Replies

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 The legislation requiring this is not being repealed.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?