Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet they give Banks a trillion dollars along with billions in bonuses. Double standard? Let the free market handle this, except when it comes to rich bankers. They need all the help they can get.
Yet they give Banks a trillion dollars along with billions in bonuses. Double standard? Let the free market handle this, except when it comes to rich bankers. They need all the help they can get.
Yet they give Banks a trillion dollars along with billions in bonuses. Double standard? Let the free market handle this, except when it comes to rich bankers. They need all the help they can get.
When you cannot afford what you want to have, it no longer exists.
Oh how you forget.
The House of Reps, where all monetary spending originates, was controlled by Progressives since 2007, then we had a Progressive Prez, with an R by his name, that had no problem spending it.
Let's place reason, firmly in her seat, please!
The common denominator in all this mess... Progressive ideology, whether it is baby steps or leaps and bounds.
I opposed the bailout, but that was a bipartisan move by Congress, so using that as ammunition toward one party is simply foolish.
Secondly, this is the quote from the article that is the most prominent to me:
Quote:
Neil Barofsky, the outgoing Special Inspector General for TARP (SIGTARP), has contended that the program “continues to fall woefully short of meeting its original expectations” and there is now “near universal agreement that the program has failed.”
“HAMP has been beset by problems from the outset and, despite frequent retooling, continues to fall woefully short of meeting its original expectations,” Barofsky recently told a House subcommittee. “Today the program is under siege from all quarters, with near universal agreement that the program has failed to meet its goals, and the current debate centering mostly on whether the program should be terminated, replaced or revamped. Treasury, it seems, stands alone in defending the status quo.”
The Obama Administration has repeatedly stated that they want to get rid of ineffective, underperforming programs. While the concept of the program is worthy, the fact is - it isn't working. There are likely many reasons for this. But, otherwise, I don't see how it is SO terrible that Congress would want to eliminate ineffective programs that act more as money pits than on helping taxpayers.
When you cannot afford what you want to have, it no longer exists.
Oh how you forget.
The House of Reps, where all monetary spending originates, was controlled by Progressives since 2007, then we had a Progressive Prez, with an R by his name, that had no problem spending it.
Let's place reason, firmly in her seat, please!
Bush was a Republican, and he was no progressive, only a fascist would think that.
the program is a failed program, and needs to be eliminated. the only way this country is going to recover from the housing market crash is to let the bad mortgages get cleared off the books, and let the housing market bottom out. only then can we start to rebuild the market. had the original TARP program been instituted, that would have been done already, and things would be recovering now. that is what reagan did during the S&L fiasco in the 80s.
we cannot save everybody who chose to be irresponsible with the loans they signed knowing that they could never pay them back. sorry but buying the notion that a person making $50,000 per year could somehow properly afford a $700,000 mortgage, along with credit card payments, two car payments, and still be able to properly support a family, is either stupid, or lying to themselves.
LIE.. they LOANED Banks a trillion dollars so banks could comply with federal standards.. This loan resulted in the taxpayers earning tens of billions.. You should support taking profits from corporations..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire
with billions in bonuses.
BZZZ wrong again.. The taxpayers didnt pay bankers billions.. the stockholders did..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire
Double standard? Let the free market handle this,
If the Democrats had let Bush have his way, he would have moved the mortgages back to the free market and we might not have had an economic collapse to begin with.. But nooo.. there was no problem Bush was told over and over...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Savoir Faire
except when it comes to rich bankers. They need all the help they can get.
What do you think would happen to the nation if the banks collapsed? Who would you get money from to buy a car, a home, anything? Ooh I know.. government would create yet another program to borrow from.. yeah.. that would be wondeful.. wouldnt it? Why we could prepare for the next economic collapse caused by government like the last one..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
