First of all, they dont want big government regulation, now we are at a 700 billion dollar decision, which is corporate socialism imo. However, this sentence in the bill really bothers me. This guy shouldnt have a blank check, they want to deregulate the bail out in so many words. I thought accountability is the key issue of this matter and this really takes it away after its all said and done. Also, Paulson doesnt want a provision in this bill that would eliminate major severance packages for CEOs and other executives, which is bull****. This is all on the taxpayers and the taxpayers should be included in some of the relief. I dont like how this is shapening up, i'm sure alot of you will disagree with me, but the writing is on the wall with the language of the bill.
How can a liberal like yourself be behind the removal of housing for millions of poor Americans that really couldn't afford their homes?
I think you read my post wrong, nowhere do I advocate for what you are saying. Also, me being a democrat doesnt mean I am 100% liberal. Lets not play identity politics on this thread.
You oversimplify the matter. The bad debt that is defaulting is a million miles far removed from Joe Lunchpail whos house is in foreclosure. This is the result of creating a investment instrument of five thousands Joe Lunchpails, that have already defaulted. So I am simply saying the bad debt thats failing now is far removed from the guy who lost his house in foreclosure. So what I am actually saying is why not bail it all out, not just these huge financial companies, with millionaire CEOs who help create the problem, thats not fair to Joe Lunchpail
I don't like welfare at all...whether it's individual or corporate. At least this time it will help the economy as opposed to the millions we waste every year on non-productive welfare recipients.
You cant have it both ways, although you would like to. If you dont like it, it should be for all reasons, no matter what benefit it has. But thats what the administration is trying to do also. Socialism is good when its supposed to help the economy and major corporations, but its bad when it helps a guy who is getting unemployment benefits or a baby getting milk. If this was a democratic administration doing this I stand to think you would be alot more critical of the decision. Also this is an experiement as well, this could fly right back in the government's face. So you really cant say if it is going to help at all. Buying up bad debt is just as risky as what got us into this mess.
You're talking to a former recipient of WIC, LaCHIP, and a free birth at Woman's Hospital. The difference between me and most others who receive the same programs is that a year and a half after receipt, I started making too much money and lost my eligibility. Welfare programs need to be tied into working. I don't have a problem helping out a guy who is busting his butt and can't make ends meet. I have a problem giving out handouts to people that don't want to work.
Im not advocating for welfare here, I am highlighting the hypocrisy in partisan philosphies on socialism and big government. But to answer you welfare was reformed and you can only be on it for a matter of 2-3 years. Which I think is still to long, Id say 18 months at the most for people who claim to need it, which should thoroughly reviewed by case workers.
The poor don't really have much exposure to the mortgage bubble. Millions of middle class Americans with good jobs imagined that they were rich and bought homes way out of line with their salaries. These are the people that are losing homes and I don't fell very sorry for them. I bought a smallish house specifically to avoid large notes and long mortgages. I'm done and I own it outright. I'll be very annoyed if those "regular folks" who went out and bought $400K houses with a pool and a sauna that were beyond their means get bailed out and get to keep them while those of us who were pragmatic and frugal get to pay every cent for ours.
