Actually, a lot of those loans were to the people you whined about in a previous post of yours. Lenders gave too much money to "honest hard working tax paying" people who defaulted on their loans.
2007-08-12 05:00:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush is trying to prevent the FNMA from increasing the amount of debt they can manage. Further, the fed didn't lower rates; that could have been preceived as a bailout.
The actions of the fed on Friday were basically to take the top-rated debt being held by banks for THREE days. No sub-prime or other high-risk debt; the banks still hold this. In return for liquidity they had to give up their GOOD paper.
It helps to understand a little about economics and the workings of the fed to preclude coming up with inane theories.
2007-08-11 02:03:20
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Again, we have a Big Lie from A Liberal Democrat.
The President did not have anything to do with any bail out of the Market. But, Don't let facts get in your way!
The bail out of the market was done by the World Bank, and other Banks around the Planet.
The President was EVEN ON TV, saying that the market must correct itself, and that the Government will not do it for them.
2007-08-11 02:09:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by Sentinel 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
Neil Bush replaced into rather a participant in that fraud/scandal/crises. Mc$ame replaced into an enabler interior the comparable fee low value rates and private loan crises. He replaced into investigated as between the "Keating 5". Phil Gramm (Mc$ames financial adviser and Treasury Secretary candidate) replaced into additionally very instrumental in getting the guidelines dropped that delivered approximately todays financial crises. Republicans inspite of their declare to the different are continuously extra tham prepared to fleece the taxpayer to enhance the financial sector (their marketing campaign investment deep wallet) Bush 40-one replaced into no diverse.
2016-10-14 23:17:38
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
As usual though it is the low guy o nteh totem pole that will get in big trouble if something isn't done. Laws are in place to prevent some of what happened, time will tell if any are used though. But to not step in would leave a few hundred thousand people with no homes and no saving to get a new one. So they would end up jobless and homeless and on Welfare anyway. The Governement is just trying to keep them in place and pay the big companies to take the questionable loans so those people don't come back to the Governement for Welfare. Either way the Government pays, this way is the lesser of 2 evils!
2007-08-11 01:29:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by spacedude4 5
·
1⤊
4⤋
And this is the REST of the story:
One of the conservative's cornerstone beliefs is that private enterprise can handle social programs much better than the government. Decades ago, first time home buyer were able to secure loans from a variety of government backed loan guarantees like FHA or Farmer's Home Loan. Lending regulations were loosened to make private mortgage money available to lower income home buyers rather than federal funds.
This was the conservative attempt to wean lower income Americans from the government's teat. The result was the subprime meltdown. Private enterprise has failed miserably at the reins of a former government social program.
Go figure.
2007-08-11 01:41:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by Perplexed Bob 5
·
3⤊
3⤋
!?!Daddy Bush did the same as Dubya is wont to do.
He bailed out the criminals who created the mess in the first place.Hardly anyone who were victims of those fools ever recovered a dime.
And only a few.like McCain's buddy,Keating,were ever punished.
2007-08-11 02:00:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by David R 2
·
2⤊
2⤋
I'm as mad as Hell! and I am gonna vote, talk, email, blog. and not take it Anymore!!!!
-But they ain't no big deal
cuz the simple man baby pays for the thrills,
The bills and the pills that kill!!!!!!!!!
Well there's people and more people
What do they know know know
Go to work in some high rise
And vacation down at the gulf of Mexico
Ohhh yeah
And there's winners, and there's losers
But they ain't no big deal
cuz the simple man baby pays for the thrills,
The bills and the pills that kill
Chorus:
Oh but ain't that America for you and me
Ain't that America were someting to see baby
Ain't that America, home of the free
Little pink houses for you and me
-thanks john
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/j/john+mellencamp/pink+houses_20074447.html
2007-08-11 01:36:04
·
answer #8
·
answered by jy9900 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
It's the republican form of socialism for business. How many times have you heard on here the survival of the fittest theory but when it comes to business, corporate welfare is their way of giving those same businesses a helping hand. Remember after nine-eleven the airline industry needed a bailout? Those who couldn't survive should have folded, someone else would have stepped in to buy them out. I also noticed he said he wasn't going to help individuals who were affected by those same slimy business practices. I say let them all fold if they can't be responsible enough to run their business. Funny how the republicans can never seem to find the money to better America but always seem to be able to find money for wars and to help business.
2007-08-11 01:35:11
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
3⤋
A friendly reminder that 4 of the Keating Five savings and loan scandal were Democrats. If you want to criticize Bush 41 and 43 for their part in it, I have no probem with it. However, the scam is not limited to them.
2007-08-11 01:34:36
·
answer #10
·
answered by Pythagoras 7
·
5⤊
4⤋