Community | November 25, 2008 | 33 comments

Fed anounces plans for $800 billion stimulus plan

Image
InformedTexan
he Federal Reserve is to inject another $800bn (£526.8bn) into the US economy in a further effort to stabilise the financial system.

US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said the stimulus package aimed to make more lending available to consumers.

About $600bn will be used to buy up mortgage-backed securities while $200bn is being targeted at unfreezing the consumer credit market.

Financial institutions are reluctant to lend, deepening the economic slowdown.

The situation has been exacerbated as the credit crisis has worsened.

Under the latest rescue plan - which is in addition to the already-announced $700bn bank bail-out - the Fed is to buy up to $100bn in debt from the troubled mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The central bank said it would also buy another $500bn in mortgage-backed securities - pools of mortgages that are bundled together and sold to investors.

The Fed said that the $600bn effort to support the mortgage market was being taken to reduce the cost of home mortgages and increase their availability.

It said the purchases of the mortgages and mortgage-backed securities would take place over a number of months.

In addition to the $600bn effort on mortgages, the Fed also unveiled a separate programme to help unfreeze the consumer debt market.

The central bank said it would lend up to $200bn to the holders of securities backed by various types of consumer loans, such as credit cards and student loans.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics
  2. tags:
    News News and Politics Politics Economy 8 more
  3.     
    |

33 comments // Fed anounces plans for $800 billion stimulus plan

  • JuliusBC
    • 0
      JuliusBC  
    • I have a suggestion to help calm the economy without using tax payer’s money. It would be a form of downsizing and a shuffling of the deck. It goes as follows:

      Take two types of homes:
      a) Homes that have already been foreclosed
      b) Homes headed for certain foreclosure

      A new government regulated process, with accountability and transparency, oversees the transference of a current homeowner facing certain foreclosure into a smaller home that is vacant due to foreclosure. This would be done only if both parties are in agreement. A portion of the homeowner’s equities (if substantial) could be transferred accordingly to this foreclosed property. However, said property would have to be re-appraised to current values. The homeowner would have to be re-qualified based on their abilities to meet their current debt load and the new reduced loan payment on said foreclosed property.

      The new loan should be a (proposed) 30 year loan equivalent to the current interest rate (approximately 6%), but it should be fixed so there can be no surprises later. No ARMS! This allows the current homeowners to retain their credit, their assets, and their will to continue making payments on all of their debts. The loaning institutions would benefit by reducing the number of foreclosures they are collecting at an alarming rate.

      This would bolster the economy in many ways. Debtors would continue to make good on their current debts and loaning institutions would be able to continue to make new loans. Maybe with this change and a few others the $700+ billion bail out would go farther and additional bail outs would not be as necessary. This would tend to make the loaning institutions be more responsible for the loans they have given. The tax payers would be freed from incurring this burden and our economy might be able to rebound even faster.

    • 3 years ago
  • 1percent
  • SDLN
  • Saladin
    • 0
      Saladin  
    • Yeah, people were saying it was gonna get this bad. 2 trillion dollars plus.

      We all kinda forgot about the crisis in the midst of the election, we'd all hoped it had hit rock bottom.

      Looking at these numbers, I can comfortably say that we're pretty much fucked.

    • 3 years ago
  • JuliusBC
    • 0
      JuliusBC  
    • It is called the theory of trickle down economics. Just make sure you take your umbrella with you because some of the stuff that trickles down is kinda wet, oozy and really stinky.

      I think we need to give a new theory a shot. It is called the theory of bubble up economics. We bail out the little people by giving all of us $500,000 and we will buy some of the upper 5%'s goods.

      This will get money and the economy flowing again. Maybe we will decide to hang on to our bail out but what the hell, if we do then we would be just like the big guys that have been bailed out thus far!

    • 3 years ago
  • AveryMoore
    • 0
      AveryMoore  
    • JuliusBC:

      Believe it or not, there's already a counter-theory against that. You give people $500K? Prices will rise in direct proportion to eat it all. Bingo. It's another inflated bubble gone poof.

      Not that I would say no to a $100K incentive. But maybe a less selfish and more useful idea has already been put forward. Put a moratorium on foreclosures. Use government funds to pay down the equivalent debt to banks. This way banks have money to recirculate, without panic, people don't lose their houses, the housing and banking market re-stabilizes. Later, as things eventually pick up homeowners pay back the Treasury.

      Now what to do about the derivatives disaster?

      No idea...

    • 3 years ago
  • Elevator
    • 0
      Elevator  
    • JuliusBC:

      Yeah that would cause like 1930s Germany style inflation.

      AveryMoore, it's not a question of banks having money it's their willingness to lend it. This wouldn't solve the problem anyway because it would essentially re-inflate the bubble which has already proven unsustainable. Besides what funds would we use?

      As I see it there are only 2 options: inflation and more market distortions or correction and slower growth.

    • 3 years ago
  • AveryMoore
    • 0
      AveryMoore  
    • JuliusBC:

      I think the banks' "unwillingness" to offer loans points to something more drastic in the pipeline. Something once again that we aren't being told about - to protect us from anxiety. Noble thinking right?

      And that potential loss might be so large that offering loans now would be like giving blood then immediately going into battle. Contraindicated.

      Looking back, until maybe 30 years ago, the system following WW2 was remarkably stable - all things considered. But once the imbeciles collectively decided to rig the casino so that the house lost - deregulation - there were no controls on risk fictions. Quick and very big profit became the sole objective. Nobody checked for actual collateral. Everybody played along. Junk was safe, insane shots in the dark were deemed a good bet, unstable companies were backed by audits that bore no relationship with actual solvency. In a word: ENRON-ICA.

      We have no idea what other risks - presumably a derivatives collapse, among others - are about to hit the fan. But count on it, having bankrolled these idiocies the bankers are well aware of what's in store, and they are hoarding money.

    • 3 years ago
  • AveryMoore
    • 0
      AveryMoore  
    • As Barbara3d points out - who invests money without demanding prior oversight, never asks that details be monitored by an independent and reliable source, and without being required to provide apparent justification to anyone, ups the ante?

      Is this a sequel?

      "ENRON 2...."

    • 3 years ago
  • barbara3d
  • keithponder
  • necrotized
    • 0
      necrotized  
    • What I'd like to know is that if we've already injected billions of dollars we don't have into these businesses, in exchange for stock in said businesses, what the hell happens when that business fails anyway and we're the major stockholders?

      Previously, the stockholders, (that is, those board members and others who had enough for controlling shares) were looking at losing most of not all of their holdings as these businesses fail.

      So then 750 billion plus is authorized to be injected into those businesses to keep them from failing; in exchange for buying into it, the U.S. Government (with our money) now owns the controlling shares in the company, by having bought them from these shareholders?

      So, the shareholders get paid off and saved by selling their shares against our tax money so that they don't lose... And then what happens when the businesses the tax money now owns fail?

      What's to stop them from failing when money is injected? I mean, if they were failing to begin with, haven't we just swapped shareholders?

    • 3 years ago
  • Riptos
    • 0
      Riptos  
    • When are we going to stop this nonsense?

      They are making really bad decisions and we are just siting back and letting them do it....

    • 3 years ago
  • ocanada
    • 0
      ocanada  
    • In the immortal words of Dana Carvey. Not Gonna Do It.
      Bush and Paulson no longer have ANY ability to inspire confidence in the markets nor do they have the sufiecient political clout to pull the wool over our eyes twice. The only saving grace is President Obama can use the T.A.R.P. bridge loan to the big three without congressional aproval and his team will be far more judicious and open than this administration.

    • 3 years ago
  • alicynx
    • 0
      alicynx  
    • Wait a minute - I thought we only authorized $750bn? When did another vote come out for anything in addition to that?? Don't we have ANY transparency at any level of government anymore? And why the hell can't I get a credit card, car loan, or mortgage with a 646 credit score? I remember my landlord (also a mortgage broker) telling me 650 was my goal, and now they wont even look at me? WTF people?? How on earth is that "infusion" working for anyone but the top 5% of corporate America?

      REVOLUTION!

    • 3 years ago
  • barbara3d
  • barbara3d
    • 0
      barbara3d  
    • yep, I figure I owe them about $2,000 in credit cards so they will get my share of whatever 300 million into 800 billion. I cant do math that high.

      Now Obama is talking TRILLIONS when he takes office.

      Russians off the coast playing war games? Probably figure a few bad missles will just finish us off.

    • 3 years ago
  • lookatmypix
    • 0
      lookatmypix  
    • These bastards!
      They did and are sucking our money with high interest rates, super late fees, we keep going down with our debt and they get bailed out.
      And for what?
      So that they can lend us more money to bury us even deeper and then get the next bail out in a couple years again?
      This is the biggest robbery ever made to people.
      I am disgusted.

    • 3 years ago
  • yonie
    • 0
      yonie  
    • So you American citizens payed hard tax money to enable 800 billion dollar be stocked up and reserved for lending to the same American citizens?!

      Couldn't you have simply held on to the money in the first place?

    • 3 years ago
  • Elevator
  • Elevator
    • 0
      Elevator  
    • yonie:

      Yes but then the politicians wouldn't get to play decider (or a cut for themselves and their contributors).

      Not to mention that they will have to print all of this money (and that of other up coming "stimulus packages"). So after being taxed upfront they tax you indirectly by devaluing the purchasing power of your money. They think they are "creating wealth" while in reality they are destroying it on a massive scale. All work done by everyone will be worth less and so too will any savings they have. Prices will too inflate faster relative to wages unless Obama institutes price controls which would cause shortages (who knows how large). This is a recipe for disaster.

    • 3 years ago
  • Elevator
    • 0
      Elevator  
    • yonie:

      Yes but then the politicians wouldn't get to play decider (or a cut for themselves and their contributors).

      Not to mention that they will have to print all of this money (and that of other up coming "stimulus packages"). So after being taxed upfront they tax you indirectly by devaluing the purchasing power of your money. They think they are "creating wealth" while in reality they are destroying it on a massive scale. All work done by everyone will be worth less and so too will any savings they have. Price will also inflate and while wage should too they tend to lag. Hopefully Obama doesn’t try any price controls as it would create shortages. Either way, this is a recipe for disaster.

    • 3 years ago
  • Elevator
    • 0
      Elevator  
    • yonie:

      Yes but then the politicians wouldn't get to play decider (or a cut for themselves and their contributors).

      Not to mention that they will have to print all of this money (and that of other up coming "stimulus packages"). So after being taxed upfront they tax you indirectly by devaluing the purchasing power of your money. They think they are "creating wealth" while in reality they are destroying it on a massive scale. All work done by everyone will be worth less and so too will any savings they have. Price will also inflate and while wage should too they tend to lag. Hopefully Obama doesn’t try any price controls as it would create shortages. Either way, this is a recipe for disaster.

    • 3 years ago
  • Elevator
    • 0
      Elevator  
    • yonie:

      Yes but then the politicians wouldn't get to play decider (or a cut for themselves and their contributors).

      Not to mention that they will have to print all of this money (and that of other up coming "stimulus packages"). So after being taxed upfront they tax you indirectly by devaluing the purchasing power of your money. They think they are "creating wealth" while in reality they are destroying it on a massive scale. All work done by everyone will be worth less and so too will any savings they have. Price will also inflate and while wage should too they tend to lag. Hopefully Obama doesn’t try any price controls as it would create shortages. Either way, this is a recipe for disaster.

    • 3 years ago
  • Elevator
  • bedeboop
  • barbara3d
    • 0
      barbara3d  
    • What really pisses me off is that no one even sends an auditor in?!? Hello? They are just taking their word. No one in the private sector would do that...they would check their books, fire and hire, and then MAYBE help them out a little. People dont work hard when things are given to them. FREE MONEY, Come and get it! Dont worry, the taxpayer is picking up the tab. My pleasure, just enjoy.

    • 3 years ago
  • bedeboop
    • 0
      bedeboop  
    • That sucks Barbara! I am glad LL is helping you out! I'm tired of all the bailouts being handed out by the government. Does anyone know anyone personally that has benefited? I don't.

    • 3 years ago
  • barbara3d
    • 0
      barbara3d  
    • I just have to turn off the news. I get sicker every day.

      And guess what...as a side note: I need a stimulus.package! Our family is having an early Christmas at Thanksgiving so the kids can visit the other in laws (we all share). Well the FED EX man came to my door and ran/sped off. My $350 order box sat on the porch...I picked it up and it was 'weightless'. It had obviously been ripped open and was empty. Someone stole Christmas..must have been a Grinch. Hope they enjoy the monogramed shirts.Desparate times are just beginning

      I called LLBean and they are sending my order overnight mail. YEA BEAN!!!

    • 3 years ago
  • IMMININT
  • bedeboop
  • InformedTexan
  • ocanada
more from Community:

top videos