View Single Post
Old 10-04-2008, 04:46 AM
SVD's Avatar
SVD SVD is offline
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 2,555
Default Re: The $$$700,000.000.00 BAIL OUT, What You Think???

I'm not happy about the bailout but because the .gov caused it they do have to help fix it.

It was all done for the best of reasons, of course. The Democrats wanted everyone to own a home - a laudable goal. But they went about that by putting tremendous economic, social, and legal pressure on banks to make sure they were giving 'enough' loans to 'the poor'. They made use of community organizers like ACORN (the same ones regularly convicted of voter registration fraud and yes, an early job of someone in the news lately) to both get people to apply and attack banks that wouldn't loan people money just because they couldn't pay it back.

After a few years they started having Fannie & Freddie buy up the known bad loans.

That still wasn't doing enough so they pushed the 'Mortgage Backed Securities' (MBS) idea.

So now they had a situation where banks were just shy of forced to give loans to anyone who appeared to have a pulse, a market for selling off the bad loans right away (so the bank takes no hit itself), and a market for keeping those ticking time bombs moving. So, of course, we get ads for 'zero principal' loans where you put no money down and pay no principal - interest only. Now there's a good idea.

But it all works, sort of, as long as the housing market's moving up. Too bad it can't do that forever, eh?

Add in the behind the scenes chicanery being done at Freddie and Fannie to cook the books and get their mega bonuses and we get this steaming pile of crud we have now. BTW, it just came out that Barney Frank (D), one of the ranking members of the Banking Committee's boyfriend was a high-ranking official at Fannie Mae while Mr. Frank was voting on whether or not to add oversight. For some reason Mr. Frank voted against it saying everything was fine (they have it on tape).

On last note: they did not add pork to the bailout to get it to pass. The Senate can not start a spending bill (it's in the Consitution) so they did a necessary end-run around that by pulling up a spending bill they already had (which had already passed 92-3 but not yet been officialy sent along) for 'reconsideration'. The reconsideration was to add a minor amendment otherwise known as the bailout. So they didn't add pork to the bailout, they added the bailout to a routine porksicle.

Steve :->
(KCSteve in most forums)
SVD's Photo Album
Reply With Quote