H8tank Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Kinda puts it in perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 i would like to know what % of those bad mortgages are because of ARMs increasing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Here's how I understand $700,000,000,000. Let's say a really good paying job is considered to be around $100,000. At that pay rate I could make 1,000,000 in 10 years (forget about inflation for a moment). In 100 years of working I could make 10,000,000. In 1,000 years of working I could make $100,000,000. In the time since Christ walked the earth I could make $200,000,000ish. It would take me a mere 7,000,000 years to make that much money. Awesome! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Here's how I understand $700,000,000,000. Let's say a really good paying job is considered to be around $100,000. At that pay rate I could make 1,000,000 in 10 years (forget about inflation for a moment). In 100 years of working I could make 10,000,000. In 1,000 years of working I could make $100,000,000. In the time since Christ walked the earth I could make $200,000,000ish. It would take me a mere 7,000,000 years to make that much money. Awesome! big diff between earning it and just printing it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Here's how I understand $700,000,000,000. Let's say a really good paying job is considered to be around $100,000. At that pay rate I could make 1,000,000 in 10 years (forget about inflation for a moment). In 100 years of working I could make 10,000,000. In 1,000 years of working I could make $100,000,000. In the time since Christ walked the earth I could make $200,000,000ish. It would take me a mere 7,000,000 years to make that much money. Awesome! It'd only take A-Rod 25,000 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffraff Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Hmmm 700,000,000,000 / 33,000,000 = Over $21,000 cash the government could just give to everyone with a mortgage! What kind of stimulus would that have on the economy to hand 33 million people $21,000? I like how this guy thinks. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 It'd only take A-Rod 25,000 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 big diff between earning it and just printing it hmmm, How long does it take to print that much money? Doesn't somebody work for the treasury here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 hmmm, How long does it take to print that much money? Doesn't somebody work for the treasury here? Someone does, but not me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Someone does, but not me T_Bone65 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 i would like to know what % of those bad mortgages are because of ARMs increasing Isn't this an important question? If the original mortgage payments were being made and mortgage companies were making a profit, why not suspend the ARMs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Isn't this an important question? If the original mortgage payments were being made and mortgage companies were making a profit, why not suspend the ARMs? ding ding ding...we have a winner...or so I think....i mean if it was the ARMs being increased that caused people to default and in turn is a large cause for the problem then in the end isnt/wasnt it greed that killed these banks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 ding ding ding...we have a winner...or so I think....i mean if it was the ARMs being increased that caused people to default and in turn is a large cause for the problem then in the end isnt/wasnt it greed that killed these banks? Or is it the greed of the people who knew the ARMs would go up at some point, but couldn't afford to get the house they wanted using a fixed rate mortgage? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Or is it the greed of the people who knew the ARMs would go up at some point, but couldn't afford to get the house they wanted using a fixed rate mortgage? probably a combination of the two but answer this question....since you are a business owner....lets say you have outstanding invoices and legally you have the ability to charge those customers an X% on those outstanding invoices.....would you do so knowing that it would make it much more likely they wouldnt pay you anything and make your business go belly up or would you assess the situation and realize that it wouldnt be in the best interest for your company to implement the X% due to the undue risk it would put those receivables and hence your company in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted October 1, 2008 Author Share Posted October 1, 2008 .would you do so knowing that it would make it much more likely they wouldnt pay you anything and make your business go belly up or would you assess the situation and realize that it wouldnt be in the best interest for your company to implement the X% But then you have a long term customer who takes a little longer, you know they'll pay, so you charge some the percent, others not. They find out, come and kill you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keggerz Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 But then you have a long term customer who takes a little longer, you know they'll pay, so you charge some the percent, others not. They find out, come and kill you. so if you get killed you are out of business Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 probably a combination of the two but answer this question....since you are a business owner....lets say you have outstanding invoices and legally you have the ability to charge those customers an X% on those outstanding invoices.....would you do so knowing that it would make it much more likely they wouldnt pay you anything and make your business go belly up or would you assess the situation and realize that it wouldnt be in the best interest for your company to implement the X% due to the undue risk it would put those receivables and hence your company in? Since I as a business owner along with my family have sole descresion as to what we do I would not change the X%. However, as has been pointed out elsewhere, these mortgages are owned by multiple companies with multiple investers in each company, which makes it a lot harder for them to make that type of arbitrary decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 is it the number of brain cells you have killed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Socialist Security is a $608 billion annual program. So we kill that pig of a program off and we can bailout every year and payoff everyone's mortgagage in 2 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemonKnight Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Socialist Security is a $608 billion annual program. So we kill that pig of a program off and we can bailout every year and payoff everyone's mortgagage in 2 years. Or, instead of pulling the carpet out on millions of american seniors who put money into SS to fund thier retirement we could quit spending 9 Billion a month in Iraq. Summary of Iraq War Cost Estimates CBO estimated the following costs for an Iraq war: * Initial deployment of troops: $9 billion to $13 billion * Conducting the war: $6 billion to $9 billion per month * Returning forces to US: $5 billion to $7 billion * Temporary occupation of Iraq: $1 billion to $4 billion per month Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted October 1, 2008 Author Share Posted October 1, 2008 CBO estimated the following costs for an Iraq war: * Initial deployment of troops: $9 billion to $13 billion * Conducting the war: $6 billion to $9 billion per month * Returning forces to US: $5 billion to $7 billion * Temporary occupation of Iraq: $1 billion to $4 billion per month Kicking all that Iraqi ass... priceless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Old people cost this country way more than Iraqis. Kill them first and then we deal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted October 1, 2008 Author Share Posted October 1, 2008 Old people cost this country way more than Iraqis. Kill them first and then we deal. I agree! Everyone over 40! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Kicking all that Iraqi ass... priceless. It's Super Priceless when someone else is kicking the ass. If the root of the problem is forclosures and the ARMs are what are causing the forclosures wouldn't suspending the ARMs be cheaper for the nation than spending $700,000,000,000.00? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 If the root of the problem is forclosures and the ARMs are what are causing the forclosures wouldn't suspending the ARMs be cheaper for the nation than spending $700,000,000,000.00? Sure, but then you'd miss out on all the corruption and money-grabbing going on in DC when 700 billion dollars are in play. Come on, Club, you know better than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.