President Bush has just made an announcement on concerning the Bailout Bill and said he felt it was going to pass the US Senate.
Bush said he appreciates Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell’s leadership.President Bush also aid the bill has been improved.Bush aid he would be raising the FDIC inurance.
President Bush said that it is very important to take bill very seriously so credit could start flowing again and so that the financial situation could be stabilized.
Bush said the Senate will take bill up tonight and the US House would be take it up Friday.
In other words sid, security and homeownership makes the general economy go round... Written by
on 10/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I consider myself to be a conservative, and I believe economic justice should prevail as well.... And rent, is a suck and a drain on some people's lives... No equity.... And my statement is merely that lower cost housing (as in houses that cost less to purchase) should be available..... It is scale of economics. Home ownership is one of the things that makes going to work more enjoyable... A stable place to raise your children, to keep your stuff... It doesn't take a genius to figure that one out.... Am I saying the government should provide this? No, but where they do provide that type of a thing, lower costs to the government should equate to lower costs to the taxpayer which should equate to more money being left in the taxpayer's pocket that it can spend freely on whatever it's heart desires..... Written by
on 10/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Gee whiz, we rented for 17 years until we could afford to buy a house. We tried a few times but the deal fell through and looking back it's a good thing because we would have suffered financially. Not everybody has to own a home. We all strive to to own a home. But the liberals seem to think that economic justice should prevail and everyone needs a home. Those of us who are "fortunate" (liberal speak for hard working) can help those less fortunate to won a home. When government gets involved things go wrong. this bailout is terrible. Look at all the "earmarks" that have been plugged in. Written by Sid
on 10/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I have numerous disagreements with your latest posts KPF………… And rather than focus on talking points, I would rather focus on solutions…. But first…….. This bailout….. It is making its way down the hall to the next station….. And the train keeps a rollin’…. I do not believe our legislative representatives across the board that decide the policies to be pursued in an official capacity backed by the laws and might of the United States of America have the correct perspective on things……. This is simply another business deal……….. And it should be strictly treated as such……… Where the taxpayer is or should be concerned, if there is not at least a 2.5:1 ratio return in short term (36 – 48 months), to the taxpayer which is funding this, or at the base of the reason for the existence of this Nation, with an additional 1.75:1 return spread out over long term (20 years) this is a bad deal…… I do not want to hear about compromise and assumed benefits that ‘may be realized’ by the taxpayer a.k.a. ‘the consumers’…. I want to see due diligence… I now hear rumblings of IMF……………… I warned against it…… But who am I? I am nothing……… Just another American Citizen wandering around the streets bundled in amongst the others that are delusional and believe their voices have meaning…….. The only thing important to the governing hierarchy is my age, my sex, my genetic background, my social security number, and whether or not I am registered as a (D) or an (R). ……………. In other words, I am simply a Prole……….. And so are the taxpayers if they do not become advantaged with a minimum leverage value as indicated above………. Ahhhhh,,, and back to KPF….. On the subject of rent…… Rent is simply another taxing issue…. Tax – transitive verb, graver, cobrar un impuesto sobre….. Tax – noun, impuesto masculine, tributo masculine 2 burden : carga feminine …… To charge; to accuse; also, to censure; -- often followed by with, rarely by of before an indirect object; as, to tax a man with pride……. A lesson to be learned; a task………….. A disagreeable or burdensome duty or charge; as, a heavy tax on time or health……………… A task exacted from one who is under control; a contribution or service, the rendering of which is imposed upon a subject…………. A charge, especially a PECUNIARY burden which is imposed by authority…………Pecuniary – See Competition, Monopoly, and Pursuit of Pecuniary Gain……. See Chapter in NBER book Aspects of Labor Economics (1962), Universities-National Bureau (p. 157 - 184) Published in 1962……. Armen A. Aichian, Reuben A. Kessel (p. 157 - 184) Competition,… My assessment on those subjects either lumped together, or dissected on a line by line basis is this KPF; For some people, rent is a desired condition which provides for flexibility and a certain control over their chosen living environments and conditions…. BUT FOR SOME OTHERS, Rent is a tax, a blight, a counterproductive condition that must be endured….. What man wants to work for meager wages in order to make his boss rich, and then turn around and take a large portion of what remains of his wages and give them to a landlord to enrichin his house instead of the wage earners families freedom to pursue their choices which are governed by other groups economic policies and pursuits? When examining what is termed ‘rent’ is in actuality a house note…… I would wonder how many properties in this bailout, if they weren’t real estate ‘flippers’ are others that acquired properties so that they could become ‘landlords’ funded by section 108 housing programs? This can turn into a long winded post KPF, and as I said, I would rather FOCUS ON SOLUTIONS……. It appears to me that were lower cost housing (and I am not talking cheap, or cardboard shacks with an outhouse here, so please indulge me) to become advent, a larger segment of lower tier wage earners would be able to achieve a piece of the American Dream and leverage their financial security through the ownership of their own homes…. Should their job disappear, they at least have equity, they can sell the home, and find better job opportunities elsewhere….. This would also reduce the strain on the taxpayer in a lessening demand for housing projects, and or if when and where applicable, the construction of such to service the needs of those who have a less than fortunate position in life becomes lessened… It is in a healthy environment such as this, coupled with proper management, and a reduction in crime rates that people can truly flourish either in the common work force, or in the self employed service industries, or even specialty productions such as furniture making, pottery, farming, child care, even social/philanthropical endeavors such as helping the homeless, the hungry, the elderly, etc.,,, Philanthropy does not require a lot of money, only the willingness to prudently utilize the resources a person has on hand…… Even a broom and a mop can be a philanthropical tool when used correctly….. Written by
on 10/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
I will do just fine financially regardless of what congress does - I am not concerned about myself losing anything. I do however desire to see our nation governed correctly and do not believe the CRA was bad as Jimmy Carter initiated it but do believe we went too far in '99 when Bill Clinton (with "good intentions" ) expanded the program to lend money to those who would be better off as renters or living in government provided low income housing. I am not saying that because I'm 1) racist or 2) an evvvvvviiiiiiiiiil right winger, I simply believe that people should live within their means AND if they do not .. then THEY should pay the consequences - not others. BTW, not all who fail to live within their means are poor - the difference is when an upper middle class person goes broke the taxpayer does not have to suffer along with them. Written by kpf
on 10/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Not heartless... common sense. Not homeless" rather "renters" - as in..... until you can afford to BUY a building (your home) one SHOULD rent. The "big hearted" alternative to provide "affordable housing" is simply trying turn those who should be renters at this time in their lives into homeowners. "Renting" is not the same as "homeless" - do you really not grasp that???? Written by kpf
on 10/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
So...the problem is that not enough people are homeless, is it?? Is that not what's being said?!! The prescription is to go ahead and let the credit markets seize up and the country go into deep recession or possibly depression?!! Herbert Hoover lives. No... Hoover would not have been so harsh. He was a far better man than that. This is the modern far-right yahoo populism speaking. "I've got mine made and get your dirty paws off of it, no matter what the crisis is!!" Seriously, for every expert who is saying that inaction would be OK and we could ride this out there are ten or more more saying that the crisis is too great and that now is simply not the time for inaction. BTW where was all this love of Ron Paul when he was saying that the U.S. was being foolish in invading Iraq? Written by Richard P.
on 10/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
and for those of you who do not think CRA (providing "affordable housing" for those too poor to afford housing - duh??) was idiotic, here's your spokesman, the brilliant George W. Bush:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/gw-bush-on-the-housing-boom-oct-2002/ Written by kpf
on 10/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The cause of the mess is trying to provide housing for those who simply do not have the means to afford it - generosity is when an individual does without to give to others. When the government is generous it is being generous with other people's (the taxpayers') money. Instead of letting the shareholders of these lending institutions take the loss on their ill-advised investments the taxpayer will bite the bullet yet again to cover them. It's wrong, it's BS and it brought to you by those who 1) tinker with the free market and then 2) blame the free market when things go wrong. First a link to a wise man warning us of the dangers in 2002:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09-26/ron-paul-on-the-housing-bubble-july-2002/ Written by kpf
on 10/2/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Two of the people in government who were pushing for knocking down the Glass-Steagall Act and other deregulation moves that led to these problems are McCain and one of his main advisors, Phil Gramm. Written by Richard P.
on 10/1/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
The public would have a lot more confidence if the same people who were responsible for the banking mess were not in charge of the committees who will oversee the bailout/rescue. Google Rewriting History: Lies that Hurt Us All. It is a good read. Written by Sharon
on 10/1/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Interesting N.Y. Times article from 1999.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 Written by kpf
on 10/1/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
Well Wild Bill, you know it will be more than $2142.85 per taxpayer, the number you give is the average which includes those who don't pay a dime that is not first given to them after it has been taken from others. Not that I'm complaining, the colabration between big money and those who pose as our "public servants" has been going on long before I was born and will continue long after I'm gone. My pleasure to serve both those who corrupt our politicians and those who feel - for whatever reason what so ever - they are entitled to live off the taxpayer. My pleasure, it's what I live for. Not to mention, if our genius president thinks the bailout is the thing to do, well by-golly I reckon it's the dag-blasted thing to do. Written by kpf
on 10/1/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
It would appear that the economy is fundementally sound..... And so, if the bailout comes from the taxpayer, and if you assume it is 750 billion, and if you assume there are 350 million legal residents of the United States of America, that equates to 2,142.85 from each man, woman, and child in the Country....... or $5.95 per month for 30 years each..... I wonder how many nibbles at the cheesecake the rats are going to be able to take before we have no more $5.95's per month..... Or no cheescake? I think this is something that should be looked upon based on principles..... Or the principle involved not including interest, although a great deal of interest should be displayed..... While we consider the interest that may be involved in this subject.... But then again, this is the new millenium, principles are old school, B.S. is in I suppose... Who needs prudence and common sense anyways as long as we have football games to watch? Written by -STRONGCONCRETE-
on 10/1/2008
REPORT SPAM OR ABUSE
