don''t know about you guys but...

[Dancing Fire]

i feel much poorer since Obama came into office. i don''t blame him cuz we''re going through a down cycle of the economy,but i wish he would stop bailing out all those dying companies.

 

[CrookedRock]

He's only putting off the inevitable, and I for one am really getting sick of it!

 

[Harriet]

I''m not sure he has a choice, but the increasing progressivity in our tax system is making me

 

[Dancing Fire]

methink...even PS liberals are losing faith in our new President.

 

[tradergirl]

Yeah, he''s too busy trying to play mano y mano with Rush Limbaugh, a battle he would lose every time. I love Rush and have been a fan of his since the 1980s. Obama will lose that one.

 

[CrookedRock]

Date: 3/4/2009 11:10:14 PM
Author: Harriet
I''m not sure he has a choice, but the increasing progressivity in our tax system is making me

He does have a choice, and we had a choice. Not sure either one made the correct one. But a big ditto to your

and a

 

[crown1]

i have been watching for their replies.

i wonder where the woman who was jumping up and down and who told the news reporter that all of her worries were over after obama was elected is now? she said she was a single mother with a small daughter and now she would not have to worry about her mortgage, insurance, or car payments. i wonder if she still feels the same.

i am plenty worried and i imagine anyone who is breathing and can read and hear is also.

eta: reply to df wondering about the ps liberals

 

[MaggieB]

I can''t speak for all the PS liberals, because we think differently.

In my opinion only, the reason you haven''t heard from any liberals is because this thread isn''t debating a two-sided issue. You feel poorer since Obama took office. Well, you probably are poorer since Obama took office. As my conservative Republican BANKER husband who voted for McCain says: "It''s hard to comprehend how people are actually blaming Obama for this mess. I didn''t even vote for the guy but the collapse of the economy was in place before most people even knew Obama''s name."

So - I guess that is my liberal response. From a conservative.

 

[AllieGator]

Date: 3/5/2009 9:13:40 AM
Author: MaggieB
I can''t speak for all the PS liberals, because we think differently.


In my opinion only, the reason you haven''t heard from any liberals is because this thread isn''t debating a two-sided issue. You feel poorer since Obama took office. Well, you probably are poorer since Obama took office. As my conservative Republican BANKER husband who voted for McCain says: ''It''s hard to comprehend how people are actually blaming Obama for this mess. I didn''t even vote for the guy but the collapse of the economy was in place before most people even knew Obama''s name.''


So - I guess that is my liberal response. From a conservative.

You can speak for this PS Liberal, MaggieB, because I feel the same way.

I think we feel poorer in general, not because of Obama. This is a depression, and Obama unfortunately inherited it.

My father is a republican, and he has said things along the same lines as MaggieB''s husband--that although things have gotten worse since Obama came to office, this can''t be pinned on him. My father has also said that he feels more comfortable with Obama at the helm, as opposed to McCain. This coming from someone who adored McCain for much of the election.

 

[crown1]

Date: 3/5/2009 9:13:40 AM
Author: MaggieB
I can't speak for all the PS liberals, because we think differently.


In my opinion only, the reason you haven't heard from any liberals is because this thread isn't debating a two-sided issue. You feel poorer since Obama took office. Well, you probably are poorer since Obama took office. As my conservative Republican BANKER husband who voted for McCain says: 'It's hard to comprehend how people are actually blaming Obama for this mess. I didn't even vote for the guy but the collapse of the economy was in place before most people even knew Obama's name.'


So - I guess that is my liberal response. From a conservative.





























i do not blame obama or bush. i blame the people who ran up the bills they could or would not pay and the banks and credit card companies that encouraged it. add to that the greedy who stole from others and the overpaid executives who ran companies into the ground. the congress who made it easy for business to leave and go off shore and the companies who outsourced. there is plenty of blame to go around. i think it will take everyone taking personal responsibility for themselves and their family and working to fix the problem to get us out of this. the helping hand is at the end of our own wrist. less blame more work!

 

[PaulaW]

Date: 3/5/2009 10:14:51 AM
Author: crown1

Date: 3/5/2009 9:13:40 AM

Author: MaggieB

less blame more work!

Exactly.

 

[dragonfly411]

All I can say is, we better all start buckling down and saving every penny we possibly can.

 

[MaggieB]

Date: 3/5/2009 10:27:53 AM
Author: PaulaW

Date: 3/5/2009 10:14:51 AM
Author: crown1

Date: 3/5/2009 9:13:40 AM

Author: MaggieB

less blame more work!

Exactly.

You are crediting me with this statement but it came from crown1. Not that I recall blaming in my original post.

 

[crown1]

my apology to maggie the way i posted made things come out that way. it was not intentional.

i was responding to the statement you said your husband made. that was the blame reference.

 

[tlh]

Here is my

and it has a lot more to do with things put in place long before Obama...

America''s sense of entitlement. We have the richest poor in the world... that when HD is coming, the gov''t gave out COUPONS so people could get a converter box to watch television. Since when is TV a FUNDEMENTAL RIGHT? The gov''t wasn''t giving AWAY televisions... people aquired them. Just like they can aquire the converter box.

Welfare, food stamps, bailouts. These policies are only good when they act to get people on their feet. When I hear comments about I cannot work because I''ll lose my benefits... that is a load of molarky. This helping hand up, now has become an expected, counted on - hand out.

Public education is America''s #1 socialized program... and I see a lot of flaws with this... if we are striving to make healthcare, etc in line with something that is FLAWED. I bring up school. I received a fine education from the state of Missouri paid for by the US taxpayer... so I am not complaining about the quality of education... because well... my district received probably MORE tax dollars... with better teachers, because my school could PAY MORE... so even a public funded school, still received better benefits because of its location. Now I am currently griping about this, because of the current economic situation.. which SUCKS. AZ (where I currently reside) has had to freeze its state spending because the fed gov''t owes them money. They are closing schools. They are currently trying to make the class-size from 30 students... to 50 because they cannot afford the overhead of other schools, or teacher''s salary. I don''t know if this will pass... but they will most likely be increasing the classroom size to 40 at the bare minimum.

Now, this is not Obama''s fault... as my FIL who is a die-hard Repub will admit he made a sh!t ton of money when Clinton was in office... some of this mess really began with the availability of "credit"... even just credit cards... the housing market - was just a bigger mistake. My complaint is... I wouldn''t really say we''ve been managing our funds well... since I''ve heard since the 90''s that we won''t have enough Social Security to go around... so start saving for your own retirement... don''t count on the government... so now, we are giving more freedoms to a government that ran us into the ground? I just don''t hold out a lot of hope is all...

sorry for my rant.

 

[crown1]

Date: 3/5/2009 10:52:50 AM
Author: tlh
Here is my

and it has a lot more to do with things put in place long before Obama...


America''s sense of entitlement. We have the richest poor in the world... that when HD is coming, the gov''t gave out COUPONS so people could get a converter box to watch television. Since when is TV a FUNDEMENTAL RIGHT? The gov''t wasn''t giving AWAY televisions... people aquired them. Just like they can aquire the converter box.


Welfare, food stamps, bailouts. These policies are only good when they act to get people on their feet. When I hear comments about I cannot work because I''ll lose my benefits... that is a load of molarky. This helping hand up, now has become an expected, counted on - hand out.


Public education is America''s #1 socialized program... and I see a lot of flaws with this... if we are striving to make healthcare, etc in line with something that is FLAWED. I bring up school. I received a fine education from the state of Missouri paid for by the US taxpayer... so I am not complaining about the quality of education... because well... my district received probably MORE tax dollars... with better teachers, because my school could PAY MORE... so even a public funded school, still received better benefits because of its location. Now I am currently griping about this, because of the current economic situation.. which SUCKS. AZ (where I currently reside) has had to freeze its state spending because the fed gov''t owes them money. They are closing schools. They are currently trying to make the class-size from 30 students... to 50 because they cannot afford the overhead of other schools, or teacher''s salary. I don''t know if this will pass... but they will most likely be increasing the classroom size to 40 at the bare minimum.


Now, this is not Obama''s fault... as my FIL who is a die-hard Repub will admit he made a sh!t ton of money when Clinton was in office... some of this mess really began with the availability of ''credit''... even just credit cards... the housing market - was just a bigger mistake. My complaint is... I wouldn''t really say we''ve been managing our funds well... since I''ve heard since the 90''s that we won''t have enough Social Security to go around... so start saving for your own retirement... don''t count on the government... so now, we are giving more freedoms to a government that ran us into the ground? I just don''t hold out a lot of hope is all...


sorry for my rant.

did you forget grants? communities no longer want to work to get improvements they want federal grants. and did i mention the sleezy local guy who has written into his contract that he gets 25% of each grant he writes that is granted? and how about the local government administrative fee? that is probably at least 5-10%? plenty of blame to go around.

maybe one person can make a difference? how about we try and see?

 

[tradergirl]

My god, could these people screw up any more?

Thursday, March 05, 2009

BARACK OBAMA

Obama Breaks Promise on Government Aid For Second Homes and Investment Properties

President Obama, back on February 19:

"[My plan] will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell. It will not help dishonest lenders who acted irresponsibility, distorting the facts and dismissing the fine print at the expense of buyers who didn’t know better. And it will not reward folks who bought homes they knew from the beginning they would never be able to afford."

The Washington Post, today:

While the Obama administration initially said it would focus on owner-occupied properties, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac said they would refinance loans for some second homes and investment properties, too.

You can hear it coming, right? "All statements from Barack Obama come with an expiration date. All of them."

I noted late yesterday that my liberal readers were happy with the Dow Jones Industrial gaining 149 points yesterday — one credited it to Obama''s Tuesday statement that stocks were a good buy right now — and indeed, it seemed the markets were generally positive in their response to the details of the mortgage rescue plan. (I still think this plan provides a lot of aid for people who took massive, indeed reckless, risks, and effectively punishes those who didn''t.)

Anyway, GM is warning of bankrupcy and the Dow is down 206 as of this moment. Below 6700.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

DF, you''re not alone...everyone feels poorer...but not simply because of Obama being President, it''s because we''re in a depression.

Before Obama, we were in free fall...and it''s going to take some time before we can climb out of this hole...that''s the facts. Obama is bailing businesses out left and right to keep jobs...not because he has nothing better to spend the money on. Think about it, if all of these businesses started collasping, things would go from bad to worse in a heartbeat. Our unemployment rate would sky rocket...and we are all no where near feeling as poor as we would if these huge companies fell.

Right now America is in a transitional period. We''re moving from one economic philosophy to another. I look at this time, and this crisis and I boil it down to a level that I can wrap my mind around...I think of Obama as "the Dad" and whatever company as "the child"...and I think of "the bailout" just the same as if a kid overspent on a credit card and needed to borrow money to pay it off. Dad gets the bill, he''s angry and disappointed...but inorder to spare his childs all-important credit rating, he pays off the bill with the cavet that the money will be paid back eventually. Sure, it might take a while...but eventually things get ironed out and life goes on. Obama is trying to salavage what he can from our failing economy...he''s trying to save jobs and businesses. It''s not an easy undertaking...things can''t be solved overnight. And we all might feel poorer before this "thing" is offically over...but we''re a strong country, and we''ll rebound. I believe that.

 

[crown1]

Date: 3/5/2009 11:55:42 AM
Author: Italiahaircolor
DF, you''re not alone...everyone feels poorer...but not simply because of Obama being President, it''s because we''re in a depression.


Before Obama, we were in free fall...and it''s going to take some time before we can climb out of this hole...that''s the facts. Obama is bailing businesses out left and right to keep jobs...not because he has nothing better to spend the money on. Think about it, if all of these businesses started collasping, things would go from bad to worse in a heartbeat. Our unemployment rate would sky rocket...and we are all no where near feeling as poor as we would if these huge companies fell.


Right now America is in a transitional period. We''re moving from one economic philosophy to another. I look at this time, and this crisis and I boil it down to a level that I can wrap my mind around...I think of Obama as ''the Dad'' and whatever company as ''the child''...and I think of ''the bailout'' just the same as if a kid overspent on a credit card and needed to borrow money to pay it off. Dad gets the bill, he''s angry and disappointed...but inorder to spare his childs all-important credit rating, he pays off the bill with the cavet that the money will be paid back eventually. Sure, it might take a while...but eventually things get ironed out and life goes on. Obama is trying to salavage what he can from our failing economy...he''s trying to save jobs and businesses. It''s not an easy undertaking...things can''t be solved overnight. And we all might feel poorer before this ''thing'' is offically over...but we''re a strong country, and we''ll rebound. I believe that.

i am no economist but i think it may be time for a little tough love.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Date: 3/5/2009 12:04:31 PM
Author: crown1

Date: 3/5/2009 11:55:42 AM
Author: Italiahaircolor
DF, you''re not alone...everyone feels poorer...but not simply because of Obama being President, it''s because we''re in a depression.


Before Obama, we were in free fall...and it''s going to take some time before we can climb out of this hole...that''s the facts. Obama is bailing businesses out left and right to keep jobs...not because he has nothing better to spend the money on. Think about it, if all of these businesses started collasping, things would go from bad to worse in a heartbeat. Our unemployment rate would sky rocket...and we are all no where near feeling as poor as we would if these huge companies fell.


Right now America is in a transitional period. We''re moving from one economic philosophy to another. I look at this time, and this crisis and I boil it down to a level that I can wrap my mind around...I think of Obama as ''the Dad'' and whatever company as ''the child''...and I think of ''the bailout'' just the same as if a kid overspent on a credit card and needed to borrow money to pay it off. Dad gets the bill, he''s angry and disappointed...but inorder to spare his childs all-important credit rating, he pays off the bill with the cavet that the money will be paid back eventually. Sure, it might take a while...but eventually things get ironed out and life goes on. Obama is trying to salavage what he can from our failing economy...he''s trying to save jobs and businesses. It''s not an easy undertaking...things can''t be solved overnight. And we all might feel poorer before this ''thing'' is offically over...but we''re a strong country, and we''ll rebound. I believe that.

i am no economist but i think it may be time for a little tough love.

But what happens to the jobs that will be lost with a dose of "tough love"?

Wouldn''t that just stand to make the situation that much worse?

At least at this point there are still hundreds of thousands of people who are employeed, bringing in a paycheck, paying their bills on time, pushing money back into the economy the honest way. If you close their place of employement to punish big business, you''re casting all those employees into a sea that is already overcrowded with people struggling to make ends meet.

I feel that, in that situation, we would collaspe as a society. People who never before had a problem paying their bills on time will suddenly choose buy groceries before paying the Mastercard bill...then, in turn, the CC companies will start going under...it will be a vicious, unforgiving cycle with no end.

At least if we can keep these businesses open, we can keep these people working...if we don''t, its a slipper slope. I think even by showing some economic compassion, we''re teaching lessons...

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 3/5/2009 12:23:42 PM
Author: Italiahaircolor

But what happens to the jobs that will be lost with a dose of ''tough love''?

Wouldn''t that just stand to make the situation that much worse?

At least at this point there are still hundreds of thousands of people who are employeed, bringing in a paycheck, paying their bills on time, pushing money back into the economy the honest way. If you close their place of employement to punish big business, you''re casting all those employees into a sea that is already overcrowded with people struggling to make ends meet.

I feel that, in that situation, we would collaspe as a society. People who never before had a problem paying their bills on time will suddenly choose buy groceries before paying the Mastercard bill...then, in turn, the CC companies will start going under...it will be a vicious, unforgiving cycle with no end.

At least if we can keep these businesses open, we can keep these people working...if we don''t, its a slipper slope. I think even by showing some economic compassion, we''re teaching lessons...

i don''t disagree with helping these companies out just one time but they are asking for billions every month. what good would it do by giving a drug addict more drugs

let some of these banks die,let the auto Co''s go into BK.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Date: 3/5/2009 1:04:00 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

i don''t disagree with helping these companies out just one time but they are asking for billions every month. what good would it do by giving a drug addict more drugs

let some of these banks die,let the auto Co''s go into BK.

I agree there should potentially be a cap on bail outs...in some instances thing can get out of control quickly, there is no denying that. But, have you asked yourself why, up until this point, banks have never been in this position before? And if it were simply a matter of over spending why is it not exclusively one bank in trouble, but rather all of them and all at once?

It''s because people are in trouble...people aren''t paying their bills and the truth is, many of those bills are bank related--mortage, car, credit card. The solution to that is getting a job, a steady paycheck, something solid to depend on and the ability to make ends meet. But you can only get a job, if there is one to be had...close all these businesses and there won''t be jobs, there will be staggering unemployment rates and conditions will be worse than today by a mile.

I applaud banks for cutting the fat. For example, my husband works for BoA and last year he was in the 1% performance bracket which is a huge accomplishment and honor. BoA sent us, along with others, to South Beach for a week to celebrate all expenses paid...we stayed at Loews, golfed, snorkled, sailed, toured the Everglades, dined on amazing food, and we were showered with gifts. But this year, that program doesn''t exsist. It was luxury spending. My husband did get a bonus, but FYI it was cut by over 60% from last year in terms of percentage. Raise? Who knows.

Just because we aren''t always made aware of the significant budget cuts, doesn''t mean they don''t happen. But everyday that someone defaults on a loan, is another tick towards further Govnerment dependancy and need. When Family X''s primary earner loses his/her job and they can''t pay their $3,000 a month mortgage they once could...then what? Just because Family X can''t pay that money doesn''t mean it isn''t owed. It came from somewhere, it belongs to someone...and the bank is left holding the note. But banks are at the point where they cannot afford it either, because just like Family X; A B C D...all did the same thing.

We''re in a whirlpool right now, we''ve sunk pretty low...we need to rebuild at whatever cost.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Date: 3/5/2009 1:33:33 PM
Author: Italiahaircolor

Date: 3/5/2009 1:04:00 PM

Author: Dancing Fire


i don''t disagree with helping these companies out just one time but they are asking for billions every month. what good would it do by giving a drug addict more drugs

let some of these banks die,let the auto Co''s go into BK.

I agree there should potentially be a cap on bail outs...in some instances thing can get out of control quickly, there is no denying that. But, have you asked yourself why, up until this point, banks have never been in this position before? And if it were simply a matter of over spending why is it not exclusively one bank in trouble, but rather all of them and all at once?


It''s because people are in trouble...people aren''t paying their bills and the truth is, many of those bills are bank related--mortage, car, credit card. The solution to that is getting a job, a steady paycheck, something solid to depend on and the ability to make ends meet. But you can only get a job, if there is one to be had...close all these businesses and there won''t be jobs, there will be staggering unemployment rates and conditions will be worse than today by a mile.


I applaud banks for cutting the fat. For example, my husband works for BoA and last year he was in the 1% performance bracket which is a huge accomplishment and honor. BoA sent us, along with others, to South Beach for a week to celebrate all expenses paid...we stayed at Loews, golfed, snorkled, sailed, toured the Everglades, dined on amazing food, and we were showered with gifts. But this year, that program doesn''t exsist. It was luxury spending. My husband did get a bonus, but FYI it was cut by over 60% from last year in terms of percentage. Raise? Who knows.


Just because we aren''t always made aware of the significant budget cuts, doesn''t mean they don''t happen. But everyday that someone defaults on a loan, is another tick towards further Govnerment dependancy and need. When Family X''s primary earner loses his/her job and they can''t pay their $3,000 a month mortgage they once could...then what? Just because Family X can''t pay that money doesn''t mean it isn''t owed. It came from somewhere, it belongs to someone...and the bank is left holding the note. But banks are at the point where they cannot afford it either, because just like Family X; A B C D...all did the same thing.


We''re in a whirlpool right now, we''ve sunk pretty low...we need to rebuild at whatever cost.

This is part of the problem though. It''s great that your husband did so well, but sending employees and their families on expensive trips for doing their job is unnecessary. Of course I believe for pay for performance, but the extras have got to stop. Raises and bonuses, though nice to get, are not a given in any job. In principle, your reward for a job well done should be your agreed upon salary paid on time and the promise of continued employment.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 3/5/2009 1:33:33 PM
Author: Italiahaircolor

Date: 3/5/2009 1:04:00 PM
Author: Dancing Fire


i don''t disagree with helping these companies out just one time but they are asking for billions every month. what good would it do by giving a drug addict more drugs

let some of these banks die,let the auto Co''s go into BK.

I agree there should potentially be a cap on bail outs...in some instances thing can get out of control quickly, there is no denying that. But, have you asked yourself why, up until this point, banks have never been in this position before? And if it were simply a matter of over spending why is it not exclusively one bank in trouble, but rather all of them and all at once?

b/c banks were lending to whom ever that wants money,especially to those whom couldn''t afford to pay them back.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Date: 3/5/2009 1:45:14 PM
Author: Hudson_Hawk


This is part of the problem though. It''s great that your husband did so well, but sending employees and their families on expensive trips for doing their job is unnecessary. Of course I believe for pay for performance, but the extras have got to stop. Raises and bonuses, though nice to get, are not a given in any job. In principle, your reward for a job well done should be your agreed upon salary paid on time and the promise of continued employment.

Like I said...that was last year (200 but was for the calander year of 2007. This year that award isn''t given, and there isn''t any lavish vacations. When we were gifted this trip, we were not in a recession/depression. So, in regards to your comment...it has stopped in light of the current economic conditions. But I hope someday it does come back, because it was a wonderful thing for my husband...and everyone else who won.

But, I disagree with not rewarding employees for a job well done. I think people should be acknowledged when they''ve gone above and beyond or exceeded their job title and expectations. In today''s world that not as common as you''d think, most people just enough to get by. So if someone is motivated or will be motivated by recognition, then thats something that should be seen as positive. We''re a culture that gives trophies, and awards when someone does well. We watch sports to see who will win, and we dedicate entire nights to movies that blow us away, we support our kids little league dreams and proudly display their medals when they finish a season. People rarely feel "perfectly" compensated for their jobs...so if giving a bonus or a raise helps them feel appreciated, whats the problem? The cost of living in general goes up every year...if we all just made what we did when we started working, we''d all be in a sad sad state. Every year people need to make more just to maintain their lifestyle.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Date: 3/5/2009 2:06:12 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 3/5/2009 1:33:33 PM
Author: Italiahaircolor

Date: 3/5/2009 1:04:00 PM
Author: Dancing Fire



i don''t disagree with helping these companies out just one time but they are asking for billions every month. what good would it do by giving a drug addict more drugs

let some of these banks die,let the auto Co''s go into BK.

I agree there should potentially be a cap on bail outs...in some instances thing can get out of control quickly, there is no denying that. But, have you asked yourself why, up until this point, banks have never been in this position before? And if it were simply a matter of over spending why is it not exclusively one bank in trouble, but rather all of them and all at once?

b/c banks were lending to whom ever that wants money,especially to those whom couldn''t afford to pay them back.

And here we are at our slippery slope...

Who do we blame? The companies that offered money,or the people who accepted it?

No one ever put a gun to someones head and demanded they buy a 400k house when they were making 35k a year. They''re adults...they need to be responsible with their money and know what they can afford. ..you can''t eat the walls. People suffered from their eyes being bigger than their bank accounts.

And likewise, the mortage companies in order to expediate the process started taking people on their word when it came to income. It was clearly the wrong this to do...it crooked.

Those two things have effected the country. Banks, like BoA, bought out companies that Merril Lynch without knowing the full scope of the problem. BoA, prior to buying ML was fine. They were forced to take a bailout from the Gov. because it was a blanket bailout that effected all the banks.

 

[zhuzhu]

For DH,

是不是壓力太大了?
雖然經濟蕭條, 我們不接受它難不成要讓它剝奪和毀了我們的快樂嗎？
到底有沒有必要天天爭議"who is responsible"???

z

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Date: 3/5/2009 2:25:52 PM
Author: zhuzhu
For DH,

是不是壓力太大了?
雖然經濟蕭條, 我們不接受它難不成要讓它剝奪和毀了我們的快樂嗎？
到底有沒有必要天天爭議''who is responsible''???

z

Loosly translated...

Are not too much pressure?
Although the economic recession, we do not accept itÄѲ»³Éto destroy it and deprive U.S. happy?
Every day in the end there is no need to have the dispute

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 3/5/2009 2:25:52 PM
Author: zhuzhu
For DH,

是不是壓力太大了?
雖然經濟蕭條, 我們不接受它難不成要讓它剝奪和毀了我們的快樂嗎？
到底有沒有必要天天爭議''who is responsible''???

z

LOL!! i don''t understand chinese.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 3/5/2009 2:20:07 PM
Author: Italiahaircolor

Date: 3/5/2009 2:06:12 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 3/5/2009 1:33:33 PM
Author: Italiahaircolor

Date: 3/5/2009 1:04:00 PM
Author: Dancing Fire




i don''t disagree with helping these companies out just one time but they are asking for billions every month. what good would it do by giving a drug addict more drugs

let some of these banks die,let the auto Co''s go into BK.

I agree there should potentially be a cap on bail outs...in some instances thing can get out of control quickly, there is no denying that. But, have you asked yourself why, up until this point, banks have never been in this position before? And if it were simply a matter of over spending why is it not exclusively one bank in trouble, but rather all of them and all at once?

b/c banks were lending to whom ever that wants money,especially to those whom couldn''t afford to pay them back.

And here we are at our slippery slope...

Who do we blame? The companies that offered money,or the people who accepted it?

No one ever put a gun to someones head and demanded they buy a 400k house when they were making 35k a year. They''re adults...they need to be responsible with their money and know what they can afford. ..you can''t eat the walls. People suffered from their eyes being bigger than their bank accounts.

And likewise, the mortage companies in order to expediate the process started taking people on their word when it came to income. It was clearly the wrong this to do...it crooked.

Those two things have effected the country. Banks, like BoA, bought out companies that Merril Lynch without knowing the full scope of the problem. BoA, prior to buying ML was fine. They were forced to take a bailout from the Gov. because it was a blanket bailout that effected all the banks.

both side !!!