Re: OY - Bailout Vote

"Lon VanOstran" <lcvanostran@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6kf9ruF7fl5kU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
....
When the bill was defeated yesterday, I was ecstatic. Like you, I don't
want such a beast around mine and my children's necks.

However, in retrospect, this may yet prove to be a mistake. Yes, we know
that she had enough dems to pass it if she wanted it. But I'm thinking
that she let it be defeated, so she could make political hay. It
certainly worked, didn't it? We've got dim-bulbs here and in the media
all braying that it was Bush's plan. That it wasn't, doesn't matter to
them, and we'll never get them to 'fess up to it.

Consider this: The bill that was defeated had been pretty well stripped
of all of the crap that Harry Reid and like minded socialist fools wanted
in there. It didn't pass. I'll wager that the next version will have
all of those "ear marks" reinstalled in addition to many more.

That, those dems that didn't vote for this one, will vote for. And it'll
pass. The only good that I can see coming from it would be if McCain
does as he'd said he would do as prez, and highlight every pork-barrel
issue in it and name names. If he does that, I think that bill will die
a horrible death and the next election is in the bag.

If he doesn't, we're well screwed and on our way down the tubes to
socialism. The press and the liberal sycophants such as the many posting
here will never hold Pelosi and the dims to task as to why only their
fingerprints are all over that bill. They'll continue to use the
time-worn argument that it's all Bush's fault and the benevolent
democrats are only bailing him out. Both sad and scary, that...

I rarely disagree with Dusty, but this time I do.
Hey! No problem, Lon. You're still mad about crack about you in my note to
Max yesterday...aintcha...(:-o)!?

IMHO, the government caused this problem by forcing some banks to make bad
loans, and by looking the other way while other institutions played
dangerous games with our future.
True enough. But there's more. They also engaged in democratic cronyism
and siphoned off funds for redistribution to ACORN, individual
congress-critters, and a whole host of democrat intermediaries in between.
Corruption like that is always at the heart of all socialist
administrations.

I don't see anything socialistic about that RESPONSIBLE government buying
the homes upon which those loans were made, and selling them at a later
date to get our money back.
We agree. There's nothing socialist about "responsible" government. The
problem is that we don't have "responsible" government. Have you been
keeping track of the shrill braying of the dims as they desperately try to
tag Bush & Co. with this issue? They never consider the start of the
problem. Never consider the handling of the problem. Never consider the
many times attempts at reform were quashed by them. They only know that
Bush is in the oval office and they want him tarred with their graft &
corruption.

That's a LOAN designed to negate the God awful things they did to our
economy.
If responsible officials were in charge that placed the good of the people
first, I'd agree with you 100%! But, sadly they're not. The self-same
losers: Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Christopher Dodd, Barney Frank,
Charles
Schumer and a raft of others that allowed this to happen are right there at
the trough trying to tell us how this should be implemented! And that's
just plain wrong!

....
There is no big bad entity with a face that is the banks. They are all of
us, and the money we have invested in them. When they go down, it is
really US who are going down.
Possibly...but I don't see that happening...yet...and it may never. After
all of the hue & cry for instant end of world if we don't pass this, I see
that we're all still here...

What's the difference between FDIC restoring invested funds, and the
government buying some houses to prevent that same government from having
to make good on accounts in failed banks? At least by buying the houses we
have something to show for our money.
True enough, and I'd support such a move. Now, how do we get that done
without using the current crop of swine in congress?

I've been looking at how this could be done where the government only
guarantees the loans, much like they did with Chrysler, and let the
institutions (under threat of a huge hammer!) work this out with their
borrowers. The cost of 1, 2, or even 20 months of mortgage in arrears is
only a tiny fraction of the absolute cost of the loan being mortgaged. That
gives everybody breathing room, properties can be recovered and this thing
will work itself out. HOWEVER, the democrats at the heart of the cause of
this problem need to be taken out and shot!

We Americans lost twice as much yesterday when the market fell, as this
buy-out would cost. How is that smart?
Yeah. But that's how the market goes. Today, we've won a bit of that back.
I predict that even absent any other poorly thought out intervention by
those most vested in getting something for noting, the market will
continue...if at a somewhat different level then before...


L8r all,
Dusty



.

Relevant Pages

  • Bush Economy, Sunday, 21SEP08
    ... money market accounts, commercial loans, and bank failures that are being ... suddenly runs out of money. ... to put their money is in U.S. government securities. ... finance is still a confidence ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Recession in the US has arrived
    ... government has unfunded liabilities of well over 50 trillion ... liabilities and tax receipts would damage the economy. ... The only way out for the politicians is to inflate the money ... don't need more loans, because more loans would mean more ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: A Letter To All Who Voted for George W. Bush
    ... >> Democrats. ... Bush is the ... and throws money at it. ... > convoluted layers of government you created fight it out over who to blame. ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: Recession in the US has arrived
    ... government has unfunded liabilities of well over 50 trillion ... liabilities and tax receipts would damage the economy. ... The only way out for the politicians is to inflate the money ... don't need more loans, because more loans would mean more ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Re: Recession in the US has arrived
    ... government has unfunded liabilities of well over 50 trillion ... liabilities and tax receipts would damage the economy. ... will have to be away from having the Fed lend the new money ... don't need more loans, because more loans would mean more ...
    (misc.survivalism)
Loading