NO Too 700 Billion...

No matter what happens there will be consequences. I hope (and I really do hope) that people have learnt a lot since the 30s.

-Cub. =o)

There WILL be a bail out.

Why?

Because if they don't the financial crisis will be devastating. This would cause voters to say "How did this happen?" Then they realize that they people they voted for did it to them. We'd have a political upheaval and the members of congress would overwhelmingly lose their jobs for new faces who say the right things and likely aren't the same kind of politician.

So they will bail them out. Just to keep their jobs another day to screw up our nation even more.

McCain also jumped the gun and took credit for a lot of things that didn't turn out the way they were supposed to.

One more notch in the other guy's belt as far as I see it.

I also heard a friend of mine comment the other day that if Obama won in november, he would bring balance to the force. That cracked me up.

-Fred

We'll see... I don't think we need the bail out as much as everyone is trying to make us believe...
I don't agree with making the Fat Cats even Fatter...

I think you may be wrong baf. I think with no bailout it's gonna hurt some people like hell. But it would be twice as bad with it. The bailout would just delay the inevitable and make it that much worse. We need to take our punches now and learn from our mistakes.

This is the reason real conservatives are so fed up with George W. Bush and so uneasy with John McCain. My man freep is exactly right on this one.

http://townhall.com/columnists/BillStei ... _interview

Why, oh why, couldn't we have nominated Ron Paul?

I think I'll buy myself a bank. They come cheap these days.

Ron Paul didn't fit with the model democracy has chosen for its candidates, so the system took him out. I mean let's face it, he was shot down from all sides before it began. Anderson Cooper didn't even hide his intentions not to make him speak during the CNN debate. I'm telling ya damnit, democracy has taken over the institutions!

if Obama won in november, he would bring balance to the force. That cracked me up.

Considering we still don't really know what the prophecy meant, this is frightening!

There's a lot of blame to go around on this one. But it's not the usual suspects this time.

Back during the Carter Administration, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was passed. This act provided incentives for banks to help low-income borrowers get a home. It was a nice idea. It did what it set out to do and helped a lot of people. During this time, rising home values remained in step with inflation.

In 1995, during the Clinton Administration the CRA was expanded. The expanded act created subprime authorization and it also included provisions which forced the banks to issue new subprime loans (to the tune of 1 trillion dollars) or face severe penalties. This expansion also created new subprime mortgage securities.

Fannie Mae would guarantee the mortgages and then sell them to banks and investors. The more mortgages, the more money for Fannie Mae. So to increase the number of mortgages, the banks moved down the income ladder.

Remember, the banks had to issue subprime mortgages or pay big penalties.

After the CRA expansion, home values started increasing faster than inflation, causing a bubble, just waiting to burst.

In 2003, the Bush Administration saw trouble ahead and recommended a new agency to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but congress blocked it.

In 2005 John McCain co-sponsored the Housing Enterprise Regulatory Act of 2005 (with Hagel, Dole and Sununu) to regulate Fannie Mae. Again, congress blocked it.

The same bill came up agian in 2007 and yet again, congress blocked it.

All the while, we're having rising interest rates, rising oil prices, and paychecks getting squeezed to the point where borrowers stopped paying. Banks stopped lending and the subprime market collapsed. No buyers. Only sellers.

Fannie Mae guarantees became worthless because they kept overstating their assets. So banks collapsed due to worthless government securities issued by Fannie Mae.

Of course, this isn't the whole story but it's a damed big part of how we got where we are.

I don't know what the solution is, now that we're in this mess. However, since everyone likes to throw blame around and point fingers, it is important to realize that the banks were forced, by an act of congress, to make those bad loans. And it is also a fact that both Bush and McCain (and possibly others) tried to reel in Fannie Mae before the $hit hit the fan, but were always blocked by congress.

Where we go from here, I honestly don't know.

It was a good youtube, eh Dr Paul? It's okay, you don't have to "leave out" the parts where it told where/who a lot of this money went to. Well, maybe you should, we don't need another "politics" thread.

~Keck

Wow. Yeah it had nothing to do with the fact that these lenders kept selling the mortgages and playing loose with the money. Nothing at all! Their asses shouldn't be saved. We need to bite the bullet.

Jerry Dan wrote:This is the reason real conservatives are so fed up with George W. Bush and so uneasy with John McCain. My man freep is exactly right on this one.

http://townhall.com/columnists/BillStei ... _interview

Why, oh why, couldn't we have nominated Ron Paul?

I voted for him Jerry Dan. I find new reasons to love you every day

freepizza wrote:I think you may be wrong baf. I think with no bailout it's gonna hurt some people like hell. But it would be twice as bad with it. The bailout would just delay the inevitable and make it that much worse. We need to take our punches now and learn from our mistakes.

No doubt it's going to hurt... Bail Out or No Bail Out, some groups are going to suffer while others benefit...

I just don't think the Bail Out will do any Good for the people that Need the help...
If the Government really wants to help... I say take that 700 Billion and find all the defaulted Mortgages and pay 25,000 {Negotiable Amount} on the balance, giving that home owner a small security net to get their sh;t together and get back on track with their mortgage...
Meanwhile giving all of those who are current on their Mortgages a nice Property Tax Cut for the next 5 years {negotiable number of years, but no less than 3}...

The numbers listed above are just examples and fillers, use your own sensible amount if you don't agree with what I inputted...

Now we can move onto an Educational Bill for discussion... Anyone making less than 50,000 a year, put 10,000 towards their Student Loans, if they happen to have less than 10,000 left on their Student Loan, then pay it off...

If the Government really wanted to help, they wouldn't be trying to help the Fat Cats of Wall Street, they would be focusing on the American People...


Surely the above could use more/better wording, but I think you can get the blunt end of the idea here...

I bought a house I can't afford. It was variable rate and the rate went up! Now I can't pay, that's not fair! I don't know what variable means!

Seriously, I blame everyone, They shouldn't have put the candy dish out, but you also shouldn't be eating candy if you're diabetic.

In other words, it's wrong to entice people with a mortgage rate they could afford, because real estate was the "best" place for the government to want to increase liquidity between banks. But, that didn't stop the morons who bought houses they couldn't afford to begin with, or barely afford, and then when their "variable" ( HENCE IT CAN CHANGE UP OR DOWN ) rate mortgage went up on them, they couldn't pay it.

Hey, the banks had no more liquid asset, people stopped loaning them money, so the buck had to stop somewhere. And guess what, it ended up at Johnny "No Budget" who lives beyond his means and then goes, "Someone save me I don't know how to plan ahead."

To be more fair, they probably couldn't/shouldn't have anticipated their mortgages going 400-500% in a month, but that doesn't get my bleeding heart going. You know what, I make 60k+ a year, and I don't have a home, because I can't afford it and save for retirement like I want to. Sorry I've been responsible with my money, let's bring on some more taxes though. I like paying for other people who can't manage their lives.

But, individual accountability doesn't really exist in the US anymore. Something I really hope we can all start to "ingrain" in our children, because I'm fairly certain the current 20 year old to 40 year old crowd is screwed (Yay, I'm in that range!)

All this being said, this breaks my policy of how people should live their lives. It's the "Don't be a Jerk" policy. It's bad these people can't spend their money correctly. It's bad that a benevolent idea like the CRA was poorly managed. It's bad that this trap was set for these people. It's bad that we give people who have a lot of money, severance packages for not being able to run a business ( but it may have been impossible for them to fix it ).

They had to know what they've been getting into, since the writing was on the wall for all of this (with great OMG WE ARE SCREWED) since 2003. But, in that same token, I understand they had a contract. It's not their fault people agreed to that term in the contract. If someone wants to give me a bail out clause worth millions of dollars, you'd be a fool not to take it. So, I guess they had to. The rich outsmarted them ... hmmm maybe that's how they got rich.

So, in turn, people still suck. Everyone wants free stuff. We'll figure out how to get through this, until we F* Up again. Life ain't easy.

~Keck

It's okay, you don't have to "leave out" the parts where it told where/who a lot of this money went to. Well, maybe you should, we don't need another "politics" thread.

Precisely. No reason for divisiveness. And yes, the youtube was a pretty concise summary of many articles and comments I've seen, but I tried to cut out the angry parts.