Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
BOTH REPUBLICAN POLITICIANS AND Democrat politicians are
FOR THE BAILOUT! BOTH....do you know what that big word "both" means?
Polls across the country are showing that most people, regardless of party affiliation, do not agree with the bailout. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who aren't a part of the political system or have a job on Wall Street are very upset about it. The only people pushing for the bailout are those directly connected to the money and jobs - those working on Wall Street and those working in Washington.
Many Republicans can't stand the last 8 years because Bush has gone completely against fiscal conservatism.
I want to know how much money Paulson is receiving under the table for making this bailout happen. Wasn't he a longtime executive at one of these financial companies? He's got a lot of friends that are about to lose a LOT of money if it doesn't happen..
The second link has a very important statement that I completely agree with:
"4. The housing market is out of balance.
In both the homeowner segment and the rental segment, we see high vacancy rates. That means that we have an excess supply of housing units. Housing construction needs to decline further, and prices need to fall more.
An even larger imbalance in the housing market is that we have the wrong people in the wrong houses. I am referring here to home borrowers, meaning people who are nominally owners but who put down so little money for their purchase that they are better described as living in borrowed homes. Until we get people out of houses that they cannot afford, the market will not be in balance.
In theory, there are alternatives to foreclosure. Someone else could buy the home and rent it back to the home borrower. In areas where home prices have fallen, the lender could reduce the mortgage balance in proportion to the price decline. Etc.
In practice, I think that all of these alternatives are counterproductive. They undermine the price signals in housing markets, which will make housing illiquid for many years.
If we want to help troubled homeowners, we can set up a "pity fund" for them. That can be a lot less costly than a bailout, and it can be administered in a way that targets more benefits to the deserving and fewer benefits to the undeserving. I will elaborate in a subsequent post.
HIllary Clinton says, Let's keep people in their homes. I say, Let's Not.
The goal should be to get home borrowing replaced by either renting or home ownership. Once that happens, house prices will be reliable, rather than artificial. That in turn will make buying a home, providing a mortgage loan, and trading securities backed by mortgage loans far less risky than they are today."
I am an independent, but I have several Dem friends. They are worried and mad as hell over this. I really dont think this has anything to do with the average Dem or Rep. It is all the jerks that we hired and dont do what we want. I agree with the poster who said we need to get all of them out of office. I also think it is absurd that the gov can spend this much money without doing a vote. We should have a say. If 51% of the American public agreed with this then I would go along. I have a feeling if a vote was done probably closer to 20% would agree.
This is not saying I dont think something should be done. But a huge bail out is not the answer. Those CEO's should not get a penny in severance and any politicians should give back every penny that was given to them!!!!!!!
i agree that i should not have blamed just democrats on this, although nancy pelosi is really getting on my nerves, as well as george bush. i had heard that house republicans were the only thing standing between us and the bailout being passed but i did hear ron paul say today that there is a liberal democrat from california, sherman, who has been very instrumental in trying to stop the bailout, so kudos to him and everyone else who is trying to stop this bailout. the house will vote on it today.
Polls across the country are showing that most people, regardless of party affiliation, do not agree with the bailout. Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who aren't a part of the political system or have a job on Wall Street are very upset about it. The only people pushing for the bailout are those directly connected to the money and jobs - those working on Wall Street and those working in Washington.
Many Republicans can't stand the last 8 years because Bush has gone completely against fiscal conservatism.
I want to know how much money Paulson is receiving under the table for making this bailout happen. Wasn't he a longtime executive at one of these financial companies? He's got a lot of friends that are about to lose a LOT of money if it doesn't happen..
The second link has a very important statement that I completely agree with:
"4. The housing market is out of balance.
In both the homeowner segment and the rental segment, we see high vacancy rates. That means that we have an excess supply of housing units. Housing construction needs to decline further, and prices need to fall more.
An even larger imbalance in the housing market is that we have the wrong people in the wrong houses. I am referring here to home borrowers, meaning people who are nominally owners but who put down so little money for their purchase that they are better described as living in borrowed homes. Until we get people out of houses that they cannot afford, the market will not be in balance.
In theory, there are alternatives to foreclosure. Someone else could buy the home and rent it back to the home borrower. In areas where home prices have fallen, the lender could reduce the mortgage balance in proportion to the price decline. Etc.
In practice, I think that all of these alternatives are counterproductive. They undermine the price signals in housing markets, which will make housing illiquid for many years.
If we want to help troubled homeowners, we can set up a "pity fund" for them. That can be a lot less costly than a bailout, and it can be administered in a way that targets more benefits to the deserving and fewer benefits to the undeserving. I will elaborate in a subsequent post.
HIllary Clinton says, Let's keep people in their homes. I say, Let's Not.
The goal should be to get home borrowing replaced by either renting or home ownership. Once that happens, house prices will be reliable, rather than artificial. That in turn will make buying a home, providing a mortgage loan, and trading securities backed by mortgage loans far less risky than they are today."
I was speaking of Rep or Dem politicians...I know taxpayers are against the bailout...like one talking head said Sunday morning "we got lots of response to the bailout...50% said "NO" and 50% said "HELL NO".
But don't forget that we are only their employers, they will ignore us.
are these democrats not worried about the bailout because they have been conditioned to believe that throwing government money at a problem solves the problem? we should all be angry that they are using our money to solve their problem, and i mean both republicans and democrats.
They don't care. They care about socialism, not freedom.
are these democrats not worried about the bailout because they have been conditioned to believe that throwing government money at a problem solves the problem? we should all be angry that they are using our money to solve their problem, and i mean both republicans and democrats.
How silly. Everyone is worried about "the bailout" and the financial crisis facing not only our country but the world. The Dow is down 300 points right now. The only things that are up are Berkshire and the short funds. This isn't only a national problem. We could be in massive, massive trouble starting very soon and there's nothing we individuals can do about it except (IMO) pay off our mortgages and cars as quickly as we can.
"they have been conditioned to believe that throwing government money at a problem solves the problem?" -
P.S. You do know that Obama has said, several times, that the plans he made back in 2007 arent likely to be put into motion anytime soon (which plans in any case were to have been paid for using a strict PAYGO system).
So... dont drive over any bridges for awhile.
Last edited by delusianne; 09-29-2008 at 10:39 AM..
Reason: add dire warning
Fannie and Freddie beginning in 1999
Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending - New York Times (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F9582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 - broken link)
That would be more applicable if it were just the low incoming families they were lending to. They are not and they are not the only ones in trouble. Many middle class families who had decent credit have been foreclosed on. They were given the same deals. The same is true for 'the rich' to wannabe rich groups who bought their second and third houses with a no money down loan. When things got tight they were then willing to simply walk away from the house because they had lost nothing. Trying to place all the blame on one group or one lender is shortsighted.
Quote:
The problem here is that as more time passes the more the truth is lost. While bringing it to the forefront in the present day you get what we have now. Facts don't sound like facts ie. the Rep controlled congress during the Clinton Presidency. Everyone thinks that it was Bills fault. Fast forward to today you have people saying the Dems have done nothing in congress during the Bush years but the Dems only controlled congress for two years (since 2006) out of his eight year term.
Yes, thank you for pointing this out. We as American's seem to have a shorter memory every day. What is scarier is we're willing to ignore history in support of a party. Why? I don't believe anyone should have such loyalty to a party that it becomes their God, so to speak. Parties are getting desperately close to being placed above country in the guise of loyalty to the country. I don't get it.
That would be more applicable if it were just the low incoming families they were lending to. They are not and they are not the only ones in trouble. Many middle class families who had decent credit have been foreclosed on. They were given the same deals. The same is true for 'the rich' to wannabe rich groups who bought their second and third houses with a no money down loan. When things got tight they were then willing to simply walk away from the house because they had lost nothing. Trying to place all the blame on one group or one lender is shortsighted.
Exactly my point! If Fannie had not eased credit requirements in 1999, NO ONE would have been given those deals.
I am not happy about the bailout but I also realize that years of deregulation and lack of government oversight with the banks is what led us to this point.
Without a bailout now we are all screwed.
Kind of like what happened with Enron and the lack of corporate oversight.
Lessons learned.
Wait, you like regulation then? Heck, you should been drooling over the bill. It was nothing short of EXTREME regulation. Regulation is what brought this mess about, de-regulation was an attempt to correct things, but all it did was untie the beast that regulation had created. We need ride it out, let the beast die and the tell regulation proposals to stick it where the sun doesn't shine. You know, actually have a "free market" rather than a half regulated pile of garbage that is so screwed up it doesn't know its head from its rear.
are these democrats not worried about the bailout because they have been conditioned to believe that throwing government money at a problem solves the problem? we should all be angry that they are using our money to solve their problem, and i mean both republicans and democrats.
I think Democrats are a little more inclined to believe that more government control and intervention in our lives is good, that it will solve more problems...
A bunch of people need to go to jail over this fiasco...IMO
All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression. Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson clearly was necessary to the foundation of this republic and his words are just as necessary to rescue it from those who have attempted to destroy it from within.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
we should all be angry that they are using our money to solve their problem, and i mean both republicans and democrats.
