You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Financial bailout by US government...
- Thread starter g8r80
- Start date
I'd like to read that Typhon but my work has it blocked for "singles and dating"
WTF? LOL
Can you either pm me that or paste it in? The Brits always offer a sensible opinion to our issues.
It's a blog posting from one of the Telegraph's political correspondents so maybe that's why it got blocked.
Barack Obama and John McCain just lost to None of the Above
Posted By: Gerald Warner at Sep 29, 2008 at 21:22:31 [General]
Posted in: Society
Tags:Barack Obama , Federal Reserve , John McCain , Nancy Pelosi
Amid the chaos and fear on Wall Street and around the world, with banks toppling like ninepins, two further losers beyond Fortis and Hypo have registered on guttering screens: Barack Obama and John McCain have both been rejected by their parties in Congress in favour of None of the Above. Both candidates supported the $700 billion bail-out that has just been battered to death on the floor of Congress by 228 votes to 205.
It is not unprecedented for a president of the United States eventually to lose the confidence of his party in Congress, as has now happened to George W Bush. What is unprecedented is for a presidential candidate to lose control of his party even before he has been elected, as has just happened to both Obama and McCain. Obama backed the bail-out, only to see 94 Democrat representatives tell him where to put it. McCain, more reluctantly, supported the proposal: 132 out of 199 Republicans told him to spin on it.
Representatives chose to listen to their constituents rather than to party managers - a messy, democratic outcome unimaginable in Britain. But the $700 billion question is: where does this leave the two candidates? Do they claim their party rebels are mavericks? In McCain's case that uncomfortably paints him as a conformist. Do they trash Main Street in favour of Wall Street? Obama has already issued a limp-wristed statement claiming that Congress will come round: "I'm confident we're going to get there, but it's going to be rocky."
Will all those principled taxpayers change their stance if the economy goes into meltdown? Or is this a real-life face-down of creeping socialism and the return of American capitalism to its non-negotiable roots? The majority against the deal was so solid, it is hard to believe Nancy Pelosi's infamous speech was responsible for provoking it. Nevertheless, it was a classic of irresponsible partisanship and a dramatic illustration of how poisonous the Democrat soul has become.
Her hysterical attack on "the Bush administration's failed economic policies - policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system" ignored the deadly Clinton regulations denounced in my previous blog, whereby the Federal Reserve compelled banks to accept welfare and unemployment benefit as income sources for mortgages for borrowers who should never have been regarded as eligible. As an across-the-aisle exercise in bi-partisan conciliation, in the style promised by Barack Obama, Pelosi's speech somehow lacked efficacy.
This presidential election has lost its centre of gravity - everything is in free-fall.
Amazing what happens when our government actually listens to the people.
Only because elections are 5 weeks away...
Only because elections are 5 weeks away...
Exactly. Thats the only reason they are actually listening.
Amazing what happens when our government actually listens to the people.
Hold that statement until you see what the consequences are, listening to the people could result in your government being brought to its knees.
Exactly. Thats the only reason they are actually listening.
And then afterwards, they will continue to listen, respect our opinions, and work for the people, right?
Hi BikeSwimLaugh,
Many thanks for the information. This is really helpful for me.
Many thanks for the information. This is really helpful for me.
The only problem I have with the bailout is that it's going to companies that are in need, right? Why are these companies in need? It's because people aren't paying their debts. Why aren't people paying their debts? It's because they can't afford it.
I say the money should go to the public, which in turn, would help these companies out of their debt by people paying their bills. If they gave everyone 2K, they would go out and spend it, put it in the bank, or whatever, that in turn would help the economy. The only way to not help is if you took the check and put it in the paper shredder.
That's the way I see it. And four months into Obama's presidency, it appears they're still focusing on the wrong thing. You give money to a company, they're just going to use it for the wrong thing.
I say the money should go to the public, which in turn, would help these companies out of their debt by people paying their bills. If they gave everyone 2K, they would go out and spend it, put it in the bank, or whatever, that in turn would help the economy. The only way to not help is if you took the check and put it in the paper shredder.
That's the way I see it. And four months into Obama's presidency, it appears they're still focusing on the wrong thing. You give money to a company, they're just going to use it for the wrong thing.
That's the truth right there. People really are ****ing stupid. I never did understand what is so complicated with the idea of only spending money that you have. Do people really just rack up charges on CCs and expect that they will somehow miraculously be able to repay it? I don't get it. When I buy something, I only put it on my CC if I could pay in cash just the same. Then I get all these dandy points. The CC companies not only don't make money on me, they pay me to use their money. How nice. The credit problem this country (and world I suppose) has is because people don't know a damn thing about finance, budgeting, and just using common sense.
And if bailout money went to the people, that wouldn't do ****. The idiots would just spend it on stupid **** and end up with the same problems. And let's not forget this lovely little thing called inflation. Hmm, I wonder what that would be like if every U.S. citizen got cut a fat check.
And if bailout money went to the people, that wouldn't do ****. The idiots would just spend it on stupid **** and end up with the same problems. And let's not forget this lovely little thing called inflation. Hmm, I wonder what that would be like if every U.S. citizen got cut a fat check.
People aren't stupid in my opinion. Just selfish and in turn it's interpreted by others as being "stupid" or "idiotic."
The fact is, you can't buy a house these days without pulling out a mortgage. The problem is that people generally pay the bare, bare, bare, bare minimum when they pull the mortage.
What happened is that years ago, banks gave loans out with no downpayments (about 10-15 years ago). Now it's catching up with us because as the rates are going up, people aren't able to pay the mortgage. Even if you're late once, that impacts the company greatly. If a bank loaned out a 120K, 30 years mortgage, with no downpayments, and the market rates went up, how could you expect that person to pay when he doesn't even have the money?
It's not really people's fault, it's more or less the bank's fault for loaning money to people who can't pay it back.
The fact is, you can't buy a house these days without pulling out a mortgage. The problem is that people generally pay the bare, bare, bare, bare minimum when they pull the mortage.
What happened is that years ago, banks gave loans out with no downpayments (about 10-15 years ago). Now it's catching up with us because as the rates are going up, people aren't able to pay the mortgage. Even if you're late once, that impacts the company greatly. If a bank loaned out a 120K, 30 years mortgage, with no downpayments, and the market rates went up, how could you expect that person to pay when he doesn't even have the money?
It's not really people's fault, it's more or less the bank's fault for loaning money to people who can't pay it back.
Last edited:
And if bailout money went to the people, that wouldn't do ****. The idiots would just spend it on stupid **** and end up with the same problems. And let's not forget this lovely little thing called inflation. Hmm, I wonder what that would be like if every U.S. citizen got cut a fat check.
I disagree. If you gave people money, they'd go spend it. Sure they might buy a brand new car, instead of paying that loan they just pulled out, but guess where that money is going? Straight to the banks. That in turns help the economy because the bank now has money.
Saving your money helps the economy. Spending it helps the economy. Only way to not to help the economy is if you put it in the paper shredder or cashed it and hid all of it in your house.
People aren't stupid in my opinion. Just selfish and in turn it's interpreted by others as being "stupid" or "idiotic."
The fact is, you can't buy a house these days without pulling out a mortgage. The problem is that people generally pay the bare, bare, bare, bare minimum when they pull the mortage.
What happened is that years ago, banks gave loans out with no downpayments (about 10-15 years ago). Now it's catching up with us because as the rates are going up, people aren't able to pay the mortgage. Even if you're late once, that impacts the company greatly. If a bank loaned out a 120K, 30 years mortgage, with no downpayments, and the market rates went up, how could you expect that person to pay when he doesn't even have the money?
It's not really people's fault, it's more or less the bank's fault for loaning money to people who can't pay it back.
Bah, that's a cop out. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. (yeah right, I won't hold my breath) All the banks do is say you are qualified for such and such amount. They don't really know that you can afford that. Each person should have a budget lined up and know exactly what they will spend on principle and interest, tax, insurance, gas/electric, water, cable, high speed, groceries, etc etc...see where I'm going?
Under your theory, people really are stupid, they are like cattle. The banks just offer up these big loans and people don't have sense enough to know what they can and cannot afford? Sounds stupid to me.
I disagree. If you gave people money, they'd go spend it. Sure they might buy a brand new car, instead of paying that loan they just pulled out, but guess where that money is going? Straight to the banks. That in turns help the economy because the bank now has money.
Saving your money helps the economy. Spending it helps the economy. Only way to not to help the economy is if you put it in the paper shredder or cashed it and hid all of it in your house.
Hmmm, I see what you are saying, but if everyone was given all this money, the actual value of our money would sink like an anchor.