Bail out doesn't pass!

[Lynn CC]

Get cash now! If you have money in a bank you may want to liquidate some ASAP. Cash is king.

Not good.

Are you saying I should take my cash out of my savings account?
Why?

 

[CowboyCO]

Yes forcing banks to treat minority areas equally, must mean HIGH RISK loans. Even though foreclosure rates in those areas that had been previously discriminated against are lower than the higher income "less risky" neighborhoods.

Ever hear of the Fair Housing Act? That is the federal law that protects borrowers from discrimination based on race.

The Community Reinvestment Act was the federal law that required banks to make low-down/no-down mortgages to create "affordable housing" opportunities. Loans to minorities didn't cause the housing crisis. It had nothing to do with it. Period. Loans to people who don't qualify with poor credit or have no down payment or poor employment history caused it. And those were created by CRA.

link to the bolded statement?

 

[Charade]

If all of this is true than why haven't the Republicans, who where in charge of Congress for 12 years, done something sooner? IMO the Republicans are 80% to blame and the Democrats are 20%, YMMV.

Barney Frank said there were no problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Barney Frank opposed regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in 2003, but no one reminds him

I'm not going to give John McCain campaign tips, but how does he let such Democrats as Rep. Barney Frank get away with telling the press that McCain and President Bush opposed regulations on financial institutions, when it was Frank himself who opposed those regulations?

Frank 'no crisis.' As Power Line reminds us to day, The New York Times reported on Sept. 11, 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."

 

[bsnyder]

Please show where Clintons ADMINISTRATION forced banks to lower their lending standards.


Republicans keep referring to actions taken by the Clinton administration to stop obvious discrimination, and spin it to say he forced banks into high risk loans.

But hey maybe you can provide said legislation where he forced banks to lend money to those not qualified.

What obvious discrimination was stopped?

 

[lyeag]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

 

[rie'smom]

Please show where Clintons ADMINISTRATION forced banks to lower their lending standards.


Republicans keep referring to actions taken by the Clinton administration to stop obvious discrimination, and spin it to say he forced banks into high risk loans.

But hey maybe you can provide said legislation where he forced banks to lend money to those not qualified.

Somebody's

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709
"The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Reinvestment Act*, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

 

[LuvDuke]

You are just amazing!!

So your leader's (Pelosi) rant on the house floor was just the thing needed to bring those votes home. Nice work Nanc.

The market lost 1.2 TRILLION because either 10 Dems OR 10 Republicans couldn't get it together.

I'm pointing my finger at all of them but feel free to continue to be one of the most partisan people I've ever seen.

And Nancy was mean to us too. Wah, wah, wah ................

 

[segpm08060]

Dems have a majority. They could pass it despite the Repubs if they could garner enough support. They could not. That's not leadership.

This is a failure of leadership for the Republican President and John McCain who said he would deliver the votes. Yes, the Dems have a majority, but Nancy stated from the beginning that she wanted a majority of Republicans to agree to the Republican President request for a bailout bill. She delivered a majority of Democrats. It was up to the Republicans to get their majority to agree.

And the only way you lost 10 years of gains according to the DOW is if you were in an index fund and never moved it, ever. That would be stupid. Good growth funds were gaining 15%-20% per year for the last 15 years and that compounds. My guess is you don't invest much... But you spin a lot.

Spin The Dow, S&P, etc are indicators. Give me the names of the growth funds and I'll track them for a while and see how much growth they will have going forth. If they grow then I owe you an apology. I hope I am wrong.

 

[Anewman]

Ever hear of the Fair Housing Act? That is the federal law that protects borrowers from discrimination based on race.

The Community Reinvestment Act was the federal law that required banks to make low-down/no-down mortgages to create "affordable housing" opportunities. Loans to minorities didn't cause the housing crisis. It had nothing to do with it. Period. Loans to people who don't qualify with poor credit or have no down payment or poor employment history caused it. And those were created by CRA.

link to the bolded statement?

Have you? Because neither of those are CLINTON era issues.

Clinton and Reno dealt with redlining, and every time quotes or spin from those actions are talked about by conservatives they claim he forced banks to lower lending standards. but no links are ever provided.

 

[tinkryansmom]

Obama supporter (but an Independent). I'm not ready to place blame on any party yet. Overall, a good number of both Dems and Repubs had issue with this bill as it stands so that concerns me. I'm not going to point any fingers until I see what the specific reasons were for that many of them to vote NAY. While 40% of the Dems voting against wasn't the majority, it was still a significant amount against it. I'm not convinced that this is a us/them issue.

Finally a voice of reason!!

Also though this info from Dave Ramsey was interesting -

How We Can Clean Up A Lot of the Economic Problems

Remember Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, and other companies had artificially put assets on the books? They'd say something was worth $10M when they bought it, but eventually it decreased in value, and they never updated the value in the books. That was part of the fraud. Under current laws at that time, they were all convicted and put in jail for fraud.



Then we got all mad and made all these new laws that are coming out the wazoo called Sarbanes-Oxley. It's a huge, massive law but the idea is that we were going to mandate ethics to corporate America because apparently they didn't have any, according to the Enron failure. It's now a total pain in the butt to execute it in a publicly traded company.

It didn't work because you can't cause ethics to happen. However, it does make each company each day restate what their assets are worth if sold on the market. This accounting procedure is mark to market accounting--you need to remember that. It's a good concept and keeps companies from having loaded balance sheets.

How This Affects Us Today
However, it's part of what's caused this in the news now. Merrill Lynch was sitting with $30 billion tied up in sub-prime loans with houses. Stupid! They get what they deserve for doing that, and I'm with you on that. Those houses didn't become worthless all of a sudden because those people couldn't sell their bonds. Since they couldn't sell them, they basically gave them away for 22 cents on the dollar. Now do you think all those houses lost 80% of their value underneath that deal? No, they didn't, so they gave them away for 22 cents on the dollar (about $6 billion total) because there was no market for them. Nobody wants to buy sub-prime bonds because they suck. They're junk bonds. But at 22 cents on the dollar, it's a bargain because even if you foreclosed on every one of the houses in there, you'd probably get $20 billion back out of $30 billion, and so the company that bought those for $6 billion got a deal! But there's no market for them. That's where these companies are stuck. They can't sell this stuff, but accounting-wise, they've had to mark it down to market and it's frozen the marketplace.

Economist Wesbury is saying that if we change that one rule and don't force them to mark down to market value and just let them hold on to all the stuff, and say just on sub-primes for this period of time you can change that rule -- a temporary change -- that'll free the market up. It's seized right now; it's frozen. This will thaw it out and get it going again. He says that'll solve 60% of the problem ... and I think he's right.

That one accounting rule is what made Merrill Lynch sell out. That one accounting rule is what's driving other ones into the dirt. Would you rather let them change their accounting rule or loan them $700 billion for us to buyout their bad paper?

I'd rather them work their own crap out than have us bail them out with $700 billion of our tax dollars.

I don't like giving them any money or any help with my tax dollars. But I'd rather see that than see the whole thing turn completely upside down in a fruit basket turnover than have a whole meltdown or something and freak out here in the middle of the election season. Why don't we just take the FHA insurance program and extend it across these sub-primes? What that means is that you and I are guaranteeing the lender that they're not going to lose as much or any money on those mortgages. Now I don't like guaranteeing them, but I like it better than buying them. In other words, instead of $700 billion in tax-payer debt going out there to bail out these companies, just extend the insurance out. You could probably do that for less than $40 billion. It's like a 95% savings!
If the government insured those mortgages, they would then be marketable. And could sell them. And the companies would stay afloat. And we, the people, don't have to get into the mortgage business. Now we're going to get in there a little bit because of the insurance on those getting foreclosed on. But foreclosures aren't causing this. This is being caused because these companies are frozen and seized up. We've got to let some of the steam come off and put some oil in there to get this thing moving again. We can do that without going into debt $700 billion.

Here's Your Plan
Call your Congressman. Call your Senator. Tell them to change the mark-to-market accounting law and to extend insurance but extend no loans. If they extend loans - if they borrow the money on the national debt in order for us to all go into the mortgage business a trillion dollars - you're going to fire their butts and send them home.

I've talked with several people today, and it's on the tables in Washington, but it's not something you're going to see on TV. If you'll let your Congressmen know you know about this and that you'll vote against them if they don't vote to change the mark-to-market law and you'll contribute your money to make sure they never serve in office again. That's what you need to tell them early and often.

If you're pissed, this is the time to step up and do something about it, America! You can stop this! It's being railroaded down your throat, but you can stop them if you call them in mass starting now.

I for one are hoping all House Reps will get back to work (Thursday right?) and figure out how to make a better bill.

 

[bsnyder]

but Nancy stated from the beginning that she wanted a majority of Republicans to agree to the Republican President request for a bailout bill.

She can "want' whatver the hell she says she wants. Big deal!

The GOP is the party that historically has believed in limited government, and obviously a bailout like this cuts against that principal.

What's the Dem excuse?

My personal opinion is that the Dems want things to get worse, giving them an excuse to nationalize the entire financial system. A dream come true from the liberal perspective.

 

[segpm08060]

Why couldn't the Dems get just 10 more?

Probably, I guess for the same reasons that the Republicans could not just get 10 more

And you need to check your math...

 

[Anewman]

Please show where Clintons ADMINISTRATION forced banks to lower their lending standards.


Republicans keep referring to actions taken by the Clinton administration to stop obvious discrimination, and spin it to say he forced banks into high risk loans.

But hey maybe you can provide said legislation where he forced banks to lend money to those not qualified.

Somebody's

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709
"The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Reinvestment Act*, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

Are you serious?
An opinion/editorial piece is the same as pointing to the actual legislation where you claim he created the market for "risky" loans.

Yes I know he sued some banks that were discriminating, the person that wrote your opinion for you feels that equals creating the risky loan business.

I understand you agree with that view and will not expect link to actual bill or action with Clinton lowering credit standards

 

[bsnyder]

Have you? Because neither of those are CLINTON era issues.

Clinton and Reno dealt with redlining, and every time quotes or spin from those actions are talked about by conservatives they claim he forced banks to lower lending standards. but no links are ever provided.

Try googling the history of Downpayment Assistance Programs - even as we sit hear arguing over the bailout (or lack thereof), the Dems in Congress are trying to keep those programs alive. Even though borrowers using those programs are 3 times as likely to default.

It reminds me of the definition of insantity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

 

[Anewman]

Try googling the history of Downpayment Assistance Programs - even as we sit hear arguing over the bailout (or lack thereof), the Dems in Congress are trying to keep those programs alive. Even though borrowers using those programs are 3 times as likely to default.

It reminds me of the definition of insantity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Google done, most hits were from 2008...

I would agree 100% that if a family can not get a down payment together themselves, they maybe more likely to default. In the search I could not find any law that required banks to lend to persons that take advantage of such programs.

But I would say that if a bank CHOOSES to lend to such borrowers, it should not be done so in a discriminating manor. Base it on all the traditional criteria and not zip code.

 

[Galahad]

That was your retirement. Seven years of it. Gone.

It's only "gone" if you're going to retire today. I hope my 401K didn't make it's buy until today.

 

[Galahad]

My personal opinion is that the Dems want things to get worse, giving them an excuse to nationalize the entire financial system. A dream come true from the liberal perspective.

I don't buy that. They want to get reelected too. Even at it's worst, this plan is not really nationalization. If it worked as planned - and you have to assume that most voting for it WANT it to work as planned - then the government/taxpayers would not ultimately be on the hook for much at all and the government would exit the market. I know that government always gets bigger, but Democrats buy stocks, make profits, and participate in capitalism right along with Republicans.

 

[TLSnell1981]

Finally a voice of reason!!


Here's Your Plan
Call your Congressman. Call your Senator. Tell them to change the mark-to-market accounting law and to extend insurance but extend no loans. If they extend loans - if they borrow the money on the national debt in order for us to all go into the mortgage business a trillion dollars - you're going to fire their butts and send them home.

I've talked with several people today, and it's on the tables in Washington, but it's not something you're going to see on TV. If you'll let your Congressmen know you know about this and that you'll vote against them if they don't vote to change the mark-to-market law and you'll contribute your money to make sure they never serve in office again. That's what you need to tell them early and often.

If you're pissed, this is the time to step up and do something about it, America! You can stop this! It's being railroaded down your throat, but you can stop them if you call them in mass starting now.[/COLOR]

I for one are hoping all House Reps will get back to work (Thursday right?) and figure out how to make a better bill.

Let's hope today's failure to pass the "bailout" will bring us a better bill.

 

[Goofycampers]

Get off it - it isn't in the legislation.

Wake up and try reading the news, ONLY OPEN YOUR EYES.

 

[Goofycampers]

Again, if ACCORN is in this bill(final version) that was presented to that house. Feel free to show me one news link.[/QUOT I think if you try hard enough you could read it for yourself. This is beyond partisanship. Just because you support Obama doesn't mean you have to go along with everything that the Democratic party blindly. This issue is too important for all of this riduculous partisanship.