Caius Fett Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Nice Arc. My point mimartain was that GOVERNMENT is more than half to blame for this current economic situation. It was under the Clinton administration that there was de-reuglation of the housing market as well as applying pressure to financial institutions to expand high risk loans. Everyone is decrying the greedy banks and investors and yes there is blame to be had there. However almost nobdy is mentioning how the federal govern ment has had a hand in this mess. And now they expect us to believe they have all the answers to fix what they f'ed up in the first place. As for it being a ploy by both parties first consider the person who orriginated this travesty. GW. Almost imediately house Dems jumped on the bandwagon. Republicans too I'll grant that. So now there are members from both parties pushing for this trying to look like they have half a clue. All to buy votes. In the end they'll get what they want of course and just make a bigger mess. I say let the market fix itself. Re-istitute the regulation that was abolished under clinton and if they absolutely MUST pass some bill to resue the economy why not do something like allowing home owners to refinance at a low fixed rate around 3.5% and give financial help to those who qualify under the old rules. Just my 2 cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 My point mimartin was that GOVERNMENT is more than half to blame for this current economic situation. [/Quote] How do you figure the government is more than half to blame? I don’t dispute that the government should share in the blame, but how do you figure they are responsible for a majority of the problem? I believe the financial markets, the government and the consumers are all to blame. I just don’t know how to proportion the blame. It was under the Clinton administration that there was de-reuglation of the housing market as well as applying pressure to financial institutions to expand high risk loans.[/Quote] So blame Clinton. Wasn’t it a Republican Congress that passed this deregulation? All the President can do is sign or veto the bill presented by Congress. Deregulation was a problem, but not because Congress or the President made mortgagee finance 100% variable rate loans. The deregulation allowed them to do it, but no one forced the companies or the consumers to do it. The banks did it to compete with Government back loans. The government offered these loans to people that could not get financed by private institutions. Although the banks would not originally loan money to these clients, since the government was now in the market, the banks decided to now take on riskier clients in the search for higher profits. Even if it is not illegal, giving 100% variable rate loans to someone that can barely afford the current interest rate, it is still unethical. This is just part of the problem. The financial crisis is beyond just this. It also involves mistakes in the real estate sector and these same lending institutions making a financial instrument out of these high risk loans and then playing musical chairs with them. I don’t see where anyone jumped on the Bandwagon. Bush asked for 700 Billion with no strings attached. He wanted Henry Paulson to control the fund with no congressional oversight. Bush wanted Mr. Paulson to have complete unquestioned digression. As to the members of congress having half a clue, I doubt that many of them have any more of clue than the rest of America about the true fallout of what will happen if they act or if they fail to act. The “so-called” expert economists are just as unsure although their guess is more educated than Rush Limbaugh or anyone on FoxNews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caius Fett Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 If the government hadn't poked their nose in where it was none of their buisness and started offering those loans this situation would likely have never happened. However all of that is water under the bridge as far as I'm concerened. The question then is where do we go from here? Personaly I don't happen to beleive the answer is yet more government intervention on behalf of the same financial institutions that have played fast and loose with the housing market. Do I pretend to have those answers? No. And I'm not sure anyone does at this time. As for the band waggon thing, wasn't it Pelosi and other House Dem leaders who innitially got behind the plan before the details had even been released? And isn't it the Dems who have tried to get all manner of riders and provisions added that would nearly double the cost of the plan? If that isnt bandwagon jumping I don't know what is. Again just my 2 cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 You do understand, regulations is the government sticking their nose into others business. Yes, let’s get the government out of the loan business. No more student loans, no more disaster relief loans, no more VA loans… Was Bush's bill the one that got defeated the other day? Then I fail to see the bandwagon. Congress wanting to do something to offset the real and perceived fallout from this is not jumping on the bandwagon, it is trying to offset disaster. I just don’t understand why the administration waited so long to request help, other than the oblivious reason of trying to hold off until after the election on November 4th. This is being sold by a few taking heads as bailing out Wall Street, but this could have serious affect on every street. This could cause serious unemployment, extremely high interest rates, money to be devalued and retirement funds to disappear. Again I do not support the bailout; I merely do not see any alternative because doing nothing has too many negative consequences that could go beyond Wall Street and even America itself. My .000000002 cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Not sure if anyone else has posted this but the Democrats tried to sneak a bunch of funds for Acorn into the bailout bill. Acorn is a leftwing activist organization, that has gotten in trouble for voter fraud. Oh and Barack Obama was not only their lawyer, but also served in a leadership role. Posts on ACORN were moved to this thread.. Please reserve this thread for the bank bailout issues. --Jae Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted October 2, 2008 Author Share Posted October 2, 2008 The Senate just passed a major bailout bill with votes almost 2 to 1 in favor. I think they've started to make a better case to Americans explaining what's going to happen with all the bad assets the gov't is going to buy, and they took great pains to show bipartisanship, I noticed. Pelosi was smart and didn't say anything negative in her press release tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I believe the case was made Monday afternoon when people’s retirement fund suddenly shrunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Ah, yes I love it, "don't bail them out, let them suck eggs!" *401k implodes* SAVE THEM SAVE THEM! Ah, the American populace, always trust them to make the right decisions....as soon as their ass is on the fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I wonder what goodies the Senate Democrats added to the bill though, remember the first bill was going to funnel millions if not billions of dollars to pet projects and Democrat activist groups. I listened to a congressional representative from my state on Tuesday talk about this, even got to ask him some questions. This may be an opinion piece but it's sources check out: http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/09/surprise-obamas-legal-career-consisted.html It talks about Obama's ties to Acorn as well as his direct involvement in events leading to the current financial disaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Web Rider Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 It talks about Obama's ties to Acorn as well as his direct involvement in events leading to the current financial disaster. you know, you can shout that from the hills till your throat is dry, but you still havn't provided any proof for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted October 2, 2008 Author Share Posted October 2, 2008 There was no legislation in that bill that involved Acorn--various news agencies have taken great pains today to point that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 There was no legislation in that bill that involved Acorn--various news agencies have taken great pains today to point that out. Referring to the previous bill that the Democrats tried to jam through the House of Representatives, and I'd have to see the bill in order to believe what they say. As Fox News has said they no longer take the Associated Press at face value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 As Fox News has said they no longer take the Associated Press at face value. I’m sure that sentiment is mutual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I’m sure that sentiment is mutual. I really don't care what the AP thinks, especially when the National Enquirer these days has higher standards than the New York Times. And Obama got his 10,000 press secretaries. What still hasn't been addressed is the fact that Obama sued banks to force them to issue Sub-Prime Mortgages which is what led to this fiasco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 What still hasn't been addressed is the fact that Obama sued banks to force them to issue Sub-Prime Mortgages which is what led to this fiasco. You think Obama representing a group that sued banks to force them into issuing Sub-Prime Mortgages led to this fiasco! 700 billion is extreme amount for such a minor problem. Did Obama also sue the banks into issuing variable rate loans? Did Obama sue them into make this sub-prime loans into investment securities? Did Obama sue the banks into giving multiple loans to those wishing to profit from the housing market? Etc, etc… There is no one thing that led to this mess, so there is no one person to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 You think Obama representing a group that sued banks to force them into issuing Sub-Prime Mortgages led to this fiasco! 700 billion is extreme amount for such a minor problem. No but but where was he when McCain tried to get this problem fixed back in 2007? He was taking kickbacks from Fanne/Freddie. Did Obama also sue the banks into issuing variable rate loans? Did Obama sue them into make this sub-prime loans into investment securities? Did Obama sue the banks into giving multiple loans to those wishing to profit from the housing market? Etc, etc… Point is he was involved in it, also he had a chance to stand up and support McCain's call for it to be fixed. There is no one thing that led to this mess, so there is no one person to blame. Actually, you can place blame on the Democrat Party, though the media is taking great pains to avoid mentioning it. President George W. Bush tried to get more regulations in that would have prevented this mess. (Least the one involving Freddie/Fanny) Result: Democrats fillabustered the bill. John McCain and some other Republicans tried to get this fixed TWICE! Once in 2005-2006, and then tried again in 2007. Results: 2005-2006 Dem's fillabustered it 2007 Democrats shot the bill down saying there wasn't a problem. Even Former President Clinton has blamed Democrats for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Even Former President Clinton has blamed Democrats for this. But not the Republican Congress that passed the deregulation for Clinton to sign in the first place? Was McCain a member of that Congress? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 But not the Republican Congress that passed the deregulation for Clinton to sign in the first place? Was McCain a member of that Congress? I believe he voted against that part of the deregulation. Not sure, but even if he voted for it he moved to add the regulations back in twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 I believe he voted against that part of the deregulation.Right, that figures McCain isn't a true conservative he believes in big government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Right, that figures McCain isn't a true conservative he believe in big government. No he's for small government, but he's also for common sense, seeing as Freddie/Fanny already had Government ties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jae Onasi Posted October 2, 2008 Author Share Posted October 2, 2008 Referring to the previous bill that the Democrats tried to jam through the House of Representatives, and I'd have to see the bill in order to believe what they say. As Fox News has said they no longer take the Associated Press at face value. Well, I heard it from both Fox News and AP sources, if that makes you feel any better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Well, I heard it from both Fox News and AP sources, if that makes you feel any better. Yeah, but the bill still might be voted down, the last one according to the congressman I met on Tuesday September 30th even without the earmarks was still trash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 No he's for small government, but he's also for common sense, seeing as Freddie/Fanny already had Government ties. Then why did Senator McCain vote for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? You know the bill that deregulated the Banking Industry. Let’s also not forget Mr. McCain voted for the The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act in 1982. What makes that vote disturbing is it was the deregulation of the Saving and Loans Industry. Mr. McCain learned nothing from that vote and again voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Then why did Senator McCain vote for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? You know the bill that deregulated the Banking Industry. Let’s also not forget Mr. McCain voted for the The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act in 1982. What makes that vote disturbing is it was the deregulation of the Saving and Loans Industry. Mr. McCain learned nothing from that vote and again voted for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999. Maybe however if that's the case he moved to fix his mistake in 2005-2006 and 2007 as he watched it being abused he moved to fix it. The Dems were too busy getting money from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yar-El Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 Article: Give me a break, a tax break — or else How windmills help explain the politicking over the Wall Street bailout Tax earmarks in Senate bailout The following "tax earmarks" were added to the Senate bailout legislation: New tax earmarks: ~ Film and television productions (Sec. 502) ~ Wooden arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503) ~ 6-page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504) Tax earmark “extenders”: ~ Virgin Island and Puerto Rican rum (Section 308) ~ American Samoa (Sec. 309) ~ Mine rescue teams (Sec. 310) ~ Mine safety equipment (Sec. 311) ~ Domestic production activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312) ~ Indian tribes (Sec. 314, 315) ~ Railroads (Sec. 316) ~ Auto racing tracks (317) ~ District of Columbia (Sec. 322) ~ Wool research (Sec. 325) Small update to the bail out events of the day. See link above for more details. ----- Added ----- Article: BREAKING DOWN THE BAILOUT VOTE By a vote of 74-25, the Senate has approved its version of the financial recovery package that was voted down by the U.S. House on Monday. Senators Biden, McCain, and Obama, as promised, returned to the Hill to vote "aye" on the measure. Did everyone agree to not vote for a bill filled with earmarks? McCain? McCain? Are you there? I guess things have changed since the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.