|
cropsey, il 61731 | This kind of thing has been going on in banking for a long time - rather than be smart and liquidate asap, the bank thinks it's a realtor - they are notoriously bad realtors. I get the mark to model rule as a way of getting past the worst of the dip in values. All too often liquidations happen at the very bottom of the market which doesn't help anybody. I guess the bank is hoping for a bounce back up to sell, but they have to realize they have way too much money in the house and are going to take a significant loss no matter what - they shouldn't have made the loan in the first place. The bank should fully understand they made the loan for way too much though and take what ever they can get - learn the lesson. Make to model should only be used to keep the bank solvent on paper - they still should not play realtor and sell asap.
Years ago we had a once successful hog guy get in trouble and the bank took him down during the 8 cent hog days. If the banker could have waited a few months, the hog guy may have got through or at least the liquidation would have gone much farther in making the everyone including the bank whole. Turns out there was a decent offer on the place (80% of what they were asking) and the bank refused only to have to sell it for 50% of their asking price later (bad realtors).
Our gov't spending will get in check when folks don't yell foul every time a suggestion is made suspend increases. We can all survive in farming without an increase - haven't had LDP's in a long time - should be a cheaper program these days anyway. Medicare, SS, etc could stop increases as well. These are not 'live like a king' programs anyway. They are 'just get buy' programs. There are grants laying around for anything from basketweaving to hair style research - could be dropped or suspended. It was good for gov't money stop flowing into the NEA (remember the cross in urine?) - looks like funding for public radio tv has to come from people who will give and they turn out not to be as liberal. I even heard a decidedly conservative question being asked the other day during an interview (the devil did start to shiver though). In general we should make the word Obama uses, investments' mean something - gov't doesn't invest/spend where there is no return (either $ or human condition). I would say lot of the money going out of DC would be called theft.
I run a wireless internet service and could use a little help from this big broadband deal, however, most of it goes to large telcos (w/lobbyists) to set up hotspots in towns or to large 'swindler' type services like dtn's old speednet (big on marketing, not so much on service) that say all of the US is unserved. Fortunately some of the fraud is being caught since the FCC was smart enough to have us wisp guys submit the areas we serve. As far as most rural wisps are concerned, the gov't could drop the whole broadband program - we were doing fine and expanding into unserved areas anyway (quicker than any gov't program could do). What's really bad is the rules tend to be written for small businesses named verizon, att, sprint.
If we really vote everyone out, we'll get a good start on stopping this. The culture is still their and new faces can be corrupted though. Why can't the media be put to good use. Rather than TMZ reporting about Brittany, why not dig up the good ol' boy deals and expose them. They might be a little complex, but gov't business is public and it's not a bad thing to make these reporters work a little. Sure the press will over do it as usual, but it's probably what we need for a while. If gov't is worried about getting caught doing back room deals it might behave itself - Gosh didn't Obo promise transparency? Or was that translucentcy? Or opaqueness?
thanks,
Pat | |
|
A Real Simple View
