Negotiators reach deal on rescue plan

To: goldstategop

This will be yet another example of free market getting blamed for problems caused by government interference with the free market. I don’t think I am ever going to forgive the Bush Administration or the current Congress for this one, no matter what they pass. Especially if it ends up costing McCain the election.

If this deal turns out to be acceptable to the GOP House (relatively speaking), I want Blunt, Boehner, and McCain to give their own press conference and tell the truth about what happened last week (as reported in the Politico story). The public needs to know.

41 posted on 09/27/2008 10:28:23 PM PDT by kesg

1. Borrowers who were credit worthy borrowers or even some uncredit worthy ones who scrimped and made their payments are not hurt by this.

This would be laughable;le if it wasn't so ignorant. Who do you think will have to pay the $7 billion-$2 trillion back? All those people you say won't be hurt. Whose money is going to be further devalued? all those people's that you say won't be hurt. Whose Country built on capitalism will sink further into government controlled socialism? The Country of all those people you say won't be hurt.

2. Potential credit worthy borrowers might be hurt without this providing enough liquidity so lenders continue to lend.

This is bull. There are plenty of sound financial institutions that are now and will be happy to lend to sound creditors.

3. We hope potential uncredit worthy borrowers hopefully will not get loans after this. The are in general not hurt, they just don’t get to borrow for houses they cannot afford.

There is nothing in this bill that will make it any harder for deadbeats to get mortgages. The legislation requiring this is not being repealed.

4. Lender who were hurt by the actions of prior Congresses who passed laws forcing them to lend to the uncredit worthy are the ones hurting and since we did this to them we should help them out.

You're way out in liberal kooksville now. There are plenty of sound financial institutions, working under the same laws, who do not have portfolios of bad loans and are financially sound. These are the institutions that should be rewarded. Reward success not failure. That is the American way that built this Country. The government now wants to destroy this and make taxpayers prop up corrupt losers.

NO WAY!

42 posted on 09/27/2008 10:28:59 PM PDT by Prokopton

Okay, so I’m not alone...
This place sometimes seems as shallow and uncritical as Bill O’Reilly.

43 posted on 09/27/2008 10:29:49 PM PDT by Uriah_lost (Obama just woke up with a moose head in his bed....)

Nationalizing the banking industry. What a quaint idea.

44 posted on 09/27/2008 10:30:45 PM PDT by bolobaby

That will not happen, at least not before this year's election. And even if they did, who would report it?

45 posted on 09/27/2008 10:32:10 PM PDT by CatOwner

The banking industry has been backed up by federal money since the 1930s through FDIC. They're just gonna extend that to the mortgage lending industry.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

46 posted on 09/27/2008 10:33:10 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)

I am not a Kool-Aid drinker, but I know facts. This has to do with little guys being given loans they were not credit worthy enough to merit. The “little guys” FROM GROUPS WHO TRADITIONALLY VOTE DIM are not hurting, they benefitted from this.

As to the “scare tactics,” I would love to hear your evidence that the commercial paper market is just fine. I know that lending is up over the last two years. But the last two years is not the issue. The issue is there a credit crunch now. So pony up and give me the evidence you have to counter what the President, Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairman of the Fed are saying about the commercial paper market?

47 posted on 09/27/2008 10:35:40 PM PDT by JLS (Do you really want change being two guys from the majority of Congress with a 9% approval rating?)

Fox News will report it. Their reporting has been excellent on this entire mess, Bret Baier in particular.

48 posted on 09/27/2008 10:36:27 PM PDT by kesg

Fox News will report it. Their reporting has been excellent on this entire mess, Bret Baier in particular.

Not good enough. Fox News is basically preaching to the choir because most conversative Republicans don't watch other cable new channels and liberals/moderates generally don't watch Fox News.

As an example, Hannity had an interview with Governor Palin to help her defend some of her positions. Did that make it to the MSM? Not a chance.

49 posted on 09/27/2008 10:39:26 PM PDT by CatOwner

50 posted on 09/27/2008 10:41:08 PM PDT by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, and writes again.)

To: goldstategop

There’s a difference between insuring it and having an ownership stake which - believe me - could very easily need to nationalizing under President 0bama.

51 posted on 09/27/2008 10:41:48 PM PDT by bolobaby

"Democrats had proposed that the Treasury be required to impose a fee on Wall Street transactions "

A Stamp Act!!! Note the party who wants this!

The Brits did this about a year ago. They had to recind it or face revolution.

yitbos

52 posted on 09/27/2008 10:46:08 PM PDT by bruinbirdman ("Those who control language control minds." - Ayn Rand)

McCain can tell the true story in campaign appearances, speeches, press releases, ads, you name it. He is the GOP nominee for President. The media has no choice but to cover him. As Sarah Palin told Shawn Hannity, every conservative candidate has to learn how to put up with — and, when necessary, work around — left wing media. There is no point whining about it (her exact words as I remember them).

53 posted on 09/27/2008 10:51:54 PM PDT by kesg

4. Lender who were hurt by the actions of prior Congresses who passed laws forcing them to lend to the uncredit worthy are the ones hurting and since we did this to them we should help them out.

there are 2 problems here. 1) freddie mac
2) inflation. and I think we’re only going to see more inflation by bernanke

54 posted on 09/27/2008 10:54:41 PM PDT by ari-freedom (We never hide from history. We make history!)

Is there some reason why you are ALWAYS pessimistic? Do you enjoy living life with the glass half empty?

55 posted on 09/27/2008 10:57:54 PM PDT by Chet 99

JLS: 1. Borrowers who were credit worthy borrowers or even some uncredit worthy ones who scrimped and made their payments are not hurt by this.

Prokopton: This would be laughable;le if it wasn't so ignorant. Who do you think will have to pay the $7 billion-$2 trillion back? All those people you say won't be hurt. Whose money is going to be further devalued? all those people's that you say won't be hurt. Whose Country built on capitalism will sink further into government controlled socialism? The Country of all those people you say won't be hurt.

A. This will not cost 700 million. We are buying assets. They will have some value. The cost will be less than the amount purchase as they will pay interest and have an value in the market.

B. If we have a 1930 to 1933 style economic contraction the cost to us little guys would be over 6 trillion based on 2007 GDP.

C. The government buying assets is not socialism. Socialism is unfortunately what the GOP House caucus offerred, government getting into the asset insurance business.

JLS: 2. Potential credit worthy borrowers might be hurt without this providing enough liquidity so lenders continue to lend.

Prokopton: This is bull. There are plenty of sound financial institutions that are now and will be happy to lend to sound creditors.

Well won't happen is not good enough. As I said to the other doubter make your case. Show us why the President, Secretary of the Treasury and the Chair of the Fed are wrong about the commercial paper market. I can assure you that if the commercial paper market stops functioning, the car market many others will be affected. Think $6 trillion plus again. Still I am quite ready to be convinced that you are right and the government is wrong about this looming credit crunch. The government as we know is often wrong.

JLS: 3. We hope potential uncredit worthy borrowers hopefully will not get loans after this. The are in general not hurt, they just don’t get to borrow for houses they cannot afford.

Prokopton: There is nothing in this bill that will make it any harder for deadbeats to get mortgages. The legislation requiring this is not being repealed.

Bank closings tend to make lenders in general tighten up on lending criteria. You are right that we the voters need to stop the Dims from using the federal government to force lenders to give unsound loans to groups that vote dim.

JLS: 4. Lender who were hurt by the actions of prior Congresses who passed laws forcing them to lend to the uncredit worthy are the ones hurting and since we did this to them we should help them out.

Prokopton: You're way out in liberal kooksville now. There are plenty of sound financial institutions, working under the same laws, who do not have portfolios of bad loans and are financially sound. These are the institutions that should be rewarded. Reward success not failure. That is the American way that built this Country. The government now wants to destroy this and make taxpayers prop up corrupt losers. NO WAY!

Sorry but the conservative way is to stand up, be a man and take responsibility for what you did. What we did through our representatives, even if you and I did not vote for them, is force unsound lending practices on lenders using the force of law. We certainly have a conservative moral obligation to accept the costs of what we did.

You claim that there are also sorts of sound financial institutions with money to lend. Can you name some? And even if you can how does that absolve us of the conservative responsibility for cleaning up what we caused to happen to some financial firms? I know the government exempts its self from law suits, but if a cop drove his patrol car into the front of your business is it moral for the government to say too bad for you? If the govement says to lenders, you must lend to more and more of these bad credit risks, are you claiming it is the conservative way to shrug our shoulders and say that is really too bad for you?

56 posted on 09/27/2008 11:00:54 PM PDT by JLS (Do you really want change being two guys from the majority of Congress with a 9% approval rating?)

Certainly this gives the government more of an incentive to inflate. So I too worry about that.

57 posted on 09/27/2008 11:02:10 PM PDT by JLS (Do you really want change being two guys from the majority of Congress with a 9% approval rating?)

When it comes to politics, yes, especially as a supporter of the GOP. I'm in an area of the country (Silicon Valley, CA) that has been lost to liberalism. It wasn't that way 20 years ago or 31 years ago when I moved here. It is a truly helpless feeling knowing that your vote doesn't count in most elections in this state and congressional district.

So, when I see what is happening in other states and how they are starting to swing toward the DEMs away from the GOP, even with a race-bater such as Obama running for the DEMs, I sense many of these states going in the direction that CA and my county/congressional district did the past 20 years.

So sue me for me a pessimist.

58 posted on 09/27/2008 11:06:15 PM PDT by CatOwner

I really do not understand this mortgage insurance idea. The House republicans had an opportunity and blew it.

59 posted on 09/27/2008 11:09:13 PM PDT by ari-freedom (We never hide from history. We make history!)

We? Ya’ll got a mouse in your pocket?
Where do think the money is coming from?
The cartoon is spot on.

60 posted on 09/27/2008 11:09:51 PM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794