A Sad day for America

[sealybobo]

A. I think I have made it pretty CLEAR where I stand on this issue
B. That being said, to give ANYONE, including the Fed, Chairman sole authority with no oversight on this, would be a a complete mistake.
C. I have said on many occasions this is NOT a issue that belongs in the hands of the GOP nor the Dems. but it does belong in the hands of every elected official that has looked the other way in the last several years. Now I'm sorry of some party partisans find that offensive, that even their party is capable of making mistakes but they can and they DO.
D. I do know what section 8 is, "Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency" and as stated above, you think for a moment I agree with this? As a matter of fact, many republicans I know don't agree with this at all.
E. Sealy, you sound like and intelligent person, but you know this is the last time I am going to address this issue with you, you need to show some level of the same respect given you when talking with someone. If you call someone "stupid, "dumb" whatever, then you serve no useful purpose other than to take attention away from your argument and is essence turn it into a schoolyard name calling contest.
F. On the Social Security issue, I have addressed issues along these lines in several posts in respect to this bailout. The fact is, I think this bailout will do nothing but send the wrong message and lend credence to irresponsibility. I also believe that there is NO way to pay for this bailout other than raising taxes.

Sorry I'm childish.

Randi Rhodes was saying last night that us Americans should be able to contact the banks and ALL OF US should be able to re negotiate.

It would be a much better solution for everyone, except the banks.

Our homes are worth $30K less, so why not take $30k off EVERYONE'S mortgage? That would free money up for us to go out and spend.

And no matter how many arguments you make against doing this, it still makes more sense than the bail out Bush is looking for. His approach only benefits the bankers.

If we give all homeowners a break, then we won't foreclose, and the banks will win too.

And the government won't have to bail anyone out.

But the banks won't get all the good loans and bailed out of the bad ones with our tax dollars at the same time, so they don't like this idea. They make out better with what Bush and Paulson want to do.

I feel this story isn't even real anymore. Randi Rhodes was saying that when the market crashes, they shut it down for an hour and then if it continues to crash after they start it back up, then they shut it down for a full 24 hours. This never even happened. So they are pre-emptively fixing a problem they may have made up just to rape the kitty one more time before Bush leaves office.

It's like Iraq. Pre-emptively fixing a problem that wasn't ever there.

This is another Bush doctrine.

Anyways, I am beginning to think that this is just another way for the rich to empty the treasury. I'm sorry if you don't like that I always blame the GOP, but when I hear democrats warning America about Section 8 and it is the GOP that is pushing for Section 8, I tend to blame the GOP.

Or like Obama with the telecom thing. He signed it, and I didn't like giving them immunity, but I don't think Obama giving the telecoms immunity means he is just as bad as the GOP on that issue either. Because the GOP insisted on giving them immunity. Obama may have caved in after weeks of pressure, but it was the GOP that PUSHED for it. In other words, the GOP got what they wanted. They wanted immunity, just like they wanted deregulations on the financial industries.

 

[Navy1960]

Sorry I'm childish.

Randi Rhodes was saying last night that us Americans should be able to contact the banks and ALL OF US should be able to re negotiate.

It would be a much better solution for everyone, except the banks.

Our homes are worth $30K less, so why not take $30k off EVERYONE'S mortgage? That would free money up for us to go out and spend.

And no matter how many arguments you make against doing this, it still makes more sense than the bail out Bush is looking for. His approach only benefits the bankers.

If we give all homeowners a break, then we won't foreclose, and the banks will win too.

And the government won't have to bail anyone out.

But the banks won't get all the good loans and bailed out of the bad ones with our tax dollars at the same time, so they don't like this idea. They make out better with what Bush and Paulson want to do.

I feel this story isn't even real anymore. Randi Rhodes was saying that when the market crashes, they shut it down for an hour and then if it continues to crash after they start it back up, then they shut it down for a full 24 hours. This never even happened. So they are pre-emptively fixing a problem they may have made up just to rape the kitty one more time before Bush leaves office.

It's like Iraq. Pre-emptively fixing a problem that wasn't ever there.

This is another Bush doctrine.

Anyways, I am beginning to think that this is just another way for the rich to empty the treasury. I'm sorry if you don't like that I always blame the GOP, but when I hear democrats warning America about Section 8 and it is the GOP that is pushing for Section 8, I tend to blame the GOP.

Or like Obama with the telecom thing. He signed it, and I didn't like giving them immunity, but I don't think Obama giving the telecoms immunity means he is just as bad as the GOP on that issue either. Because the GOP insisted on giving them immunity. Obama may have caved in after weeks of pressure, but it was the GOP that PUSHED for it. In other words, the GOP got what they wanted. They wanted immunity, just like they wanted deregulations on the financial industries.

I think if you look at this one issue, the "bailout" you will find pretty much people of All sides that are in agreement that this is not a very good idea. Several people, both democrat and republican alike from Newt Gingrich to Barbara Mikulski have come out and said this bill is going to bailout irresponsible business people as well as irresponsible purchasers at the expense of the average person who has done NOTHING but pay their bills each and every month. I don't think any party has a license on the high ground on this issue thats for sure. I will tell you this, and I am completely serious about this one, I think that any candidate democrat or republican that supports this bill, will eventually do so at their own political peril.

 

[Chris]

Bill Clinton was talking about this on Letterman last night. He said there was a program in the 1930's that allowed borrowers to renegotiate, and it was run by the government. In the end the government actually made money off the program, and the homeowners got to keep their homes with lower payments.

 

[Navy1960]

Bill Clinton was talking about this on Letterman last night. He said there was a program in the 1930's that allowed borrowers to renegotiate, and it was run by the government. In the end the government actually made money off the program, and the homeowners got to keep their homes with lower payments.

The Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) was one such successful temporary intervention; its help in the 1930s mortgage crisis holds lessons that are still relevant.

The Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) or Home Owner's Refinancing Act, was a New Deal agency established in 1933 under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Its purpose was to refinance homes to prevent foreclosure. It was used to extend loans from shorter loans to fully amortized, longer term loans (typically 20-25 years). Through its work it granted long term mortgages to over a million people facing the loss of their homes. The HOLC stopped lending circa 1935, once all the available capital had been spent. HOLC was only applicable to nonfarm homes, worth less than $20,000. HOLC also assisted mortgage lenders by refinancing problematic loans and increasing the institutions liquidity. When the HOLC ended its operations and liquidated assets, HOLC turned a small profit.

I think he was talking about that Chris

 

[sealybobo]

Bill Clinton was talking about this on Letterman last night. He said there was a program in the 1930's that allowed borrowers to renegotiate, and it was run by the government. In the end the government actually made money off the program, and the homeowners got to keep their homes with lower payments.

Thank you!!!

 

[sealybobo]

I believe without Charlesmain, retiredgunnysgt, divecon and alliebabble, we can actually discuss things rationally and come to agreement on some things. Amazing.

 

[Jon]

The reality that many do not face is ... we won't know until they spend some time in office. Ultimately that is where they will be tested. They can say anything they want on the campaign trail but really, how many past preses have done what they said they would 100% of the time?

Her record says she won't sign bills into laws that are unconstitutional. She is very anti-gay, but she vetoed a bill that denied benefits to gay and lesbian partners of state workers.

It was against her own beliefs, but she did it. That shows truth in character. I can't tell you how McCain, Biden, or Obama would handle that situation, none of them have executive experience. They work in groups to make decisions, and then blame their fellow Senators if it goes awry. Palin can't blameshift, she takes the blunt of the attacks.

 

[user_name_guest]

I believe without Charlesmain, retiredgunnysgt, divecon and alliebabble, we can actually discuss things rationally and come to agreement on some things. Amazing.

Open-minded should be a doctrine passed. I agree with the likes of alliebabble (since he's extreme right, almost like a brother, but not a twin, to me). But is it hypocritical of you to express the same kind of rhetoric only that you are in the opposite side of the spectrum (being that you are far-left, party is my religion character).

My question to you, is this democrat party similar to the time when JFK was president?

 

[Navy1960]

Interesting note on the (HOLC) or Home Owner's Refinancing Act that I mentioned earlier,

The NIRA succeeded only partially in accomplishing its goals, on May 27, 1935, less than three weeks before the act would have expired, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional.

 

[sealybobo]

Open-minded should be a doctrine passed. I agree with the likes of alliebabble (since he's extreme right, almost like a brother, but not a twin, to me). But is it hypocritical of you to express the same kind of rhetoric only that you are in the opposite side of the spectrum (being that you are far-left, party is my religion character).

My question to you, is this democrat party similar to the time when JFK was president?

The times were similar. The GOP had us in a Quagmire, social issues were on everyone's mind, piece, love, drugs. Nixon was impeached and today Bush SHOULD be impeached.

No, back then it was cutting edge to even nominate a Catholic. It was the first time it was ever done. Hell, we nominated a woman for VP 20 years ago, and now the GOP act like this is the first time. Well, it is the first time THEY have nominated a woman. We did that shit 2 decades ago.

But no, our party has evolved. The Democrats may have been bigger spenders and anti gun and had a far left agenda before, but it has moved towards the center. It had to, because Rove moved the bar to the right.

I like what it has evolved into. I don't like what the GOP has evolved into. Do you?

 

[sealybobo]

Open-minded should be a doctrine passed. I agree with the likes of alliebabble (since he's extreme right, almost like a brother, but not a twin, to me). But is it hypocritical of you to express the same kind of rhetoric only that you are in the opposite side of the spectrum (being that you are far-left, party is my religion character).

My question to you, is this democrat party similar to the time when JFK was president?

You agree with Allie? And isn't Allie a woman?

 

[Navy1960]

Well I thought I would update this one a little, here we are folks, it's a sad day when we decide to make it legitimate for business and individuals through irresponsibility get into the pockets of the American taxpayer. My children and yours are going to be paying for their irresponsibility for a long time to come now. So with that said, it does not matter who you vote for this time around, the next president is going to be doing NOTHING but cleaning this big mess up and paying bills for the next several years. I have decided to take my vote and write in my teenage daughters name this year as she I believe will do a much better job that these idiots.