philothea Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 [quote name='princessgianna' post='1667853' date='Oct 1 2008, 05:44 PM']to point out the topic keyword [size=6]IF[/size] McCain votes in favor...... i think we need to see what he votes before we judge him whether we want to vote 4 him or not~! Pax~[/quote] Well, both he and Obama have already said they would vote for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted October 1, 2008 Author Share Posted October 1, 2008 [quote name='Raphael' post='1667810' date='Oct 1 2008, 05:00 PM']Wouldn't that be literally investing in the middle class, something every politician has vowed to do for decades?[/quote] It wasn't exactly loans to the middle class that caused this. It was loans to the lowest class, and high-risk loans to people with terrible credit, and even loaning money to people with no proof of id (illegal aliens, etc). They did this to pander for votes in the first place; because they all wanted to be champions of the lower-class. These people forced the market into a charity for political points; and they crippled the entire economy in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
princessgianna Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 [quote name='philothea' post='1667859' date='Oct 1 2008, 04:50 PM']Well, both he and Obama have already said they would vote for it.[/quote] oh k! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 [quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1667860' date='Oct 1 2008, 05:51 PM']It wasn't exactly loans to the middle class that caused this. It was loans to the lowest class, and high-risk loans to people with terrible credit, and even loaning money to people with no proof of id (illegal aliens, etc). They did this to pander for votes in the first place; because they all wanted to be champions of the lower-class. These people forced the market into a charity for political points; and they crippled the entire economy in the process.[/quote] Most of the foreclosures are in affluent, fast-growing cities like San Diego, where the housing bubble was HUGE. Poor people were not the ones buying those million-dollar condos. (Mostly, they were speculators... it was like musical chairs, and whoever got stuck holding the mortgage when the music stopped just stopped making payments and walked away.) Yes, there are plenty of poor people who bought houses they couldn't afford, but I think there is a much bigger impact from all those cities in California and Florida where you couldn't buy a shack for under a million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted October 1, 2008 Author Share Posted October 1, 2008 [quote name='philothea' post='1667844' date='Oct 1 2008, 05:32 PM']*sigh* (I'm just getting a little tired of explaining things... not so much to you guys, but still.) THE PROPOSAL IS NOT A BIG CASH PAYMENT OR BAILOUT. It's more a line of credit, offered to large lending institutions, in exchange for mortgage-backed-securities.[/quote] The original 3 page bill was that. This 451 page monstrosity is something else. But then it was expanded into a 100+ page bill that the House voted on. The added pages add to the bill provisions [url="http://loungedaddy.us/?p=746"]granting "unfettered authority" to Paulson[/url]. With this bill, Paulson is able to call upon that line of credit freely, and he has powers to "define 'troubled assets” any way he pleases;" and this goes well beyond mortgages. Thus, Paulson can point to any business and label it a "troubled asset" and then the Federal Government can swoop in and seize it without alerting anyone (a'la WaMu). And he will exercise that authority happily; Paulson answers to the Statists in Congress. In fact, he was genuflecting before Palosi in a meeting with the Leftists just last week. Also, that same 100 page expansion hands more money to ACORN and the other liberal fascists that operate on the ground for those Marxists. And now the Senate [url="http://loungedaddy.us/?p=815"]further expanded that bill to 451 pages[/url]. And McCain called the extra 349 pages of earmarks and extra spending good: “I am pleased that these are being added to improve the original bill.” These geniuses are going to make absolutely sure the 700 billion is spent. And they are socializing the economy in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 [quote name='T-Bone _' post='1667851' date='Oct 1 2008, 05:40 PM']So, because, instead of buying a house I couldn't afford, I rented instead, I should pay for someone else to get a free house? You're proposing rewarding irresponsibility...[/quote] Again, I know little to nothing about economics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lounge Daddy Posted October 1, 2008 Author Share Posted October 1, 2008 [quote name='princessgianna' post='1667862' date='Oct 1 2008, 05:53 PM']oh k! [/quote] Sick, ain't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 What about an option for "I don't like it, but nevertheless I see Obama as the antiChrist and I fear him in the Oval office more". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philothea Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 [quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1667880' date='Oct 1 2008, 06:19 PM']The original 3 page bill was that. This 451 page monstrosity is something else.[/quote] I know. *sigh* Everyone was upset about the original bill because it didn't have enough "oversight" (which may be true) and it was being pushed too hard (likewise). So of course it gets rewritten and rewritten, to add everyone's little pet project. Bleh. Still, it's not like they're planning to hand individual Wall Street bankers big wads of cash, even in the current version, which is what many people seem to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercy me Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Have you seen the pork that they have piled on this one? They have added a mandate for insurance companies to provide coverage for mental health treatment. This is just ripe for medical fraud which is already going through the roof. It is a blatant attempt to push the cost of medical care out of reach of the average person so as to make government takeover look good. Scary stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 [quote name='philothea' post='1667886' date='Oct 1 2008, 07:33 PM']I know. *sigh* Everyone was upset about the original bill because it didn't have enough "oversight" (which may be true) and it was being pushed too hard (likewise). So of course it gets rewritten and rewritten, to add everyone's little pet project. Bleh. Still, it's not like they're planning to hand individual Wall Street bankers big wads of cash, even in the current version, which is what many people seem to believe.[/quote] everyone keeps stereotyping the opponents of this bill among the American people... basically saying it's because we're all stupid and ignorant and don't realize the wide reaching effects these failures would have. I know a heck of a lot of people who are upset with the bill because they think purchasing these illiquidable assets with taxpayer money 1) will not solve the crisis completely in the short run and 2) will likely worsen the crisis in the long run. people opposed the bill are not ignorant baffoons thinking it has no effects beyond wall street; many are smart people who recognize that this is not a good way to deal with the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
princessgianna Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 [quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1667882' date='Oct 1 2008, 05:22 PM']Sick, ain't it?[/quote] i guess i mean please people if you made you keep it! If you are in help the Church is there to help you! there my perfect world! the goverment should never try to help people it DOES NOT work! my second bubble has been popped Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpareTime Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 [quote name='Mercy me' post='1667893' date='Oct 1 2008, 06:38 PM']Have you seen the pork that they have piled on this one? They have added a mandate for insurance companies to provide coverage for mental health treatment. This is just ripe for medical fraud which is already going through the roof. It is a blatant attempt to push the cost of medical care out of reach of the average person so as to make government takeover look good. Scary stuff.[/quote] Insurance companies SHOULD cover mental health treatment. Some things in the grey area (addictions, eating disorders) cost more than a brand new BMW for an average treatment period..i think 28 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpareTime Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 [quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1667860' date='Oct 1 2008, 05:51 PM']It wasn't exactly loans to the middle class that caused this. It was loans to the lowest class, and high-risk loans to people with terrible credit, and even loaning money to people with no proof of id (illegal aliens, etc). They did this to pander for votes in the first place; because they all wanted to be champions of the lower-class. These people forced the market into a charity for political points; and they crippled the entire economy in the process.[/quote] I wasn't aware politicians were the ones giving out loans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercy me Posted October 2, 2008 Share Posted October 2, 2008 [quote name='SpareTime' post='1667939' date='Oct 1 2008, 08:12 PM']Insurance companies SHOULD cover mental health treatment. Some things in the grey area (addictions, eating disorders) cost more than a brand new BMW for an average treatment period..i think 28 days.[/quote] From what I have seen there is no limit on the extent of the conditions covered. There need to be restrictions on that to avoid fraud. That is scary. Absolutely, I agree that there are legitimate conditions that need to be covered. My concern is fraud. Also, and certainly not of lesser importance is my question as to how it is that the federal government comes off inserting itself into private insurance coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now