Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
TheBreeze
Participant[quote=svelte]So…why the difference in reaction on this board? When Congress was trying to assist the homeowner, everyone was up in arms and had smoke coming out their ears.
But when the Treasury Secretary outlines steps to prop up Fannie and Freddie or the Fed steps in to take over Indymac, not a peep out of the Hogs and Hogville – only guesses as to who is next.
Quite a difference in reactions. Somebody explain that to me.[/quote]
svelte,
I think most Piggs are resigned to a massive bailout. That’s why you are seeing these reactions.
As for me, I’m not sure what the U.S. Government should do. Paulson said in his statement that a lot of foreign governments hold agency debt and he seemed to imply that stiffing these foreign governments would not be a good for the U.S. over the long term. I don’t know if that’s a real concern or if Paulson is just trying to scare the U.S. taxpayer into accepting a bailout. This administration has told so many lies that it’s tough to believe in anything they say.
It would make me feel a lot better if our government officials would admit that the GSEs have not made housing cheaper, but instead they have done the exact opposite and driven house prices to a level which most people can’t afford. I think most politicians are too beholden to campaign contributions from the GSEs to tell the truth.
Hopefully the next administration will bring in some people who aren’t afraid to tell the truth and the GSEs can either be broken up or gotten rid of all together (the best solution in my opinion).
It really sucks to see all this U.S. taxpayer money go to bailout so many crooks who got rich basically through fraud. Hopefully the next administration will hold some of these crooks (Mozillo, et al.) accountable, but I’m not holding my breath.
Participant[quote=svelte]So…why the difference in reaction on this board? When Congress was trying to assist the homeowner, everyone was up in arms and had smoke coming out their ears.
But when the Treasury Secretary outlines steps to prop up Fannie and Freddie or the Fed steps in to take over Indymac, not a peep out of the Hogs and Hogville – only guesses as to who is next.
Quite a difference in reactions. Somebody explain that to me.[/quote]
svelte,
I think most Piggs are resigned to a massive bailout. That’s why you are seeing these reactions.
As for me, I’m not sure what the U.S. Government should do. Paulson said in his statement that a lot of foreign governments hold agency debt and he seemed to imply that stiffing these foreign governments would not be a good for the U.S. over the long term. I don’t know if that’s a real concern or if Paulson is just trying to scare the U.S. taxpayer into accepting a bailout. This administration has told so many lies that it’s tough to believe in anything they say.
It would make me feel a lot better if our government officials would admit that the GSEs have not made housing cheaper, but instead they have done the exact opposite and driven house prices to a level which most people can’t afford. I think most politicians are too beholden to campaign contributions from the GSEs to tell the truth.
Hopefully the next administration will bring in some people who aren’t afraid to tell the truth and the GSEs can either be broken up or gotten rid of all together (the best solution in my opinion).
It really sucks to see all this U.S. taxpayer money go to bailout so many crooks who got rich basically through fraud. Hopefully the next administration will hold some of these crooks (Mozillo, et al.) accountable, but I’m not holding my breath.
Participant[quote=svelte]So…why the difference in reaction on this board? When Congress was trying to assist the homeowner, everyone was up in arms and had smoke coming out their ears.
But when the Treasury Secretary outlines steps to prop up Fannie and Freddie or the Fed steps in to take over Indymac, not a peep out of the Hogs and Hogville – only guesses as to who is next.
Quite a difference in reactions. Somebody explain that to me.[/quote]
svelte,
I think most Piggs are resigned to a massive bailout. That’s why you are seeing these reactions.
As for me, I’m not sure what the U.S. Government should do. Paulson said in his statement that a lot of foreign governments hold agency debt and he seemed to imply that stiffing these foreign governments would not be a good for the U.S. over the long term. I don’t know if that’s a real concern or if Paulson is just trying to scare the U.S. taxpayer into accepting a bailout. This administration has told so many lies that it’s tough to believe in anything they say.
It would make me feel a lot better if our government officials would admit that the GSEs have not made housing cheaper, but instead they have done the exact opposite and driven house prices to a level which most people can’t afford. I think most politicians are too beholden to campaign contributions from the GSEs to tell the truth.
Hopefully the next administration will bring in some people who aren’t afraid to tell the truth and the GSEs can either be broken up or gotten rid of all together (the best solution in my opinion).
It really sucks to see all this U.S. taxpayer money go to bailout so many crooks who got rich basically through fraud. Hopefully the next administration will hold some of these crooks (Mozillo, et al.) accountable, but I’m not holding my breath.
Participant[quote=svelte]So…why the difference in reaction on this board? When Congress was trying to assist the homeowner, everyone was up in arms and had smoke coming out their ears.
But when the Treasury Secretary outlines steps to prop up Fannie and Freddie or the Fed steps in to take over Indymac, not a peep out of the Hogs and Hogville – only guesses as to who is next.
Quite a difference in reactions. Somebody explain that to me.[/quote]
svelte,
I think most Piggs are resigned to a massive bailout. That’s why you are seeing these reactions.
As for me, I’m not sure what the U.S. Government should do. Paulson said in his statement that a lot of foreign governments hold agency debt and he seemed to imply that stiffing these foreign governments would not be a good for the U.S. over the long term. I don’t know if that’s a real concern or if Paulson is just trying to scare the U.S. taxpayer into accepting a bailout. This administration has told so many lies that it’s tough to believe in anything they say.
It would make me feel a lot better if our government officials would admit that the GSEs have not made housing cheaper, but instead they have done the exact opposite and driven house prices to a level which most people can’t afford. I think most politicians are too beholden to campaign contributions from the GSEs to tell the truth.
Hopefully the next administration will bring in some people who aren’t afraid to tell the truth and the GSEs can either be broken up or gotten rid of all together (the best solution in my opinion).
It really sucks to see all this U.S. taxpayer money go to bailout so many crooks who got rich basically through fraud. Hopefully the next administration will hold some of these crooks (Mozillo, et al.) accountable, but I’m not holding my breath.
ParticipantBank analysts are saying between 150 and 300 banks could fail in the next few years:
Here’s a list of banks from the article:
Among the other banks high on the list include Newport Beach, California’s Downey Financial Corp (nyse: DSL – news – people ), with a 95.4 percent ratio; Fort Lauderdale, Florida’s BFC Financial Corp (nyse: BFF – news – people ), which invests in BankAtlantic Bancorp Inc (nyse: BBX – news – people ) ; Coral Gables, Florida’s BankUnited Financial Corp (nasdaq: BKUNA – news – people ); Chicago’s Corus Bankshares Inc ; Los Angeles’ FirstFed Financial Corp; Troy, Michigan’s Flagstar Bancorp Inc (nyse: FBC – news – people ), and Washington Mutual, at 40.6 percent.
The list also includes Puerto Rico’s Doral Financial Corp (nyse: DRL – news – people ), First BanCorp (nasdaq: FBNC – news – people ) and Santander BanCorp.
ParticipantBank analysts are saying between 150 and 300 banks could fail in the next few years:
Here’s a list of banks from the article:
Among the other banks high on the list include Newport Beach, California’s Downey Financial Corp (nyse: DSL – news – people ), with a 95.4 percent ratio; Fort Lauderdale, Florida’s BFC Financial Corp (nyse: BFF – news – people ), which invests in BankAtlantic Bancorp Inc (nyse: BBX – news – people ) ; Coral Gables, Florida’s BankUnited Financial Corp (nasdaq: BKUNA – news – people ); Chicago’s Corus Bankshares Inc ; Los Angeles’ FirstFed Financial Corp; Troy, Michigan’s Flagstar Bancorp Inc (nyse: FBC – news – people ), and Washington Mutual, at 40.6 percent.
The list also includes Puerto Rico’s Doral Financial Corp (nyse: DRL – news – people ), First BanCorp (nasdaq: FBNC – news – people ) and Santander BanCorp.
ParticipantBank analysts are saying between 150 and 300 banks could fail in the next few years:
Here’s a list of banks from the article:
Among the other banks high on the list include Newport Beach, California’s Downey Financial Corp (nyse: DSL – news – people ), with a 95.4 percent ratio; Fort Lauderdale, Florida’s BFC Financial Corp (nyse: BFF – news – people ), which invests in BankAtlantic Bancorp Inc (nyse: BBX – news – people ) ; Coral Gables, Florida’s BankUnited Financial Corp (nasdaq: BKUNA – news – people ); Chicago’s Corus Bankshares Inc ; Los Angeles’ FirstFed Financial Corp; Troy, Michigan’s Flagstar Bancorp Inc (nyse: FBC – news – people ), and Washington Mutual, at 40.6 percent.
The list also includes Puerto Rico’s Doral Financial Corp (nyse: DRL – news – people ), First BanCorp (nasdaq: FBNC – news – people ) and Santander BanCorp.
ParticipantBank analysts are saying between 150 and 300 banks could fail in the next few years:
Here’s a list of banks from the article:
Among the other banks high on the list include Newport Beach, California’s Downey Financial Corp (nyse: DSL – news – people ), with a 95.4 percent ratio; Fort Lauderdale, Florida’s BFC Financial Corp (nyse: BFF – news – people ), which invests in BankAtlantic Bancorp Inc (nyse: BBX – news – people ) ; Coral Gables, Florida’s BankUnited Financial Corp (nasdaq: BKUNA – news – people ); Chicago’s Corus Bankshares Inc ; Los Angeles’ FirstFed Financial Corp; Troy, Michigan’s Flagstar Bancorp Inc (nyse: FBC – news – people ), and Washington Mutual, at 40.6 percent.
The list also includes Puerto Rico’s Doral Financial Corp (nyse: DRL – news – people ), First BanCorp (nasdaq: FBNC – news – people ) and Santander BanCorp.
ParticipantBank analysts are saying between 150 and 300 banks could fail in the next few years:
Here’s a list of banks from the article:
Among the other banks high on the list include Newport Beach, California’s Downey Financial Corp (nyse: DSL – news – people ), with a 95.4 percent ratio; Fort Lauderdale, Florida’s BFC Financial Corp (nyse: BFF – news – people ), which invests in BankAtlantic Bancorp Inc (nyse: BBX – news – people ) ; Coral Gables, Florida’s BankUnited Financial Corp (nasdaq: BKUNA – news – people ); Chicago’s Corus Bankshares Inc ; Los Angeles’ FirstFed Financial Corp; Troy, Michigan’s Flagstar Bancorp Inc (nyse: FBC – news – people ), and Washington Mutual, at 40.6 percent.
The list also includes Puerto Rico’s Doral Financial Corp (nyse: DRL – news – people ), First BanCorp (nasdaq: FBNC – news – people ) and Santander BanCorp.
ParticipantI watched the c-span video at the bottom of the PickensPlan Web page. Pickens says that, out of 85 million barrels of oil produced globally per day, the U.S. uses 21 million barrels. Of the 21 million barrels, 75% is used as fuel in transportation. So about 16 million barrels a day goes for U.S. transportation costs. That leaves 5 million barrels to be used for other things. The 21 million barrels per day ends up costing us about $700 billion per year.
Pickens then talks about electricity generation in the U.S. Currently, 22% of our power is generated using natural gas. Pickens believes that the U.S. can replace this 22% with wind energy by building windmill farms basically in a strip right down the center of the U.S. (that’s where the most wind is).
Pickens goes on to say that once wind has replaced natural gas as an electricity generator, we can use the natural gas to fuel our vehicles. He says that wind power is competive cost-wise with other energy sources and that natural gas is about half the cost of gasoline.
However, the catch is that it will take 20 to 30 years to build up the wind-power infrastructure in order to completely replace the natural-gas portion of the power grid. I don’t think we have that much time.
I think the better, more immediate solution is a switch to ultra-efficient vehicles like the Tesla (256-mpg equivalent) and the 1-litre car from Volkswagen (~220mpg equivalent).
http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/en2/unternehmen/mobility_and_sustainability0/technik___innovation/Forschung/1_Liter_Auto.htmlWith vehicles like this and a concerted effort at fuel conservation, we can decrease the oil that goes to transportation by around 90% or so. That means instead of 16 million barrels a day for transportation, we would only need 1.6 million barrels. Combine that with the 5 million barrels used for other things and you have a total U.S. daily demand for oil of around 7 million barrels. I think the U.S. produces right about that much oil currently.
I agree that we should take a serious look at all alternative sources of energy and I hope Congress examines and seriously considers Pickens’ plan. We have the renewable wind resource, so we might as well start taking advantage of it. However, I think advances in vehicle technology which make them more fuel efficient is going to beat Pickens to the punch.
ParticipantI watched the c-span video at the bottom of the PickensPlan Web page. Pickens says that, out of 85 million barrels of oil produced globally per day, the U.S. uses 21 million barrels. Of the 21 million barrels, 75% is used as fuel in transportation. So about 16 million barrels a day goes for U.S. transportation costs. That leaves 5 million barrels to be used for other things. The 21 million barrels per day ends up costing us about $700 billion per year.
Pickens then talks about electricity generation in the U.S. Currently, 22% of our power is generated using natural gas. Pickens believes that the U.S. can replace this 22% with wind energy by building windmill farms basically in a strip right down the center of the U.S. (that’s where the most wind is).
Pickens goes on to say that once wind has replaced natural gas as an electricity generator, we can use the natural gas to fuel our vehicles. He says that wind power is competive cost-wise with other energy sources and that natural gas is about half the cost of gasoline.
However, the catch is that it will take 20 to 30 years to build up the wind-power infrastructure in order to completely replace the natural-gas portion of the power grid. I don’t think we have that much time.
I think the better, more immediate solution is a switch to ultra-efficient vehicles like the Tesla (256-mpg equivalent) and the 1-litre car from Volkswagen (~220mpg equivalent).
http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/en2/unternehmen/mobility_and_sustainability0/technik___innovation/Forschung/1_Liter_Auto.htmlWith vehicles like this and a concerted effort at fuel conservation, we can decrease the oil that goes to transportation by around 90% or so. That means instead of 16 million barrels a day for transportation, we would only need 1.6 million barrels. Combine that with the 5 million barrels used for other things and you have a total U.S. daily demand for oil of around 7 million barrels. I think the U.S. produces right about that much oil currently.
I agree that we should take a serious look at all alternative sources of energy and I hope Congress examines and seriously considers Pickens’ plan. We have the renewable wind resource, so we might as well start taking advantage of it. However, I think advances in vehicle technology which make them more fuel efficient is going to beat Pickens to the punch.
ParticipantI watched the c-span video at the bottom of the PickensPlan Web page. Pickens says that, out of 85 million barrels of oil produced globally per day, the U.S. uses 21 million barrels. Of the 21 million barrels, 75% is used as fuel in transportation. So about 16 million barrels a day goes for U.S. transportation costs. That leaves 5 million barrels to be used for other things. The 21 million barrels per day ends up costing us about $700 billion per year.
Pickens then talks about electricity generation in the U.S. Currently, 22% of our power is generated using natural gas. Pickens believes that the U.S. can replace this 22% with wind energy by building windmill farms basically in a strip right down the center of the U.S. (that’s where the most wind is).
Pickens goes on to say that once wind has replaced natural gas as an electricity generator, we can use the natural gas to fuel our vehicles. He says that wind power is competive cost-wise with other energy sources and that natural gas is about half the cost of gasoline.
However, the catch is that it will take 20 to 30 years to build up the wind-power infrastructure in order to completely replace the natural-gas portion of the power grid. I don’t think we have that much time.
I think the better, more immediate solution is a switch to ultra-efficient vehicles like the Tesla (256-mpg equivalent) and the 1-litre car from Volkswagen (~220mpg equivalent).
http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/en2/unternehmen/mobility_and_sustainability0/technik___innovation/Forschung/1_Liter_Auto.htmlWith vehicles like this and a concerted effort at fuel conservation, we can decrease the oil that goes to transportation by around 90% or so. That means instead of 16 million barrels a day for transportation, we would only need 1.6 million barrels. Combine that with the 5 million barrels used for other things and you have a total U.S. daily demand for oil of around 7 million barrels. I think the U.S. produces right about that much oil currently.
I agree that we should take a serious look at all alternative sources of energy and I hope Congress examines and seriously considers Pickens’ plan. We have the renewable wind resource, so we might as well start taking advantage of it. However, I think advances in vehicle technology which make them more fuel efficient is going to beat Pickens to the punch.
ParticipantI watched the c-span video at the bottom of the PickensPlan Web page. Pickens says that, out of 85 million barrels of oil produced globally per day, the U.S. uses 21 million barrels. Of the 21 million barrels, 75% is used as fuel in transportation. So about 16 million barrels a day goes for U.S. transportation costs. That leaves 5 million barrels to be used for other things. The 21 million barrels per day ends up costing us about $700 billion per year.
Pickens then talks about electricity generation in the U.S. Currently, 22% of our power is generated using natural gas. Pickens believes that the U.S. can replace this 22% with wind energy by building windmill farms basically in a strip right down the center of the U.S. (that’s where the most wind is).
Pickens goes on to say that once wind has replaced natural gas as an electricity generator, we can use the natural gas to fuel our vehicles. He says that wind power is competive cost-wise with other energy sources and that natural gas is about half the cost of gasoline.
However, the catch is that it will take 20 to 30 years to build up the wind-power infrastructure in order to completely replace the natural-gas portion of the power grid. I don’t think we have that much time.
I think the better, more immediate solution is a switch to ultra-efficient vehicles like the Tesla (256-mpg equivalent) and the 1-litre car from Volkswagen (~220mpg equivalent).
http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/en2/unternehmen/mobility_and_sustainability0/technik___innovation/Forschung/1_Liter_Auto.htmlWith vehicles like this and a concerted effort at fuel conservation, we can decrease the oil that goes to transportation by around 90% or so. That means instead of 16 million barrels a day for transportation, we would only need 1.6 million barrels. Combine that with the 5 million barrels used for other things and you have a total U.S. daily demand for oil of around 7 million barrels. I think the U.S. produces right about that much oil currently.
I agree that we should take a serious look at all alternative sources of energy and I hope Congress examines and seriously considers Pickens’ plan. We have the renewable wind resource, so we might as well start taking advantage of it. However, I think advances in vehicle technology which make them more fuel efficient is going to beat Pickens to the punch.
ParticipantI watched the c-span video at the bottom of the PickensPlan Web page. Pickens says that, out of 85 million barrels of oil produced globally per day, the U.S. uses 21 million barrels. Of the 21 million barrels, 75% is used as fuel in transportation. So about 16 million barrels a day goes for U.S. transportation costs. That leaves 5 million barrels to be used for other things. The 21 million barrels per day ends up costing us about $700 billion per year.
Pickens then talks about electricity generation in the U.S. Currently, 22% of our power is generated using natural gas. Pickens believes that the U.S. can replace this 22% with wind energy by building windmill farms basically in a strip right down the center of the U.S. (that’s where the most wind is).
Pickens goes on to say that once wind has replaced natural gas as an electricity generator, we can use the natural gas to fuel our vehicles. He says that wind power is competive cost-wise with other energy sources and that natural gas is about half the cost of gasoline.
However, the catch is that it will take 20 to 30 years to build up the wind-power infrastructure in order to completely replace the natural-gas portion of the power grid. I don’t think we have that much time.
I think the better, more immediate solution is a switch to ultra-efficient vehicles like the Tesla (256-mpg equivalent) and the 1-litre car from Volkswagen (~220mpg equivalent).
http://www.teslamotors.com/
http://www.volkswagen.de/vwcms_publish/vwcms/master_public/virtualmaster/en2/unternehmen/mobility_and_sustainability0/technik___innovation/Forschung/1_Liter_Auto.htmlWith vehicles like this and a concerted effort at fuel conservation, we can decrease the oil that goes to transportation by around 90% or so. That means instead of 16 million barrels a day for transportation, we would only need 1.6 million barrels. Combine that with the 5 million barrels used for other things and you have a total U.S. daily demand for oil of around 7 million barrels. I think the U.S. produces right about that much oil currently.
I agree that we should take a serious look at all alternative sources of energy and I hope Congress examines and seriously considers Pickens’ plan. We have the renewable wind resource, so we might as well start taking advantage of it. However, I think advances in vehicle technology which make them more fuel efficient is going to beat Pickens to the punch.
-
AuthorPosts
