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.
So let me get your story straight here Ray. You claim to believe that a program that USED to work without incidents of global proportions until gasoline of deregulation was poured over it is the doing of a single congressman? Isn't that like dragging the manufacturer, your mechanic & car wash guy into court after you crash your car driving drunk?
So Bush is not the champion of the bottom % of this country, wanting the American dream of home ownership possible for all no matter how badly thought out his methods? He was just lying on that stage taking credit for the work of others he had no hand in shaping? So in other words, if it's perceived a good thing for America, I DID IT, but the moment things go wrong, anyone and everyone else is to blame. Grown men are exhibiting the maturity of 5 yr olds who forgot the difference between right and wrong and we're supposed to rely on them to defend and protect our liberty. Next we'll hear it's all women's fault that they lack the character and cajones to stand up and face the music like men!
Bastions of accountability in republican party forcing the deregulation paradigm down America's throat... who is standing up saying 'I sold deregulation to you'?? How many of those think tank boy wonders who sold this plan to the republican camp have come forward with an explanation how they got it wrong? How can America ever take deregulation seriously again if not a single one of these Ivory tower brats can own their pig in a poke?
I'm seeing clearly why some black folks used to call some white folks a 'jive turkey'. INDEED! Pa might not be showing up with a belt seeing how occupied he's been with get rich quick scheme junkets, but Ma is more than willing to tan your hides with a switch.
But the banks didn't do anything to you without government guidance. To be more specific, see how Barney Frank and some others in Congress controlled the home lending banks.
Google mortgage-backed securities and their connection to sub-prime mortgages.
Thats not at all what they think. Do you understand that banks can invest in derivatives and have them currently insured by the FDIC (by way of a bank failure?) The proposed bill does nothing to limit this from taking place, it just charges banks a fee and allows the federal government to take over the institutions putting the liability on the government.
Investment institutions should go OUT OF BUSINESS if they fail, not be bailed out, and the bill is the cration of a perminant bailout platform for the government.
Where is the bailout? Let me give you the link again.
Thats not at all what they think. Do you understand that banks can invest in derivatives and have them currently insured by the FDIC (by way of a bank failure?) The proposed bill does nothing to limit this from taking place, it just charges banks a fee and allows the federal government to take over the institutions putting the liability on the government.
Investment institutions should go OUT OF BUSINESS if they fail, not be bailed out, and the bill is the cration of a perminant bailout platform for the government.
This bill is the first step in regulating derivatives. Which are currently wholly unregulated. Do I agree with Republicans like Scott Brown who think that even more regulation of these instruments is needed? Yes. Do I agree with conservative Democrats like Blanche Lincoln that we have to start somewhere? Yes.
Do I think the opposition to this bill is not because of the content of the bill but because Republicans have adopted a stance to fight anything sponsored by Democrats? Yes.
And I think it's a p***-poor way to represent their constituents.
Because the democrats are for it. If they had come up with the idea first, they'd be giving a lot of face time in passing it.
Just another symptom of their own sickness. Self righteous totalitarian boomer entitlement says they're above statesmanship and scholarly debate. We're the true patriots!!
$50 billion... with a population of 812,000 people that's enough money to give every single man, woman, teenager, child, toddler and infant $61,576.00 in cash! That's a lot of money. Republicans want to know "for what?"
The banks would put the money in the fund, not the tax payer.
How so is the financial collapse solely the fault of the government?
You can blame them for most everything. It's not hard to do that. But the events that brought on the financial collapse were related to a number of different things, some of which the government was involved in and could have handled better, and some of which the government was not involved.
I've got issues with this bill. I agree with Scott Brown that the regulation of derivatives doesn't go far enough. I agree with other Republicans about granting bank status to financial entities that are not banks, along with the privileges that bank status confers. These are problems.
But I think Republicans are challenging bills strictly for partisan reasons, not based on the content of the bills, and that is not a good thing.
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.
