Is this FAIR???

Question

That the FED can take tax payer money and help replenish all the banks , lending agencies, and credit card companies to keep them in bussiness, while at the same time all them agencies are watching everyone loose their homes, and everything they worked hard for, and end up with destroyed credit histories? and the Fed has even offered to help foreign country Financial institutions in the same fashion, and yet it offers no help to the American Tax payers who are loosing everything. and mind you now! it's all tax payer money that they're doing this with. IS IT FAIR??

Sorry TEDEX But Im not behind on any of my payments , and I never over spend. and you sir know nothing of my financial status. I only feel bad for those who are actually LOOSING SOMETHING, so Please sir redo you answer and I will try to give points for the best one.

Shiprepairwoman, I totaly understand your point. But if the financial institutions decide to do bad bussiness practices and decisions by loaning money to people they know will never pay their bills then they should take the bite for doing such instead of coming after everyone else to cover their unwise bussiness decisions, and mind you it TAX PAYER MONEY that they're doing this with.

Answer 1

Of course it's not fair. The Federal Government is the biggest cash cow the world has ever seen. Those greasy sleazebags on Capitol Hill have figured out our biggest weakness.

As a whole, we are dumber than a box of rocks. As long as we continue to get the Playboy channel, Budweiser and ESPN, we'll continue to dump our money in their pockets. "Keep 'em fat, dumb and happy", is their simple plan.

As soon as the populace as a whole begins to catch on, and stop tolerating their antics, things may start to improve.

Personally, as long as I see people like Hillary Clinton making speeches about raising taxes for another government carrot, and vast crowds of boisterous buffoons cheering her on, the status quo remains.

Sad.

Answer 2

uncertain what you mean "truthful". truthful relies upon on what her husband's income replaced into, I mean he's a wealthy guy, in all probability does not omit $50M yet frequently in a divorce the money is going for the newborn. a woman gets alimony provided that she had no income or interest of her own and Heather does have a profession of her own. yet in all probability their tax equipment could take 0.5 of that, and that i don't recognize if $25M could save that newborn interior the style she is familiar with (in all probability had an excellent homestead, nanny, outfits, toys, practise, transportation) and that i'm constructive McCartney could desire his newborn to maintain residing in luxury. i'm uncertain if the courts could enable Heather to revisit the courtroom if her newborn needed greater or not. i could think of definite. i recognize Heather asked for greater funds, and have been given much less. She needed greater safety for her and her daughter.

Answer 3

Yes, it is fair. Most of us bought homes we could afford and those people with bad credit who bought homes they couldn't afford are causing our investment to fall. People who did everything right shouldn't have to suffer for the people who may not have even read what they agreed to.

Answer 4

Fair? Maybe,maybe not. Too damn bad, that's the way it is!
No one said youi had to buy something you couldn't afford. now live with the consequences.

Answer 5

it does sound unreasonable

Answer 6

WELCOME TO AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!