Political Thread (Ignore if you hate politics)

oh ...bail US out...each american over the age of 18 could get a check for that amount...that would bailout MY economy...not sure about bailing out rich guys who don't need the cash but i could use it....and the reason one blames bush is because .....
as i said earlier......
the president is the icon, the scapegoat, the one we blame...he picks his cabinet and administrators etc....i already said that i don't think the president is really to blame for all of it because he doesn't have that much power...but we need a name to blame it on so we say "bush" or "obama" or "mccain" we know it really wasn't him personally...but thats why he's the president...he's the scapegoat...just a name really
 
There is plenty of blame to go around. I can't stand Bush, but it makes me even more sick when I see Congress just giving him a rubber stamp on so many unconstitutional things. They are the ones who make the laws. They are the ones who CONTINUE to give money towards unconstitutional/undeclared wars (past & present). They are the ones who voted for the patriot act without even so much as reading what they were signing off on. Bush is a terrible president, but most of our representatives (Dems & Reps) have done a piss poor job of representing the people. Guess we are to blame, too, for continuing to re-elect corrupt officials.
 
Blame Bush?

This bailout is one of the few things I think Bush has done well. I am CREDITING Bush with this one. This is the act that makes me feel like he may not prove to be worst President in the past century.

-MS
 
mikestrauss said:
Blame Bush?

This bailout is one of the few things I think Bush has done well. I am CREDITING Bush with this one. This is the act that makes me feel like he may not prove to be worst President in the past century.

-MS
Click to expand...

Credit his advisers if you like it. I'm kinda against it as it's going into effect before I can create my own savings and loan company. Frankly I'd LOVE to be a big enough player that I can act unethically and still expect the government to bail me out of the mess that I got into because I was too greedy.
Frankly, I'd vote for any candidate that made the following law a part of his platform:

If a financial institution goes insolvent, clear title for any property mortgaged must be immediately presented to the mortgagee as long as said mortgagee is not currently in default.

The banks have already paid for the property, if said bank fails let's hold them RESPONSIBLE for the money they owe on a loan they shouldn't have written. Don't transfer the debt the bank owes, nullify it. The government will get the money back from the homeowner in the sales taxes he pays on the home theater system and bowling alley in the basement he couldn't afford before due to his mortgage. The government has the right of eminent domain... Let's apply it in a manner that benefits Joe Construction worker who signed for a home loan because his bank told him it was a good deal, and was naive enough to believe that his banker was interested in looking out for him.

-toddo
 
the ideas and opinions of the people posting on this board are so varied its AMAZING...i loooove seeing so many different opinions and people all able to play nicely together. kudos
 
Bush doesn't want to do the bailout, he has to do the bailout. The Republicans are against the bailout (despite what Mike says about them being behind it). The Democrats are for the bailout and are haranguing Bush to "get his party in line."

It's amazing so many people look at this as saving rich people. It's an attempt to save the economy. Is it a great or good solution? There may not be a good solution. But if the banks fail, everyone in the country is screwed: rich, poor and in between. If banks aren't loaning money or giving credit, companies cannot buy materials and those companies will fold. When companies fold, people lose their jobs.

It amazes me in this country, the country of free enterprise, that so many people are jealous of "the rich". They see them as some evil noble sitting in their castle. But you know what? Most of the rich people in this country worked to make themselves rich. Every single one of us has that opportunity. And most truly "rich" people I know are driven and work non stop. How many of us do that? Not 40 hour weeks, but 80 and 120 hour weeks. "Rich" people have built this country and made life better and easier for everyone. And are there some very greedy people who take advantage of others? Sure. But there are poor people that do that too. There are a lot of "rich" people that fund almost everything in this country and a lot of good "rich" people that donate their time and money to many good causes, even after the government pillages them for the majority of their money. Let's not confuse a few "government croney" rich people with a lot of very good, hardworking rich people.

And if you want to be rich or even just "comfortable", get off your *** and show some drive and initiative. But to get rich, you need to have something people are willing to pay for. And that can be a product, a skill or just plain hard work and determination.

I agree that we have politicians that are very self serving and even corrupt. They do not serve the public nearly as well as they could. This is across the board in all parties. But people need to look at the big picture and not just react emotionally to things. Look at the facts, then come to a conclusion. Don't come to a conclusion and then try to support it with selective facts.

I don't know if the "bailout" will be good or bad. It's a risk and only time will tell. Hell, the greatest financial advisors in the world can't agree, so how can any of us really know? But I do know it's not some Republican scheme to screw poor people as the first post tries to make it out to be.

Scott
 
i guess i would feel better about the bailout if i knew exactly where each and every dollar is going? criminy i can't afford to buy a TV for $350 without serious saving and bargain shopping and studying and waiting and seeing if we can afford it blah blah and then the gov on a much larger scale just puts a 700 billion dollar price tag on something called a bail out and you're sitting at home going uhhhh what did we buy again??? i guess just knowing who was getting it and why ...exactly...would be nice....
 
Tzydl Zhitelava said:
i guess i would feel better about the bailout if i knew exactly where each and every dollar is going? criminy i can't afford to buy a TV for $350 without serious saving and bargain shopping and studying and waiting and seeing if we can afford it blah blah and then the gov on a much larger scale just puts a 700 billion dollar price tag on something called a bail out and you're sitting at home going uhhhh what did we buy again??? i guess just knowing who was getting it and why ...exactly...would be nice....
Click to expand...

President Bush explained it in very simple terms in his address last week. Robb's friend also explained it a little more in depth but still in layman terms in the thread above. The $700 billion would be used to buy mortgages that are deemed "bad risk" from the companies in trouble. The hope is that the majority of the homeowners will pay off these mortgages and not default, so in the end the government will make money. A lot of the problem is the PERCEPTION that these are "bad" mortgages by Wall Street, and they very well may be. But the hope is the homeowners will pay off the mortgages, as most Americans do, and that it will all be okay. In addition, it is hoped that the government will be buying these mortgages at a very low rate and that if the economy swings back up, the government can sell the mortgages at a profit...just like the companies were originally hoping to do.

It is a little complicated, but not hugely complicated. The risk is that too many people will default on these mortgages and the $700 billion will go down the tubes.

Scott
 
well if its mortgages....thats always a hairy situation...being that if you forclose on someone they're forced into rentals..and there aren't alot of rentals...not sure where the majority of these mortgages are honestly...i mean what part of the US they're located in...but in all honesty do we really know the whole story? or just the tidbits that we're allowed to know? my guess is that someones gonna get some of this money in their pocket one way or another and make out like a bandit as the old saying goes. honestly there is a level of poor-ness where you cease to care about taxes and stuff because you don't pay them. everyone keeps saying "protect the tax payers" etc. But if you don't pay taxes other than sales tax on non-food and non-clothing items and meals tax or whatever is prepared or served food and hospitality tax when you venture to a hotel......then you really don't pay that much tax. ie: if you don't own land, home, etc. and in NH you only pay tax on property and land right?(i may be wrong there) just saying for some of us you get a sense of it being so far out of your pocket that you can't muster care its just a shocking statement ...seven HUNDRED BILLION..like when you're a kid its almost an unreal number
 
Duke Frost said:
Bush doesn't want to do the bailout, he has to do the bailout. The Republicans are against the bailout (despite what Mike says about them being behind it). The Democrats are for the bailout and are haranguing Bush to "get his party in line."
Click to expand...

At the time I posted, it had pretty much just been proposed, and it came from the President, so I associated it with Republicans. There are indeed many Republicans against it -- and there are many Democrats against it too. It's one of those things that, despite having been a Republican president initiative, seems to have now crossed and mixed party lines.

Duke Frost said:
It's amazing so many people look at this as saving rich people.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is addressed to me, but I will point out that my original post was pointing out the hypocricy of a party that thinks it's socialism and absolutely terrible to spend money to help some people with the costs of health insurance and so on don't blink when it comes to helping businesses that go under (there have been bailouts for airlines and others before, you know).

I am glad to see that most of the Republicans who are against this are being consistent, and are opposing this bailout for the same reasons they oppose other government bailouts to individuals.

And I agree with Scott about being rich -- I'd love to be rich myself! There is absolutely nothing wrong with being rich so long as the rich pay their fair share and don't demand that government bail them out when risks they take don't work, or demand "golden parachutes". (Note: I am distinguishing between the rich CEOs and the businesses themselves)

Duke Frost said:
But I do know it's not some Republican scheme to screw poor people as the first post tries to make it out to be.

Scott
Click to expand...

Maybe you should re-read it then, because that was not what I said. I was merely pointing out the hypocricy: "We're against the government interfering with the free market -- except when we are."
 
bad government results from too much government - Thomas Jefferson

I found this quote and sorta liked it :D
 
Bail out plan did NOT pass the house.

Dems - 141/94 yeas; Repubs 66/132 nays. 1 repub didn't vote.... final 205-228

Markets are dropping quite a bit.
 
oh dear. this could get interesting...lets hope it gets interesting and not detrimental..
 
markets have dropped a good bit since the whole thing started. this is beyond interesting and definitely detrimental.
 
maybe they'll come up with another plan and pass it quick like! keep up hope robb!!! this is america...i'm sure something will work out.
 
I talked to me insider friend today. he said this about the bill not passing:

As it staands right now market chaos may be better than the bill as it stood. I actually tool the time to read through about 50 pages of the thing, and it was not good. None of the major problems were addressed. Most of the stipulations such as pricing and controlls were not outlined in any way and were to be put in place as much as 45 days after the signing into law of the bill itself. So in other words we were blindly giving this 700 billion to the treasury, with their plans for action to be submitted in writing for review 30 day later. Bad Bad Bad.

Reviews were to be placed after each 50 billion were spent (kinda big number there), home owner help was addressed but ultimatly ammounted to nothing, stock warrants were in the bill(which is a big sticking point for the repubs) and numerous other things. For a 135 page document it used very loose verbage allowing for much interpretation. Bottom line it really did not look like it was going to solve much as it stood since it left a lot of room for error.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top