God, what are they doing to us all.??????

In my mind, if they had divided all that bail-out money, to tax paying Citizens...it would have been a win-win situation......

People paying for their houses..thus mortage companies able to survive.

People paying, and/or buying vehicles...thus..no hand-outs to auto industry..

People paying their credit...thus..credit companies in the black..

Not to mention..people buying other things that they need..to keep the economy going..

All this could have been possible with the 1st bail-out...

Am, I missing something here??

I'm tired of these damn bailouts. ITS MY MONEY AND I NEED IT NOW!

Yes. Common Sense is quite uncommon in the government.

I totally agree with you,I heard today that some people think the government is doing this to us on purpose,something to do with the new world order

Get the tinfoil hats!

Beam me up Scotty, there's no intelligent life down here.

they dont give a shyt what they do to us,all they want is money so they can be rich and get why they want.

I'm so sick of those "dip-sh**'s" in Washington.
There has to be a way of letting them know......
HEY !!! You work for US....

And ANY politician who doesn't, you're outta there.

And, if you are removed from office....YOU Lose all that you have been promised, as far as life-long pay, and benefits....JUST SUCKS...

Probably wrong section of forum..just kinda went with the recession topics...sorry......

Don't get me started....lol...

It would never work, because they'd never be able to swing it on only $10,000,000.00 a year.

I'm not a radical or anything, but enough is enough...and WE just sit by, and let them do this....?????....kinda makes you wonder???


They need to be held accountable....WE are !!

I'M MAD AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!

you should think this ... EVERYONE who is in public office whether it be a congressman, senator and the president they are ALL responsible for the condition of this country and WE voted them into office. We had 8 years of being in the black and now 8 years of being in the red and now another four years of cleaning up. 2008 was the WORST economic year since the depression.
Vote 'em all out and replace them

Unfortunately....I'm afraid it might take that to happen...

There's not much we, the People can do.
We all know, the Big money buys in the politicians so, that's who they owe their loyalty to.
I don't believe I've seen one of those fat cats who said they were going under at the food stamp office. God forbid they live one cent below what they are accustomed to.

Idea on the right track...But...you CAN'T run, if you don't have MONEY....which also is wrong..
GURRRRRRRR....Give me a person with some freeking common sense anytime over you're pot of gold, and promises of what YOU can do for ME...
Yada, Yada, Yada.....

I have NO doubt...I would be shot, if I was in a meeting with them...I'd give'm all "what 4"...I'd never live to see the next day.....

Politics have gotten way out of hand. No real leader will want to be a politician. A leader will be a business person.

A politician is a college educated person who wants power and prestige without having to really go to work.

Here's a little something interesting. It seems the Gov and Mortgage Co. are bailing some folks out.
Investigate Freddie Mac and Fannie May.

Bailout Bills, Illegal Aliens, and Weird Lending Practices
by Hans Bader
September 24, 2008

The proposed $700 billion bailout is “dangerous, inflationary, unnecessary, and unconstitutional,” funds left-wing special-interest groups, ignores less costly ways of propping up financial markets, and fails to consider regulatory reforms that might reduce the need for a bailout. It’s not clear why we should trust federal officials with $700 billion to buy up bad loans, without any clear standards or judicial oversight, given that governmental incompetence and government regulations (such as affordable housing mandates) helped spawn the mortgage crisis. Many economists oppose the proposed bailout.

But some lending practices are hard to explain. Why did so many lenders make loans to illegal aliens without steady jobs, who are now defaulting by the thousands, as Michelle Malkin notes? Is it because of the societal (and governmental) obsession with diversity?

When I and my wife, a legal alien, bought our house, the mortgage company told me that if my wife were an illegal alien, rather than legal, we would have qualified for certain loan programs with big banks. But because she was a legal alien waiting for her green-card (which she had recently applied for), we didn’t qualify.

Mark Krikorian, an activist against illegal immigration, argues that “we’re in this mess, ultimately, because our political elites thought it was good social policy to encourage banks to give mortgages to uncreditworthy people, resulting in what Sailer months ago called the “Diversity Recession” (if this doesn’t work, make that the Diversity Depression). In other words, if poor people in general, or blacks or Hispanics in particular, were less likely to be approved for a mortgage, the only possible reason was racism or classism or whatever. Thus ‘creditworthiness’ was an illegitimate, dead-white-male concept, like middleclassness. Because, after all, isn’t everyone entitled to credit?”

Another strange lending practice also popped up when I purchased a home. I ultimately left my wife off the mortgage entirely, because I was told that since she had no credit history (despite being thrifty and having savings and no debts), putting her on the mortgage would actually get us a worse, higher interest rate than if I alone applied (I received a rate of 5%, a low rate by historical standards).

Why on Earth were we treated as worse off if my wife co-signed the loan, which makes no sense economically? It’s not like having her on the loan would have made me any poorer or less able to pay.

People I’ve talked to have theorized that it is a byproduct of two things: (a) discrimination lawsuits, and (b) courts’ indulgence towards junk science.

If the bank gave loans to white people like my wife with no credit, or bad credit, the bank would later look bad if was sued for discrimination, even if it was innocent. If a “fair-housing” group later sued the bank accusing it of discrimination, supported by a misleading “regression analysis” of the bank’s lending decisions, the bank could end up having to explain, at great expense, why it loaned money to my wife, but not to many minority borrowers who also had no credit or bad credit (never mind that my wife would have had a co-signor with good credit — me).

Why should such misleading regression analysis matter? The Supreme Court may have opened the door to such junk science in its Bazemore decision, which allows plaintiffs to bring discrimination lawsuits based on obviously flawed statistics, such as regression analyses, as long as the plaintiff claims that the analysis includes all “major” variables, even if “minor” variables that also matter are deliberately left out, unless the defendant can prove that even major variables have been omitted.