NOTE: This began as an open thread, but has become a discussion of the House of Representatives failing to pass the Wall Street Bailout, and the Dow Jones dropping 777 points as a result.
There is no Prince William County Board of Supervisors meeting scheduled for tomorrow. The next meeting is scheduled for October 7, 2008.
AWC, I think I get what you’re saying. “Trickle down” was Regan’s plan to make the rich richer while letting the rest of us slurp up the crumbs. That worked pretty well because there were many crumbs. But then came the Bush’s I and II, who made the rich richer but didn’t worry about whether there were any crumbs, they just wanted the rich to get richer. And so from war profiteering, to wall street, to the oil industry, the people who were ALREADY billionaires when Bush II took over have done really well in this “fundamentally strong” economy, and meanwhile crumbs have been hard to come by.
I want to throw out the whole premise of crumbs and trickles. We can’t afford another four years of this b.s. I want to try something new for the 21st century, formulated by people who LIVE in the 21st century. McCain’s glory days were during the cold war, trickle down, and the fossil fuel economy. We have to move beyond that.
What I’m saying, NGL, the REAGAN plan was NEVER implemented…the BUSH plan was, and IT was what people commonly refer to as the “trickle down” effect, according to Wikipedia. If the Reagan Plan had been adopted, we’d talking more about “supply side” economics…and not getting them confused with each other.
The number one priority for politicians is job security. They vote for or against bills according to how they think their constituants will react. This is why the Numbers USA ploy of the recent past was so effective. Polls show that most people opposed to the Bill just defeated thought that most of the money was going to Wall Street banks and would not help anyone on Main street. Perhaps if the employers of some of these people are not able to secure funds to make their payrolls, then the reality of this situation will sink in.
The fact is that most of this money is going to those people who benefited from greed and ignorance…and now expect to be bailed out by those who did not succumb to it! THAT’S what the bailout will serve.
You are talking about that “trickle down” effect, Ivan…and NGL is absolutely correct about that.
I think it is time to stop finger pointing and even discussing politics.
We are way past that. We need to fix things and fix things now.
–Katherine, you and Rick seem to agree that we should punish the fat cats who ripped us off so badly, but I think to do that we’d be breaking with a long-standing tradition that you can’t throw a law at someone if the law didn’t exist when they broke it.–
But the law DID exist. These people are just good at hiding how they broke the law, like all expert criminals. There’s no way this happened without someone having broken the law.
Well Moon-howler, it’s very simple…interest rates must go up, money has got to get tighter (the Fed needs to stop printing it on a wing and a prayer), credit needs to get harder to come by, and people better start reducing their debt. In other words, the economy needs to reset, unless you want ANOTHER housing bubble which will eventually burst, that is. THEN we’ll be facing a depression that will make the “Great” look like a Sunday picnic!
By the way, did anyone hear that Bernanke (Chairman of the Federal Reserve) took it upon himself to throw $630 Billion into the World Bank Fund yesterday to float the Wall Street lending power WITHOUT ANY GO-AHEAD FROM CONGRESS…and the market STILL tanked In other words, he took it upon himself to fund the bailout and spit in the face of the taxpayer, and elected Representatives before the vote. Does anyone understand NOW what I’ve been saying about the Executive Branch circumventing the Balance of Powers? You’ve got to read this article:
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewarticle+articleid_2661872.html
Of course, considering that they did this BEFORE the vote indicates that their intention was to do this WITH OR WITHOUT approval and, hopefully, double the taxpayer investment into the plan in the process if it did, indeed, pass.
We already are facing a Great Depression.
You ain’t seen nothing yet, Moon-howler!
Let’s hope that Congress does the right thing and we won’t have to. I would rather not lose everything I have so I can ‘punish the fat cats’ who won’t even feel the pain.
I trust my sources on this one.
There’s a difference between “punishing the fatcats” and just not bailing them out.
“Excuse me, but I’ve invested badly. I need you to help me immediately. By Friday. For God’s sake, if you don’t, the Dow could go down 500 points!”
I cannot find language strong enough to describe how stupid people are to fall for this. Most people are complete babboons apparently.
I am not so sure that I want to give Paulsen a blank check for $700B. After listening to CNN, MSNBC, FOX today, it appears that the $700B figure was just pulled out of thin air. That could mean there is sufficient money for the rescue or it could mean more may be needed later. I know we need to have some type of legislation enacted to help with the financial crisis but I am concerned in the end the tax payer will be held hostage for more money this plan does not work.
The market is up between 450 and 500 points today. Does this mean the market is responding to a possible rescue plan being adopted by end of this week or does it mean that the market has the ability to recover on its own?
Moon-howler, if your “source” is a financial adviser and/or stockbroker, they have a vested interest in everybody keeping their money right where it is, and Wall Street getting bailed out, the hell with the consequences in the long run. Don’t you get it…Wall Street GOT a $630 Billion bailout already, compliments of Bernake, and the Market STILL tanked!! It’s all smoke and mirrors, at the taxpayer’s expense.
It means, Marie, that the stock market rises and falls on 80% perception and 20% reality.
What about my idea to give them $150 billion and see how it goes, and then let the next President and the next Congress clean up the mess?
Just saw Dave Ramsey on FOX. He had a solution and asked that everyone who agrees send it to their Senator or Representative. You can find his Common Sense Solution at
http://www.daveramsey.com/. I read it. He claims using his plan that liquidity could be back in the market in 24 hours and the housing industry would be strong in the Spring. It is worth a read. It follows:
DAVE RAMSEY’S COMMMON SENSE FIX
Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. As a tax-paying American citizen, I will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. Instead, I submit the following three steps:
Common Sense Plan.
I. INSURANCE
A. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type insurance. Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.
B. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things:
1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage.
a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes.
b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives.
2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs.
C. This backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal.
II. MARK TO MARKET
A. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime Tier III bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate.
B. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing.
III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX
A. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.
B. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. This is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. It’s time for all of us, as Americans, to
stand up, speak out, and fix this mess.
AW
You are correct!
I agree with Ivan that is is a massive public deception that is causing the hold up with this rescue bill. Voters need to understand that the bill is necessary. If credit markets freeze up, we will all be sorry, even people who are currently consumed with anger.
There are too many political opportunists looking to make this an election issue, preying on the resentment and envy that average Americans justifiably feel toward the millionaires on Wall Street. Any decision made based on anger, envy, or resentment is not ultimately going to be a good decision.
We have to bite the bullet and pass this rescue bill ASAP. Not only for our economy, but so that we can have a fair election unclouded by this crisis. Every day that the economy is the number one issue number in the minds of voters is a net loss for McCain, because he is unable to go on offensive. America should turn the page and focus on more traditional questions of leadership and experience that ordinarily would be the focus of a Presidential election. If this election is about the economy then we don’t have an election; we have a referendum on the Bush economy. That’s a landslide for Obama (unless Palin drops out of the race and McCain selects someone who is not only qualified but also an expert on the economy like Mayor Bloomberg, a likely scenario in my view).
My sources are neither stock brokers or financial advisors or political hacks.
I will gladly have all those here who know all the answers to bet their assets. Just leave mine alone.
AWCheney,
You’re one to talk! How can you not see that your anti-immigrant policies will contribute to our financial woes. Immigrants are some of the most productive people in our community. Some houses have 5-10 working adults who go out every day to bring back money into our community.
If we are to have a recovery here, immigrants will play a big role.
But since we kicked them all out of our county, it looks like PWC will be suffering long after the other counties have recovered.
Mackie, you are right but it doesn’t mean that AWC’s experience with economic matters should be discounted. You are really upset about the bail out as I am, but on the bright side (if there is one), the “immigration issue” will continue it’s dive into the depths of right wing extremism no matter who the next President is.
It will not be necessary for you or anyone to point out the unfortunate economic consequences of anti-immigrant legislation in Post-Bush Disaster America, because economic impacts will be something legislators look into from the start. Lucky for the rest of the nation (but sadly for us), Prince William County will go down in history as one of the three or four prime examples that warn other jurisdictions NOT to make the same mistake.
People can ignore me all they want. It is an ignorant person who ignores opposing views in a debate, an even more ignorant person that does not learn from history. It takes an absolute moron to make statements without looking at their own bias, peering into thier own illogical belief system and comparing that to majority opinion, social precedence and law.
You can believe all you want that “illegal” immigration is good for America by falsely assuming it is the same as “legal” immigration, and as beneficial as legal immigration and comparing FDRs superb leadership and bailout of the US economy during the Great Depression, his recognition by the best of historians as one of our greatest presidents next to Lincoln as tragically “inferior” because he interned Japanese families during WWII at a time when the entire world was at war. So what? He made a bad decision in hindsight, and he was not the only leader of a country at the time protecting its citizens by placing populations in temporary internment, until the risk could be assessed. Sort of like after 9-11 when Muslims were interned until things could be sorted out to determine who was really guilty and who was just suspected of being guilty.
You can also believe all you want that “illegals” had no impact on the current collapse of the economy or the defaulting on loans causing foreclosures. You will see in a historical review of this crisis that a population buildup of 25-45 million recently arrived residents to the country in the last 20 years (most of which were at some point illegal and eventually became legal), set the conditions for a housing bubble and economic mortage practice risk created by primarily by a reduction in ethics and truth in reporting. If you believe otherwise you are looking in the wrong place for others facts to counter these facts. Your sympathy will not change history.
You cannot counter every single statement of fact and truth with another statement of fact or truth and say one view is wrong while the other is not.
That is juvinile debate logic.
Listen to AWC, she knows what she is talking about, whether some of you like it or not.
MH, KG I did not raise my daughter, my ex-wife did. She left her mother’s home at age 17, and self emancipated, until she came to live with me when she was 18. She is not a feminist. She is a sensible person putting herself through school and now living with her boyfriend. She is 24. I raised my son from age 10. I did a wonderful job as a single dad. He did not leave my home, and is now in nursing school.
If some of you want to say hateful and unthoughtful comments about my family, send it to each other in e-mail. Otherwise show some respect, and less animosity for people’s personal lives.
My comments are not about control, they are about male and female equality, even in warfare. We have a lot of very proud and honorable women who actually do something to protect people who don’t deserve their self-sacrific for this nation. Some of them are dead now, but their deaths are no more and no less important and honorable than any man who died along side of them.
Robb,
Lets define Multi-ethnic and non-ethnic.
Multi-ethnic is a nation of separate ethnic political groups, all competing for votes and political power to have it their way, against all other ethnic groups.
Some multi-ethnic countries are: Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Argentina, Nigeria, Somalia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, South Africa, Isreal, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, India, etc.
The key distinguishing feature is they are “separate” and compete for political power and control over the government, usually not a democracy and usually a dictatorship led by the dominant ethnioc group.
Non-ethnic countries are countries that strive in their political philosophy and execution of law to be “colorblind” and to have no distinguishable ethnic attributes other than a unified national one. They are typically democracies, like the US, England, Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Brazil, Peru, Australia, etc They abhor laws created by and for one specific ethnic group and strive to blend all cultures and languages into a common understanding, common law and common social identity, while retaining individual centric freedoms regardless of gender, race, religion or ethnic self identity.
Which country would you rather live in Robb? most of the multi-cultural countries are at war or in conflict. Do you have sympathy for them too enough to destroy your own freedom and live under one of those ethnic group’s dictators?
Elena:
You go girl!
You got guts!
p.s. are your married and “taken”?
Gloria
To add to AW Cheney’s excellent grasp of the situation and understanding of history,. remember that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher were the first world leaders to push for free market economies, rather than “controlled” market economies. Remember we got into the 1970s major recessions trying to “engineer” the economy with goverment policy and social deficit spending (even socialist spending) and it took us to the near brink of national disaster (also the first oil crisis occurred in 1973 and 1979, when the Saudi’s cut oil production). Both leaders took enourmous political losses and heat, as the initial “privitization” of government owned resources caused an initial market correction “down” until people and business in those “sectors” gained enough initiative, opportunity, market worth, and creativity to let supply side and demand side economics balance themselves, and in doing so created the conditions for maximum profit and growth, while restraining excesses through competition. We had the rapid economic growth we’ve had since 1970 because of free-market forces.
Free market however does not mean free cheating, lawlessness, and creative stealing, because this creates artificial manipulation and control of both the supply side (Enron cheating) and the demand side (consumer and mortgage document cheating), causing artificial bubbles on either side to form and get out of balance. Eventually these imbalances lose “economic fuel” and the imbalance collapses. We absolutely must allow a free market correction in this crisis to correct, and not manipulate it, or it will get worse (at the cost of loss to cheaters and speculators), and at the inadvertant cost and huge loss to the rest of us who did what was right (remain ethical).
In game theory, cheaters always win until caught, then the losses are distrubuted among the entire resources of the game, because they become known to the entire game rather than “hidden”.
In reality, cheaters and lawbreakers should be punished, and the free market corrects back to a “known” balance of supply and demand, especially when the artifical “drivers of corruption and greed”, and commodity manipulation are exposed, and punished (causing negative market manipulation incentives) and the economy “resets”. The “reset” is the balance point, the growth is sustainable and not a radical loss or radical gain. The only force that can cause it to collapse further is fear (irrational fear), and further government (engineering) of the market, causing supply side abnormalities, and demand side changes as a result of the “engineering” causing artificial market forces (and eventually raised taxes and printed money).
If you want to survive this listen to AW Cheneys advice, don’t bail out cheaters and “illegals”, let the market correct, put your money in a safe and sustainable place where the value cannot change drastically over the next 10 years (don’t do volatile and risky investments). If you have any “stupid” investments, get rid of them now while you still have some value in them (cut your losses and take the loss off your taxes) or ride it out for 10 years or more (see your CPA or legal advisor, don’t take my word for it). Look for quality, avoid risk, and make smart investment in capital that can still make money even in a depression. SAVE YOUR MONEY RATHER THAN SPEND IT.
If you think talking “abusive” about it will make it go away, or wishing congress will bail you out, you are dumber than dirt and deserve to lose while others who are more proactive than reactive will gain from your losses.
Listen to AW, she knows what she’s talking about.
Michael, try as you may to promote your politically myopic definition of “multi-ethnic”, the United States — being racially, ethnically, and culturally diverse — is a multi-ethnic nation. Like it or not. Our own Census Bureau recognizes this fact (go to http://www.census.gov; I’ve already done my homework; now go do yours).
But you also need to make up your mind. First you focus on your pet definition of “multi-ethnic”, but then you stated the following at the end of your post:
So which is it Michael: multi-ethnic or multi-cultural?
According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, “multi-ethnic” means: “made up of people of various ethnicities ; also : of, relating to, reflecting, or adapted to diverse ethnicities” Michael, it seems to me that you are applying some of your own ideology to your definition of multi-ethnic.
I know a lot of people out there hate Wikipedia, but it can lead you to some other sources through its citation section. Here is an interesting tidbit I found on the connection between democracy and multiculturalism:
“according to Villalba, ‘a democratic nation is, by definition, multicultural as it gathers various populations, which differs by their regional origins (Bretons, Corsicans or Lorrains…), their national origins (immigrant, son or grandson of an immigrant), or religious origins (Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Agnostics or Atheists…).'”
– This is a quote from a French article published by the Catholic University of Lille, Law Dept.
I, as well as MANY other citizens from the supposed “non-ethnic” countries you mentioned (I suspect), would disagree with you about the goals of those countries. Of course, those countries do seek to form a common identity, but I would argue that it does not mean citizens need to reject another identity. Their goal is not “to have no distinguishable ethnic attributes other than a unified national one,” as you said.
Here are but a few of the ethnicities or minorities (sometimes broadly identified) within the countries you mentioned that still maintain their ethnic identities. They may do this socially, through language, etc.:
England: Black, Asian (especially of Indian subcontinental origin – Indian, Bengali, Pakistani, etc.)
Germany: Polish, Turkish, Moroccan, Balkan
France: West Indian, North African
Belgium: Walloon, Algerian, Sub-Saharan African, Turkish
Italy: Romanian, Arab, Albanian
Brazil: European (Portuguese, German), Lebanese, Syrian, Japanese
Peru: Spanish, Quechua, Aymara, African, Japanese, Chinese
Australia: Italian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, Oceanic
The following is a link detailing many of Australia’s government views supporting multiculturalism:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060219130703/http://www.immi.gov.au/facts/06evolution.htm
I find it mystifying that someone with the stature of Warren Buffett says we must pass the EESA or something similar to avoid economic calamity. Might he know something the rest of us do not know? He certainly doesn’t stand to lose or gain and he isn’t a politician. I would also venture a guess that he has forgotten more than most people have ever learned about economic and finance.
This is why I recommend the scroll button when Michael pays a 30,000 word visit. We are now talking about the definition of a word that does not require defining.
Michael, if you don’t like people of color, there are still a few places you can go. This blog is not one of them.
Michael, you get it!
Those of you turning an economic debacle and debate into an issue of ethnicity absolutely do not get it, and will no doubt get exactly that for which you are asking!
Marie, that is perhaps the best of the compromise solutions offered in this situation that I have heard. Well done finding it!
Michael has it right. Thing is, the invisible hand does punish those that do try to game the system…. unless we the tax payers are forced to soften that punishment.
Whom are the biggest culprits gaming the system? Politicians (Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd in particular). They’ve been and continue to royally SCREW us with socialist policies and hybrid public/private mortgage firms (Freddie/Fannie) that are forced to throw all economic and financial prudence to the wind and give these hair-brained and risky mortgages because, in our socialistic society, those that are not financially responsible enough to own a home should be ENTITLED to own a home. Now I’m being forced to subsidize this travisty.
F this whole fiasco and the ignorance that has bred it. F socialist liberals whose ignorance, ineptitude, and stupidity continue this BS spiral into a welfare socialist country at the average joe taxpayers expense. F crooked politicians and the dumbasses that support them. F voters that continue this dumbass cycle of retardedness. F the dumbasses that trust the govt. and ask for MORE govt. regulation of the free market system which continues to get us into these messes.
I feel better now.
Mando, glad you feel better after venting. Are you willing to accept that perhaps people out there with far more expertise in finance than you or I have might see or know something we don’t?
I reject all the academic suggestions I am reading on here because that is what they are…academic analyses. Many of the rules and regulations that have dominated finance and banking for years are simply outmoded. Rather than finger pointing which probably would sweep up pretty much everyone who held political office or who conducted business, let’s allow those with a deep understanding of the intricasies of finance, investment banking, international finance ton work out the preventative details for the future.
I don’t blame people who simply want to make money. I blame crooks. It wastes energy to get angry at things in the past. If I look far enough back, I can get all pissed over those who allowed the Great Depression to happen. I have to stop and ask if I helped contribute. I refinanced, I got a low interest loan, I have a second trust, I have several 401k’s, I have a dirt cheap car loan, I own stocks, some financial stocks (well…USED to own financial stocks)…the list goes on. Am I to blame?
“Am I to blame?”
If you support the notion that more govt. monkeying aroung with the free market system (which got us into this mess) is what we need to get us out of this mess. Also, if you support more social engineering of our society and think people are ENTITLED to own a home.
If so, then yes, I blame you.
This fiasco isn’t the complicated mess you make it out to be. What has happened here is simply a matter of subverting the invisible hand of a free market system. GAMING THE SYSTEM. Those that game the system SHOULD get punished. Whom better to game the system but the politicians which aren’t technically motivated by money but rather by VOTES? The free market can’t punish them. They’re insulated from that. Voters can only punish them and that won’t happen because their voters are the same ones that either BENEFIT from or are blind to this horse shit. So I’m SCREWED either way.
I’ve resigned to the fact that a bailout is unavoidable but I’m less inclined to burn CEO’s then I am to burn the politicians that got us into this mess with their socialistic nightmare of economic policy.
AWCheney, 1. October 2008, 6:07 said:
Marie, that is perhaps the best of the compromise solutions offered in this situation that I have heard. Well done finding it!
Thanks AW. I thought the solution made sense. The Senate has tweaked the present rescue plan and it will probably pass. They probably did not read Mr. Ramsey’s common sense approach even though many e-mailed it to them.
Why blame this mess on the “socialist nightmare of economic policy”? Who do you think wanted to keep people buying $h!t, whether houses , cars, tvs, or Big Macs? The people who profit from having something to sell. If the average Joe/Jane Blow already has a house with which he/she is satisfied, how do you as a builder, banker, big big store get those bucks flowing again? You lower the standards or create more demand.
Well Marie, if any additional bailout actually passes right on the heels of that $630 Billion that Bernanke has already thrown into the pot, be ready for HUGE tax increases, a HUGE dive in the value of the dollar, another massive housing bubble due to pop a lot faster than the last one and, ultimately, that BIG crash everyone’s predicting.
What do you think Michael…food riots in 12-24 months?
Demand was high because people who would otherwise be turned down for a morgage got them anyways. The socialist party has been clamoring for this for years. Research Freddie/Fannie and which congressmen have been shilling for them. Hmmmm… Dodd, Frank, Schumer… Mix that with exotic loans and non-existent credit checks and BOOM! Research Franklin Raines and his ties to Obama.
Greedy banks willing to play loose with their deposits rode the wave because they were ensured by the socialist party they would be covered in the event of a financial collapse. Covered by whom? US.
And here we are.
Mando, how do you think demand was created for McMansions? For SUVs? Banks had money to lend but consumers need to borrow for them, the banks, to profit. Don’t blame the poor shmo who wanted only to join the ranks of homeowners. He’s powerless. Better look at the power behind making him want to be a homeowner or the power behind making him want to ditch the perfectly adequate house for the new McMansion. Afterall, capitalists don’t profit unless we buy. They seduce, they advertise, they tell us how inadequate we are without the latest xxx. And we buy it.
Wanting is not a crime. It’s what drives us. I don’t blame the “poor shmo”.
“Better look at the power behind making him want to be a homeowner or the power behind making him want to ditch the perfectly adequate house for the new McMansion.”
I’m not sure how to respond to that… Especially considering your previous views on the blue collar consumer.
The issue here is not of wants, it’s of financial hoodwinking. Someone making $35k/year with no down payment should not have gotten a mortgage for $400,000 just because they “wanted” it.
I agree. But why was it possible? Could it be that most responsible consumers were satisfied with their houses? How do you keep selling, which, afterall, is what makes our economy go ’round? You lower lending standards. You seduce with no money down, no doc loans. The consumers merely took advantage of the offered product.
BTW, I have nothing against blue collar consumers, but I do have a grudge against people who use my tax dollars and bigotry to solve their neighborhood problems – particularly when those problems could be addressed by county services which are already in place. Sterling Park is deja’ vu.
“You lower lending standards. You seduce with no money down, no doc loans.”
No bank worth the bricks and mortar used to build it is going to follow that philosophy and stay in business very long. Nor should it.
“But why was it possible?”
Govt. backed shenanigans and psuedo-govt./corporate abominations like Freddie/Fannie. Also, you had Congress (and worthless community activists) making banks walk an invisible line between “redlining” and “predatory lending”.
You know, everything that has been described is under-rated capitalism….perhaps at its worst. Censored it right, someone wanted to make money by increasing the status of buyers.
And to answer your question Mando, no I dont think everyone is entitled to buy a house. I will also throw out that most people who buy houses also probably buy more house than they think they can afford, stretching it a little and plan on cutting back.
I have just been sickened by the fact that so many of you all are willing to risk all of our assets because you feel you know more than the experts. My feeling is parallel to Censored’s. She resents her tax dollars being used to solve someone else’s neighborhood problems. More social engineering.
Lets say this bill doesn’t pass and we go into full recession. It will sound like a swarm of cicadas all singing that the democrats did it to us……wwwwhiiiiinnnneeeee…….I hate having to blame people. All the leaders are wrong…but damn! Those people down in Manassas are right. Let’s go ask them!
“I have just been sickened by the fact that so many of you all are willing to risk all of our assets because you feel you know more than the experts.”
Don’t put words in my mouth. I said the bailout is unavoidable.
“I hate having to blame people. All the leaders are wrong…but damn! Those people down in Manassas are right. Let’s go ask them!”
You think I’m blowing this out my hindparts? This is economics 101. And what “experts” are you refering to? The ones that got us in this mess? I tend to rely on the “experts” that make the most sense, back up what they say, and have a wealth of wisdom in the field. Here’s one such expert:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/a_political_solution.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/a_political_solution_part_ii.html
“Censored it right, someone wanted to make money by increasing the status of buyers.”
In a very small and simple world. Some little pusher isn’t going take on a mortgage he can’t package up and sell to someone else. Who were they selling these EXTREMELY risky mortgages to? What viable company would take on such risk and why? It flys in the face of economic prudence. Those are the questions you should be asking yourselves.