The GOP Blames the Victim

[dilloduck]

Thats not from the COMPANIES, thats from their EMPLOYEES.

Why don't you look at the PAC numbers. They tell a very different story, one that is much less convenient for you.

and Companies cant' find a way to funnel money to a candidate through employees ?

 

[Larkinn]

and Companies cant' find a way to funnel money to a candidate through employees ?

Sure they can. Any evidence that Fannie Mae was doing so? Or are you just making shit up again?

 

[dilloduck]

Sure they can. Any evidence that Fannie Mae was doing so? Or are you just making shit up again?

You mean like Barney ?

 

[Diuretic]

so it's your contention that our evil government and banks put a gun to their heads and said borrow this money or else??? fucking A.

"Let's twist again like we did last summer!"

No-one put a gun to the heads of the bankers and said, "give them your money or else!"

 

[dilloduck]

"Let's twist again like we did last summer!"

No-one put a gun to the heads of the bankers and said, "give them your money or else!"

Hell no--that cheap money was a money changer's wet dream !!

 

[xsited1]

It can't be Thomas Frank, a Leftist who is highly critical of Republicans, would say anything bad about the GOP. Say it isn't so!!!

You know who is to blame? The bankers, the politicians and the borrowers.

 

[ignatov]

likewise they didn't force the borrowers to borrow.. doh

If a parent were to turn a child loose in a candy shop with a wad of cash, the child would likely gorge himself on sweets. Now, in a sense, the child shares blame for a lack of restraint, but most of us would sooner accuse the parent of negligence.

Society depends on ethical financial institutions and a strong government to keep them honest. And, fer sure, a savvy populace taught to use critical thinking skills when borrowing would be dandy, too. More money for education! Less for lobbyists!

 

[WillowTree]

If a parent were to turn a child loose in a candy shop with a wad of cash, the child would likely gorge himself on sweets. Now, in a sense, the child shares blame for a lack of restraint, but most of us would sooner accuse the parent of negligence.

Society depends on ethical financial institutions and a strong government to keep them honest. And, fer sure, a savvy populace taught to use critical thinking skills when borrowing would be dandy, too. More money for education! Less for lobbyists!

but we aren't talking about children here are we? Or are you saying poor people are children?

 

[ignatov]

but we aren't talking about children here are we? Or are you saying poor people are children?

In the same sense that parents watch over children, the government watches over individuals. Don't believe me? Flip off a cop and see if you don't get a time out.

 

[WillowTree]

In the same sense that parents watch over children, the government watches over individuals. Don't believe me? Flip off a cop and see if you don't get a time out.

wouldn't think of flipping off a cop, that's the diff in liberal and conservative. You want a government to look out after you. I look out for myself.

 

[del]

In the same sense that parents watch over children, the government watches over individuals. Don't believe me? Flip off a cop and see if you don't get a time out.

you're fucked. sorry, i can't think of any other way to put it if this is what you really think.

truly, truly fucked.

 

[Larkinn]

you're fucked. sorry, i can't think of any other way to put it if this is what you really think.

truly, truly fucked.

Really? You think the government doesn't watch over individuals?

So if someone rapes your mom, you don't think the government should do anything?

And your calling others fucked? Meh.

 

[Anonymous CSG]

I’m going to be real honest here and say that I don’t think you understand the foreclosure situation at all, nor do most of the rest of the people who complain about it.

Sure, many homeowners were allowed to purchase houses that were too expensive, but the the majority of the homeowners who have been foreclosed on in the past year aren’t new homeowners. The case against the bailout seems more credible when someone like you clings to this group of homeowner and appoints them as poster children. Most of the ones losing their homes now are homeowners, like my husband and I, who successfully paid their mortgage on the very same house for many years (20 in our case). We raised our children in that house. We watched our house payment double as the value of our house decreased. Due to other uncontrollable situations, including chronic illness, damage done by hurricanes, and a death in the family, we had to cash in all of our assets and one of us lost our job because the business he worked for went under. We were told we could refinance our house to get lower payments and a little extra cash to help us through the tough times. We had refinanced before, more than once, so we thought we knew what to expect. Only the times got tougher and although we are getting back on track, many things have improved in our situation and we are both working again, we can’t begin to pay our mortgage. Our house payment went from $750 (which we paid on time every month for 20 years) to $2300 a month (due to attorney fees, late fees, collection fees, etc. etc). Now we are both working overtime and extra jobs while our kids are left with various relatives. Our house has been for sale since April with not a single offer made, and we’ve been foreclosed on at least four times, only to be given another chance immediately before our house was auctioned off to the highest bidder.

My point is that, yeah, we should have paid more attention to what an ARM was. We should have made sure our mortgage was insured by FHA. But we thought since we were dealing with Countrywide, we were protected. We could afford our house before. Countrywide had been our mortgage company for many years. I can’t help but feel like a victim, but at the same time, I don’t want a bailout. I just want to be given a chance to refinance at a lower interest rate and I want to know that the company that is doing it isn’t going to rip me off. When Hurricane Katrina struck, we offered to move out of our house (which we were paying for comfortably at the time) and live with his mom and let a New Orleans family live in our house for a few months. They turned us down, because they didn't want a handout. They just wanted the chance to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. They wanted a job so they could afford a small apartment. That is all any of us want, a chance to pull ourselves back up by the bootstraps, whether or not we feel victimized or we brought it on ourselves. We don't want someone giving us a house or paying our mortgage for us.

Of course, of the two plans, neither of them addresses the issue appropriately. But Obama’s plan just scares the hell out of me. Even though his promises would benefit me the most, I have no faith whatsoever in his ability to come through. His ideas aren't real, they're just impossible dreams. You can't the fortify the bottom of the house (economy) while tearing down the top of the house. It just won't work, because there's no where to go, except down, or stay where you are.