I agree...and I've got $3 and some change in my pocket...so where is my bailout? How about cutting the CEO's million dallor a day salaries to go back into these corrupted, mismanaged, government unregulated companies instead of using OUR tax money!
Even as the majority focus on this bill is directed toward big financial institutions and is focused on cleaning out their big loans, it was not developed to be a "wall street bailout" but rather a mechanism to keep the economy from collapsing into a depression with no money available for anyone. Between the initial Paulson proposal and the final vote in which the House supported it with a good number of members of Congress changing their votes many things occurred, even as the essence of the original proposal was maintained; Controls were issued with regard to the institutions that accept bailout money that will should control and cap executive salaries and golden parachutes. Other groups will oversee that which the Treasury Department (Paulson) does The govt purchasing of bad loans will include a greater number of ways in which taxpayer money is ultimately used to get back a return. This will have several triggers over several years. Of course a bunch of political pork was added to the bill. (what can I say). The biggest piece was extending of the Alternative tax program which essentially keeps middle class Americans from paying higher taxes in a law that was originally focused on far wealthier Americans. Meanwhile the voting change occurred because of a dramatic increase in contacts to members of Congress detailing the problems of the collapsing credit problem. The first surge of contacts to Congress expressed people's resentment about the bill. The second surge identified how critical the problem was in affecting people around the nation.
Greed is to blame, the actual blame itself is placed across all of wall street, congress, and beyond. Why should I feed these corporate pigs? They got a couple million bucks, they don't need any more! Force them to use their own damn money, its their fault, why not go ahead and make them pay up.
Great, then lets let them fend for themselves now. We should not. Nor should we bail out California. The, largest, richest, most populous and most liberal state. We're setting dangerous precedents here in doing either or both.
The question was "who is to blame" The answer is consumers. not banks or oil companies, not even politicians, its consumers ( us being greedy )
Its a mixture of both consumers and the banking industry and the brokers. Look, bankers - loan officers actually, used to get a salary. Now they make a commission. The more they lend, the more they make. Now that we've identified the problem. Lets fix it. Don't give them any more money. Let it collapse.
Typical of the most partisan aspects of the Far Right, they mix opinions with blame for anything that is or was supported by the left. Overwhelmingly they express attacks that are never supported by facts. The following list of comments from reasonably reputable sources as reviewed by Wikipedia on the possible impact of CRE to the subprime crisis discusses the pros and cons.... Please note, that outside of opinions from people from both sides of the political aisle, the only hard facts showed that CRA loans were not responsable for the subprime mortgage mess, and contributed a small minority of such loans. Most of the loans arrose out of institutions not subject to CRA. Moreover some of the loans came directly out of programs established by the Bush administration and were not subject to CRA. As to the assertions above. Nice try. Lots of politics. No meat.
So let me ask you a question. When Barney Frank who was in charge there goes on National Television and tells Americans that Fannie and Friddie are strong prompting thousands of people to buy up stocks only to crash later. You don;t hold him more responsible than Obama or McCain?
That is an individual, not a 'party'............. Republicans including the very president sitting in office now are guilty of their own misdoings, I have posted the white house's own page, Bush campaigned on record home ownership, made proposals that were set forth with Fannie and Freddie to lower standards to get those 'record' home ownership numbers. If people buy based on what a politician says, well that's those people's first problem..........
I also showed documents which showed Bush tried on several occasions since 9/11 2001 to have Fannie and Freddie brought under better Government scrutiny. And all four times he was shot down by none other than teh democrats. House republicans (with the exception of the few) have been saying this was going to happen if we dont do something about it for years.
Shot down when the Republicans were in charge of the congress? hmmmm Supposedly being for 'regulation' something the Republicans usually are against does not equate to making him innocent from his own proposals and policies he went with. Far from it.
What the GRIMster fails to tell you about the popular belief in faulting Bush with this is that of those claims made in 03/04 Bush's USDA home loan guarantee proposals only accounted for 42,000 home ownership opportunities. Further to that, Bush's ADDI (American Dream Downpayment Initiative) signed into law Dec 2003 authorized around $800 million, (not billion) in home-buyer assistance from 2004 through 2007. Small change compared to bailing out the no money down crazies that ran fannie and freddie under the watchful eye of Obama supporters. Also, what Grimmy fails to tell you is that the initial Bush tax cuts were primarily responsible for and spurred the initial growth and housing boom. I bought my home in part using my own money as a down payment that I got back after the government tried to fleece me with it. Back when Bush was touting record home ownership, the homes being bought were being bought with money down, or with guarantees from HUD and other initiatives that Bush created to help spur growth in a post 9/11 and post Bill Clinton recessionary period. No one told banks, brokers and home buyers to go out and either sell loans to, or give credit to people that could not afford it. The record home ownership taken credit for was during a period when HUD and other agencies were helping minorities and first time home buyers achieve the American Dream.... Those are the people that still have their homes. The ones that do not, are the ones that bought more than one home. Were flipping homes, or were taking equity out in their homes to buy useless SUV's and other expensive toys. I have yet to meet a responsible individual that lost their house. That does not mean there are not people out there that did, but the majority appear to be people that were living well beyond their means. The people you read about in the news losing their homes are losing $500,000.00 or more homes on librarian salaries... We're not talking about the average middle class two income family living in a modest 2 bedroom ranch here. We are talking about people that could barely afford their car payment living in 6,000 square foot, 5 bedroom 6 bath mansions. I've no sympathy for these people... None.
Yep continue with the bias sunglasses, I would have it no other way Mia. Bad = Dems Good = Repubs How does your logic hold up, you blame the Clinton policies which were more for low income to get their foot in the door in lower priced houses. Yet in the next breath you blame individuals for taking too much home, more than they can afford. Yep as long as it comes back to Clinton sucks it works for you. --- BTW there was much more to his proposal than USDA home loan guarantees, but nice try.
Our government as a whole is responsible. Both the Democrates and the Republicans haven't been able to put petty differences aside to work as a whole fore the people, so most often nothing gets accomplished, or things get out of control. In the case of our current economic mess, neither the Clinton nor the Bush administration put regulations on Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac. Now look where we are.
Don't they ALL, and the current candidates are no different. For me, it's another "vote for the lesser of two evils" election...go McCain...and I say this with very little confidence...but with more then I have for Obama.
I feel pretty much the same way 'but' I wont vote for the lesser of two evils this time I'm writing in..
I understand...I've selected one because I'm more worried about the other. Let's face it...if I vote, then I have a right to complain.