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.
The Democrat controlled Congress passed the bail-out with a veto-proof majority. A lot of Republican RINOs joined with the Democrats, giving Bush absolutely no choice in the matter. Just as Bush had no choice over the 2008 budget that ran an historic $1.41 trillion deficit.
No doubt this is always the best way to get someone to see your point of view. I'm just amazed at how so many from both sides seems to think winning an argument is getting an opportunity to call someone a name as opposed to getting them to see your point of view.
The Democrat controlled Congress passed the bail-out with a veto-proof majority. A lot of Republican RINOs joined with the Democrats, giving Bush absolutely no choice in the matter. Just as Bush had no choice over the 2008 budget that ran an historic $1.41 trillion deficit.
There were two things that were the root cause: (1) The repeal of the provisions of Glass-Steagall by the Financial Services Modernization Act (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) of 1999 that allowed bank entities to market their own debt securities; and (2) the exemption enacted in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which immunized financial derivative contracts from bankruptcy. This set the stage for the subprime mortgage debacle, the failed banks, and the economic recession. President Bush had no choice but to take over the failed banks, and move to stabilize the financial markets to prevent catastrophic economic collapse; however by then it was too late as the damage to the economy had been done. The economic fallout was unprecedented, the bailout unaccountable, and the legal issues unresolved.
Not when it passes Congress with a veto-proof majority.
Yes you do. Maybe it doesn't get the votes when you stand up on principle and state those principles. Then if it does, your name is not forever attached to it.
There were two things that were the root cause: (1) The repeal of the provisions of Glass-Steagall by the Financial Services Modernization Act (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) of 1999 that allowed bank entities to market their own debt securities; and (2) the exemption enacted in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which immunized financial derivative contracts from bankruptcy. This set the stage for the subprime mortgage debacle, the failed banks, and the economic recession. President Bush had no choice but to take over the failed banks, and move to stabilize the financial markets to prevent catastrophic economic collapse; however by then it was too late as the damage to the economy had been done. The economic fallout was unprecedented, the bailout unaccountable, and the legal issues unresolved.
Unhappily, the government was legally obligated to pay the bonuses; and not just to the bank executives, but also the officers and directors of the bankrupt parent holding companies. That's what happens when you allow unregulated banking.
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.
