As I said yesterday, the $700 billion bailout is a failure and waste of public money.  All democrats have done is complain, and as usual, offered no solutions of their own except to find a way to blame republicans.  John McCain has stepped up with other conservatives to offer an alternate resolution that won’t waste as much tax dollars as the bailout plan.

“U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., may be throwing a monkey wrench into efforts to pass a $700 billion bank bailout, instead favoring alternative plans that looks to free up capital and credit markets via tax and regulatory relief while allowing financial institutions to temporarily skip dividend payments to shareholders.

Republican and Democratic officials in Washington said McCain was offering alternatives Thursday to the $700 billion plan backed by the Bush administration, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

That plan has the federal government acquiring bad mortgage assets from struggling banks with the goal of keeping them afloat and allowing more credit to flow.

McCain appears to be siding with conservatives and House Republicans who question the bailout and its costs to taxpayers as well as government rescuing private lenders and perhaps taking ownership stakes in rescued banks.

The alternative plan allocates less public money and relies more on tax breaks, lifting regulatory barriers and using less bailout-oriented mechanisms to free up capital and credit. It also seeks to create a privately funded mechanism to ensure mortgages and mortgage-backed securities.”

I’m not sure yet what will happen with the debate tonight, but we have seen who the real leader in tough times is, and the polls are already showing it.  While McCain is trying to help solve the problem, Obama is worried about what will happen to his debate.  I guess he doesn’t want to lose all those hours practicing in front of a teleprompter.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Sep 29, 2008

And what did the CRA do?

Why don't you take a look yourself so you dont continue to keeping exposing how little you know about the situation.

CRA encourages financial institutions to reinvest in their own communities. It does not mandate loan rates, or qualifications. It encourages investment that includes both residential as well as business investment within the community as opposed to many other banks which take deposits and invest them elsewhere.

on Sep 30, 2008

Why don't you take a look yourself so you dont continue to keeping exposing how little you know about the situation.

I acgtually know a great deal since I studied,  I also hate long posts, so try to avoid them.  WHen you actually post some supporting documention showing how I am wrong, I will refute it. Until then, it is just a he said she said situation, and not really worth the time.  We know the CRA was bad law.  Glass Steagle was not the boogey man, but it is one thing that the "hands in the cookie jar" democrats can point to to deflect blame.  But I will tell you the old cliche is still true.  Dont listen to the words, follow the money.  SO far, you are only folliowing the words.

on Sep 30, 2008

We know the CRA was bad law

Is that why all the CRA banks in my area are solid? Im in a very rural area that is mostly small businesses. CRA serves this area a very republican area quite well. One of the reasons is because CRA home loans are for primary residences and it is the second and investment home markets that truly caused the blowout.

on Sep 30, 2008

follow the money

Follow where the foreclosure rates have risen and real estate values have dropped the most. Miami .Lauderdale, Orlando, Phoenix, Vegas, Palm Beach, Tampa, Then Califonia.

Its the overdevelopment of condos condos condos just like back in the 80's.  And California probably has a lot to do with the tech bubble bursting.

on Oct 01, 2008

Follow where the foreclosure rates have risen and real estate values have dropped the most. Miami .Lauderdale, Orlando, Phoenix, Vegas, Palm Beach, Tampa, Then Califonia.

Its the overdevelopment of condos condos condos just like back in the 80's. And California probably has a lot to do with the tech bubble bursting.

The "housing" market is a misnomer.  Housing is not a national market.  It is very regional.  You only point out where past practices have been the worst.  And yes, housing is not in a bubble.  But you are looking at symptoms, not the cause.  The symtoms will manifest themselves in the most vulnerable areas first, as they have.

on Oct 01, 2008

You only point out where past practices have been the worst.

No these statistics were for the month of August this year and if you look further they are also the areas where ARMS resetting next year and and 2010 are most prominent. CRA is not the root of the problem as you try to claim because a vast majority of the problem is shown and known to be second and investment homes in mainly areas where the home values are well above what CRA, HUD and other govt programs allow. ARMS are what is keeping fuel on the fire. CRA, HUD, etc type loans are mainly for first time homeowners, not for second homes, not for investment homes, and are not ARMS.

on Oct 02, 2008

CRA is not the root of the problem as you try to claim because a vast majority of the problem is shown and known to be second and investment homes in mainly areas where the home values are well above what CRA, HUD and other govt programs allow.

Then why the bailout?  Why the nightly stories of Poor Laura Richardson (ok, that one proves your contention).

Why the nightly stories of how all will be homeless now?  No, they are part of the problem, and when it comes down to it not even a matter.  The fear that is driving this is the one home family losing it all.  And those rates are up more than the second home foreclosure rates.

You argue out of both sides of your mouth.  One for the bailout, but then that would just help the rich by your standards.  And then argue that it is all a big smoke screen that is all about the rich.  It is either needed for the adversly affected, or it is not and is for the rich.  If it is for the rich, why are we doing it?  And that may be why wall street loves it, but america does not.

If it is for the poor, then we go back to my contention, and your dodging is not germaine to the point.

on Oct 02, 2008

One for the bailout, but then that would just help the rich by your standards.

No it keeps the credit market liquid which effects everybody. Where have I ever said it would only help the rich? Nowhere. It seems that this is your standard because you do not understand what the bailout is about.

And then argue that it is all a big smoke screen that is all about the rich.

What you need to realize is that the core of the bailout is meant to deal with a credit crisis, which is a result of the subprime problem. It was not meant to solve the subprime problem, however solving the credit problem will also have an effect on easing the subprime problem.  Unfortunately partisanship got involved and they are stuffing the bill with all kinds of partisan crap that IMHO shouldnt be in there. They should have taken the initially proposed framework and structured the 700bill within a trustlike mechanism and added oversight and taxpayer protections. Instead they are adding all kinds of crap which should be dealt with later. The faster credit tightens not only will ARMS skyrocket as they reset but it is also effecting overnight lending for businesses. Look at what GE had to do because they could not get overnight credit. ATT is having problems,etc.  and many small businesses currently have no options, some that have already closed their doors.

Personally I think every single politician who voted against the bill should be voted out of congress. These politicians either do not fully understand what is going on, or are pandering for votes in the upcoming election. This does not mean I like the bill. There are provisions in it from both sides which I don't agree with, but I do understand how important the core of the bill is, and how important it is to act rather quickly.

 

 

 

2 Pages1 2