and credit in this manner? Oh yeah, The Federal Reserve Act of 1914.
ParticipantAs long as there are tax payers the FED will never run out of money. They print it and hand it out and tax payers pay the interest on it. The $200 billion is in the form of T-bills and bank entry credit (which is the same thing).
The FED is not taking bad loans off the bank’s books (that is totally inaccurate). They are creating a market for subprime based derivatives. Since no one is buying these loan based investment products on the secondary market anymore, they announced that Investment banks could use their inventory of subprime mortgages as collateral for credit/cash.
In other words, since no investors would continue to buy these derivative products, they created a way for tax payers to buy them instead – hoping it would unplug the credit blockage.
This should enrage all tax payers since the FED is not a government agency answerable to tax payers. What right do they have to pledge our full faith and credit in this manner? Oh yeah, The Federal Reserve Act of 1914.
ParticipantAs long as there are tax payers the FED will never run out of money. They print it and hand it out and tax payers pay the interest on it. The $200 billion is in the form of T-bills and bank entry credit (which is the same thing).
The FED is not taking bad loans off the bank’s books (that is totally inaccurate). They are creating a market for subprime based derivatives. Since no one is buying these loan based investment products on the secondary market anymore, they announced that Investment banks could use their inventory of subprime mortgages as collateral for credit/cash.
In other words, since no investors would continue to buy these derivative products, they created a way for tax payers to buy them instead – hoping it would unplug the credit blockage.
This should enrage all tax payers since the FED is not a government agency answerable to tax payers. What right do they have to pledge our full faith and credit in this manner? Oh yeah, The Federal Reserve Act of 1914.
ParticipantNot the problem. A 40% decrease in home value is not something to worry about as much as other indicators. I don’t know if anyone remembers the 70% decrease in home values in the Antelope Valley of Southern California back in the early 90’s?
The index that should be worried over is the percentage of homes nationwide that are in foreclosure. Currently just over 1% nationwide. (I know in some markets it is higher – as much as 20%) In the Great Depression, that number was 40% nationwide.
Going back to 2002-2003 prices in SoCal is really not that bad a thing.
ParticipantNot the problem. A 40% decrease in home value is not something to worry about as much as other indicators. I don’t know if anyone remembers the 70% decrease in home values in the Antelope Valley of Southern California back in the early 90’s?
The index that should be worried over is the percentage of homes nationwide that are in foreclosure. Currently just over 1% nationwide. (I know in some markets it is higher – as much as 20%) In the Great Depression, that number was 40% nationwide.
Going back to 2002-2003 prices in SoCal is really not that bad a thing.
ParticipantNot the problem. A 40% decrease in home value is not something to worry about as much as other indicators. I don’t know if anyone remembers the 70% decrease in home values in the Antelope Valley of Southern California back in the early 90’s?
The index that should be worried over is the percentage of homes nationwide that are in foreclosure. Currently just over 1% nationwide. (I know in some markets it is higher – as much as 20%) In the Great Depression, that number was 40% nationwide.
Going back to 2002-2003 prices in SoCal is really not that bad a thing.
ParticipantNot the problem. A 40% decrease in home value is not something to worry about as much as other indicators. I don’t know if anyone remembers the 70% decrease in home values in the Antelope Valley of Southern California back in the early 90’s?
The index that should be worried over is the percentage of homes nationwide that are in foreclosure. Currently just over 1% nationwide. (I know in some markets it is higher – as much as 20%) In the Great Depression, that number was 40% nationwide.
Going back to 2002-2003 prices in SoCal is really not that bad a thing.
-
AuthorPosts
