US bail-out plan: Second defeat for George W Bush's $700bn rescue deal looms

Amen! A second slap down of this measure would do a lot to cheer my day! It occurred to me this morning that the press is, as usual, spinning the hell out of this. They talk about the pork that was added to get the support of a the few more members it needed to pass in the House. They are not mentioning that there might also be members who reluctantly supported the original measure but would be turned off by the addition of so much pork. It's two-way street, not everyone who supported it in the first should be counted on to do so when the price goes up. I am hoping, and praying, it will go down to defeat again, but deep down in my heart I fear the worst. Like the great old Hank Snow country song of 50 years ago, we're “Doing 90-miles-an-hour Down a Dead End Street!”

What gives me hope is that the House may not appreciate being put in the squeeze by the Senate.

Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for a vote, but every House member has to deal with his own district on this.

Moreover, I don't see how the Senate made the Bill any better, if anything it is just worse, with more spending.

The key is that the people need to contact their Reps and let them know that they are going to remember them in Nov. if they vote for this abomination.

If we can hold, the Senate would have fallen on a sword for nothing.

I can understand and even agree with most of your concerns. However there are a few points that are worth consicering. First, this isn't going to cost anywhere near 700 billion. We aren't writing a check and getting nothing. We are getting assets that are not worthless, just worth less than they were when they were created. Only a small percentage of those mortgages have actually failed at this point. People who I trust and know a lot more about the details than I do (like Larry Kudlow) say we will get most of the money back in a few years, and may even make a profit.

Second, if you are worried about the moral principle more than you own business, that's commendable. However I am worried about what happens when thousands of businesses like yours fail, and millions of people lose their jobs, health care, and much of their retirement savings. Will all those (selfish, as you say) people suddenly have a revelation and say “OMG, the conservatives were right all along. We need more free market capitalism, and smaller government”? Or will people demand the the government “help” them? And what would an Obama/Reid/Pelosi economic plan look like? It's obvious to anyone who paid attention that Pelosi deliberately torpedoed the last package. She had the Dem whip tell members that they were free to vote against it. Most of the commitee chairmen voted against, something they would never have done if Pelosi wanted it to pass. She was going along with the Michael Moore/Move On types who want the economy to tank to ensure an Obama win. They after the election they will pass their full on socialist dream bill, instead of the cleaned up bill the pubs negotiated.

The reason we are in this situation is because the socialist forced banks to lower their lending standards via organizations such as ACORN. It is a solution to help people keep their homes. If you re-establish their fixed rates with a term of 30 years, then the home owner will avoid foreclosure and the investor will make their money. Socialism would be the government buying the bad asset because the investor was too lazy to look for another solution. The investor can either fix the problem or take the loss. That is capitalism.

It’s socialist because it will be the govt forcing the lenders to renegotiate the loans according to the govts idea of what is fair. Adjustable rate loans are not a recent invention to increase home ownership. I financed my first home in 1976 using such a loan and I fully understood the consequences should the interest rates increase.

You are correct that the current mess is caused because the govt forced lenders to make loans to unqualified buyers but suggesting the govt force lenders to renegotiate those loans is just a continuation of the bad policies already in place. If those “homeowners” can’t afford their homes under the AR loan scheme there’s no way they will be able to continue making those loans with fixed rate mortgages.

Let me give you an example of how this will play out. Those “homeowners” will lose jobs in an economic downturn and we will again here how it’s not fair that those people be forced out of their homes. What’s next? Why, a call to help them stay in their homes by allowing them to receive money from the govt to continue paying their mortgages. Don’t believe that’s true? We already provide money to those who earn less than a certain amount by refunding more money to them than they actually pay in taxes.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.