• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Bailout

Texan

Well-known member
What do most of you think about the idea of the bailout? I'll admit I don't have enough details yet, but from what I do know, I think it sucks.

And it'll be even worse when all the liberals start adding on to it to try to buy votes with special "stimulus" plans for the deadbeats. You can already hear Obama and some of the Dems hinting around about that.

I think it's time that we go ahead and bite the bullet and take our losses. Nothing will ever change until somebody loses some money. This whole bailout plan looks to me like it's not going to do anything but delay the inevitable.

It's time that people in Congress - of both parties - admit their culpability in the whole deal. Some of them even need to resign their committee assignments - especially people like Chris Dodd.

It's time that the homeowners that made bad decisions lose their homes. It's time that the banks that made bad decisions take their losses. It's time that executives of bankrupt corps be sued for their multi-million dollar bonuses to help pay some of the losses.

It's NOT time for the taxpayer that has tried to live within his/her means to take it up the ass. :x
 

alice

Well-known member
...and maybe GW's brother ought to give back the money he got from the feds when he got bailed out of his S&L scandal. Fruit doesn't seem to far fall from the tree...

Alice
 

Steve

Well-known member
most every one I know that is losing their house could still easily afford it.. they just want out of their bad investment..

I'm sure that is not the case in every situation.. but the bad investment part seems to be the common thread.. and the straw that is breaking the camels' back..

adjustable interest rates area at or below 5% lowest rate in years..

so the payment should be relatively low if they are stuck with an adjustable rate loan..

if they had a teaser rate and it came due... and they planned on remortgaging it with the gained equity.. they shouldn't have counted the eggs before they hatched..

it all comes back to a bunch of people forgetting it is a home..
and treating it like a car they trade in every few years. no wonder most are "upside down" in their home loans.. they had plenty of practice on their car loans..


"There has always been cases of consumers being upside down, but it's been growing increasingly worse over the past five years," says Bob Kurilko, vice president of product development and marketing at Edmunds.com.

"It's an alarming statistic that 40 percent of consumers are upside down."
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Yep- I don't know how it will shake out- but across the country the John and Jill Doe average folks are madder than hell- at the politicians and the greedy Fatcats of Wall Street...

The main thing I'm seeing they want is no US taxpayer money going to foreign banks- and they don't want any of these CEO's of the companies getting assistance getting their multi million $ salaries and multi million $ golden parachutes and bonus's for running their companies into the hole.....

If your interested, here is what Obama said

Barack Obama made a speech on the Wall St. crisis laying out four specific points that a solution must have. First, it must address the crisis on Main St. as well as Wall St. People are losing their homes and it is essential that the bill prevent foreclosures. Saving Wall St. firms is not enough. Second, the CEOs who caused the problems must not be rewarded for their greed and ineptitude. Third, the solution must be temporary, there must be oversight, and there must be an upside for the taxpayers when things get stabilized. Fourth, the solution must be globally coordinated. The U.S. can't do it alone.

At the end he added that the problem didn't just happen by itself. It was caused by decades of the philosophy that the markets can manage themselves and government oversight and regulation is a bad thing. It is time to retire that that philosophy as we now see the consequences. Here is a video of Obama's speech:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26791795#26791795

Here is Lou Dobbs tonights quickvote:
QuickVote
Should Wall Street executives who oversaw the biggest market meltdown in American history be paid a dime of taxpayer funded bonus money?
Yes 1% 81
No 99% 10171
Total Votes: 10252
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
I am kind of on the fence about the Bail out. My gut is let the crap hit the fan and the strong survive. I believe in the right to fail as much as the right to prosper! So down deep I say let everyone lose, if you lose your home them so be it, if you lose your job so be it, if you lose your bank so be it!

But I am not economist so I do not understand the ramifications that would happen to say the stock market or the economy if there is no bail out. If a Recession is the worse that would come from it then lets do nothing. I don't even think we need new regulations just some of them ones removed that pressured people to make bad loans.

I would gladly endure a strong economic down slide to see those that errored be punished for this, and that includes those people that bought a house and could not afford it, not just the lenders!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
I am kind of on the fence about the Bail out. My gut is let the crap hit the fan and the strong survive. I believe in the right to fail as much as the right to prosper! So down deep I say let everyone lose, if you lose your home them so be it, if you lose your job so be it, if you lose your bank so be it!

But I am not economist so I do not understand the ramifications that would happen to say the stock market or the economy if there is no bail out. If a Recession is the worse that would come from it then lets do nothing. I don't even think we need new regulations just some of them ones removed that pressured people to make bad loans.

I would gladly endure a strong economic down slide to see those that errored be punished for this, and that includes those people that bought a house and could not afford it, not just the lenders!

I don't think you'll get your wish there- there will be regulations...There is a hue and cry going up from the public everywhere to regulate this- just like they did in the 30's- and it pretty well worked until we forgot about history and those regulations were removed in 2000...

There is also a big outcry to regulate CEO's salaries- and these golden parachutes and bonus's they get even if they incompetently mishandle the companies and the shareholders money.... :(

No matter who is elected President- the next Congress will be the Congress of regulation on all phases of the Corporate world....They were given their chance with deregulation and self policing- and flat out blew it....
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
There are more than just the deregulation that happened under Clinton with the banking. There is also the push to make sure the poor got a chance to own a home. There was actually regulation going on in this regard, meaning the government was trying to tell lenders who they should be loaning to and who should not be denied credit.

The one good thing about this is that those that are high risk will be denied credit now, and it will be harder for the government to pressure for these bad loans. I say if you have any money sitting around now is the time to buy rent homes! I have had a few over the past 20 years and gave them up because it was not worth the hassle. But I suspect the next 20 years may be different and rent homes may be a good investment, at least in my area!
 

Texan

Well-known member
You people that claim Bush didn't want any regulation really need to read this article from the New York Times.

The Bush Administration proposed doing something about this back in 2003 - but was blocked by Democrats. You libs like to talk about Republican "obstructionists" now that the Dems have control, but you ignore all of the Democrats that blocked things when Republicans had control. Democrats like Barney Frank, who said in 2003:

'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''


New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63
 

Mike

Well-known member
Good find Randy.

This needs to go front and center of the debate.

Stupid people, and the Mainstream Media have convinced themselves and others that all of this is Bush's fault? :roll:
 

TSR

Well-known member
Texan said:
You people that claim Bush didn't want any regulation really need to read this article from the New York Times.

The Bush Administration proposed doing something about this back in 2003 - but was blocked by Democrats. You libs like to talk about Republican "obstructionists" now that the Dems have control, but you ignore all of the Democrats that blocked things when Republicans had control. Democrats like Barney Frank, who said in 2003:

'These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''


New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON
Published: September 11, 2003

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.



http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63

What did the bill say? When did the Republicans propose it? What was the vote? This article says much of nothing.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oversight of Mortgage Giants Sought




Sept. 11, 2003 (Associated Press) — Treasury Secretary John Snow asked Congress Wednesday for a stronger government hand over mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "we cannot be complacent" about the economically vital housing finance market.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Amid accounting turmoil at Freddie Mac that has brought the departure of two chief executives since early June, Snow put forward an administration proposal that would shift financial regulation of the two U.S.-sponsored companies to his Treasury Department from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It would widen the government's authority over the two biggest players in the multitrillion-dollar home mortgage market.

"Housing finance is so important to our national economy that we need a strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations" of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Snow said in testimony to the House Financial Services Committee.

Snow did not specifically mention Freddie Mac's accounting and management troubles. He did, however, express regret that the company has not fulfilled its pledge to comply with federal financial disclosure rules that apply to nearly all other publicly traded corporations.

Snow said the government needs to pay close attention "to the resilience of our system of housing finance."

"That system is the envy of the world, but we cannot be complacent," he told the lawmakers.

Snow also floated a novel idea: abolishing presidential appointments of a certain portion of directors sitting on the two companies' boards.

Congress, which created the two companies and has been loath to upset the housing market, now may be receptive to such a plan. After Freddie Mac's woes surfaced in the spring and brought federal investigations, members of the House and Senate proposed legislation that would tighten regulatory oversight of the two politically influential companies whose stock is widely traded.

Committee Chairman Rep. Michael Oxley, R-Ohio, told reporters before the hearing that he sees a "better-than-even chance" of legislative success for the plan. "I think you would have a very credible regulator at Treasury that would have a solid impact on the market, on interest rates," Oxley said.

But Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the panel's senior Democrat, said, "I do not believe we are facing any kind of a crisis."

In what was described as a compromise, the administration proposal would leave HUD with authority over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's mission to expand homeownership, especially among lower-income people, while moving financial regulation to Treasury.

HUD Secretary Mel Martinez, appearing with Snow, said that "HUD is the appropriate agency to develop and enforce the housing goals."

Frank expressed skepticism, saying it could be difficult for HUD to make the two companies meet the goals if regulatory power only resided in Treasury.

"What's HUD going to do, yell at them?" he asked Martinez.

The HUD agency that currently oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been criticized by some lawmakers as weak and ineffective and too slow to investigate Freddie Mac. Its director Armando Falcon, a Clinton appointee who is leaving the post soon, said in a statement Wednesday that if his agency is shifted to Treasury, "We must ensure that it remains an independent regulator."

Spokesmen for Freddie Mac didn't return a telephone call seeking comment Wednesday. Fannie Mae spokeswoman Janis Smith declined comment.

Created by Congress to pump money into the home mortgage market, the two rival companies have grown explosively in recent years as they've snapped up home loans from banks and bundled them into securities for sale on Wall Street. They have a peculiar status: they are not directly guaranteed by the government, but they can borrow directly from the Treasury. That makes their borrowing rates lower.

Taking a different tack from the administration proposal, Senate Republicans on Tuesday called on Congress to consider cutting some or all of the government's ties to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to limit taxpayers' exposure in the event of a collapse of either one.

McLean, Va.-based Freddie Mac, a $40 billion-a-year company, disclosed that accounting errors and manipulations of internal accounts resulted in its underreporting earnings by $1.5 billion to $4.5 billion in the 2000-2002 period.

-- Marcy Gordon, AP Business Writer

© Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
 

fff

Well-known member
What ever happened to Treas Sec Snow? I know the first Treas Sec left because he dared to make public comments worrying about the Federal deficit Bush was running up. But what did Snow do to get run off?
 

Mike

Well-known member
fff said:
What ever happened to Treas Sec Snow? I know the first Treas Sec left because he dared to make public comments worrying about the Federal deficit Bush was running up. But what did Snow do to get run off?

Don't blame you a bit in trying to change the subject....... :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
So lets see, Bush called it a problems, McCain called it a problem I guess in some ways they are McSame :lol:

What was Obama and Biden doing through all this?

It is so funny that the Libs will not own part of this problem, one day they are for giving loans to poor people because it is fair that everyone owns a home then the next day they want to blame the Republicans when these people do not pay for those homes. :roll:

And now they not only want to bail out the mortgage lender, but are trying to add on some money to help those people pay for something they could not afford in the first place by adding a stimulus check to the bail out bill.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
aplusmnt said:
So lets see, Bush called it a problems, McCain called it a problem I guess in some ways they are McSame :lol:

What was Obama and Biden doing through all this?

It is so funny that the Libs will not own part of this problem, one day they are for giving loans to poor people because it is fair that everyone owns a home then the next day they want to blame the Republicans when these people do not pay for those homes. :roll:

And now they not only want to bail out the mortgage lender, but are trying to add on some money to help those people pay for something they could not afford in the first place by adding a stimulus check to the bail out bill.


But they didn't do anything even tho they had a rubber stamp REPUBLICAN controlled Congress :shock: ....Apparently a few of those Repubs high on the pig trough lobbyiest list didn't go along with them....
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
So lets see, Bush called it a problems, McCain called it a problem I guess in some ways they are McSame :lol:

What was Obama and Biden doing through all this?

It is so funny that the Libs will not own part of this problem, one day they are for giving loans to poor people because it is fair that everyone owns a home then the next day they want to blame the Republicans when these people do not pay for those homes. :roll:

And now they not only want to bail out the mortgage lender, but are trying to add on some money to help those people pay for something they could not afford in the first place by adding a stimulus check to the bail out bill.


But they didn't do anything even tho they had a rubber stamp REPUBLICAN controlled Congress :shock: ....Apparently a few of those Repubs high on the pig trough lobbyiest list didn't go along with them....

They did not have a Rubber stamp to anything, just because you have majority in senate does not mean the Democrats can not stop something. Seems like you used this example before to defend the Democratic controlled congress, recently? :roll:
 

Mike

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
Oldtimer said:
aplusmnt said:
So lets see, Bush called it a problems, McCain called it a problem I guess in some ways they are McSame :lol:

What was Obama and Biden doing through all this?

It is so funny that the Libs will not own part of this problem, one day they are for giving loans to poor people because it is fair that everyone owns a home then the next day they want to blame the Republicans when these people do not pay for those homes. :roll:

And now they not only want to bail out the mortgage lender, but are trying to add on some money to help those people pay for something they could not afford in the first place by adding a stimulus check to the bail out bill.


But they didn't do anything even tho they had a rubber stamp REPUBLICAN controlled Congress :shock: ....Apparently a few of those Repubs high on the pig trough lobbyiest list didn't go along with them....

They did not have a Rubber stamp to anything, just because you have majority in senate does not mean the Democrats can not stop something. Seems like you used this example before to defend the Democratic controlled congress, recently? :roll:

OT has no concept of what "Cloture" involves. :roll: :roll:
 
Top