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.