BANKS: after today's announcement

The story has just begun by announcing, by the Treasury Secretary, that our government now own Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, the two banks that are responsible for most of the foreclosure mortgages in the USA---now about one in nine is in foreclosure, with many others coming that are in trouble.
Our local banks (often disguised as TV commercials with names like "got bad credit, call") may also be in trouble even though they transferred those bad loans to Freddy and Fannie, who in turn transferred them to hedge funds, and worst of all to foreigners, who will call in our debt or not loan us any more if we don't pay them, or have our government guarantee them--which today's action does do!

If this stinking mess had been handled 2-3 years ago before it got rotten we might have saved the construction industry and a lot of people's homes.

I blame the current administration for allowing banks to violate regulated banking practices! Any audit of most of these banks would have shown a lack of capital and even that many loans were granted on a basis of poor banking rules and regulations!

I know these "cons" don't want any kind of regulation and if we have regulation and they are in power, they won't enforce them---as this instance indicates.
Now, they want "regulation" long enough for some of them to be bailed out of disaster.

I say: take their money, first!

Nitpickers's blog | login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by davie on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 11:22am.

Frontline (PBS) did a piece on the mortgage crisis some time ago. Here's the link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html

The beginning of the mortgage mess came with the repeal of a law that regulated banking. The senator who led the fight for repeal was Phil Gramm (R-Texas), McCain's campaign manager. McCain voted for repeal even though Paul Volker, former Fed Chairman, warned that a housing and subprime meltdown would be the result. Obama, then an Illinois state senator, argued against repeal, arguing that repeal would result in financial chaos.

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Sun, 09/07/2008 - 5:18pm.

for the same thing.

"If this stinking mess had been handled 2-3 years ago before it got rotten we might have saved the construction industry and a lot of people's homes. I blame the current administration for allowing banks to violate regulated banking practices!"

You know nit/bonk/sage, I like you, I really do. And I'm probably one of the few bloggers on here who gets a kick out of your online antics. However, you continually bash Bush over his failed policies and blame his administration for so many of the ills that currently plague our country, but you are going to vote for McCain in November who will undoubtedly continue these same failed international and domestic policies. I don't get it. Did you really buy McCain's acceptance speech that he would actually bring "change" to Washington? You've been duped.

So, how are you going to feel on November 5th if you wake up to a President McCain/VP Palin administration that will install two, or three, more conservative judges on the Supreme Court, continue to spend Billions in Iraq, restarts the Cold War and turns our country into a Theocracy?


Submitted by Nitpickers on Sun, 09/07/2008 - 7:15pm.

Because McCain is not Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

I would have preferred to vote for Joe Biden as President, but can not.

We may just have to suffer with a token VP if MCcain makes it.

I think McCain can resolve at least a few of our Bush problems: Health care, stop the debt increases, and revitalize the military.

I'm not convinced that Obama can get much of anything done.

Submitted by mgarlow on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 8:44pm.

Here is a question that begs an honest answer:

If Senator John McCain, now the GOP nominee for President should pass away between now and election day, would the Republicans feel comfortable in having Sarah Palin be the presidential candidate?

Think real hard before you answer, because it could happen, and considering his age and circumstances, he could die sooner rather than later.

Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 6:59am.

Biden as President and Nancy Pelosi 1 heartbeat away? I'll take Palin any day over those 2 scary liberals.


Robert W. Morgan's picture
Submitted by Robert W. Morgan on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 6:59am.

Biden as President and Nancy Pelosi 1 heartbeat away? I'll take Palin any day over those 2 scary liberals.


Fyt35's picture
Submitted by Fyt35 on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 5:25am.

Here is a question that begs an honest answer:

If Senator Barack Hussein Obama, now the liberal nominee for President should be elected, day, would the Democrats feel comfortable in having the community organizer as president?

Think real hard before you answer, because it could happen, and considering his inexperience age and circumstances, he could be elected by the American Idol crowd.


Submitted by mgarlow on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 5:53am.

Why do you think we are working so hard to get Barack Hussein Obama elected? Not only would we be comfortable, but we would know that every American would benefit from him being in office. Government would be transparent and honest; unlike the current administration.

Don't forget: Jesus Christ was a Community Organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor. Is it only you and Rudy Giuliani who don't see the connection? Or, are you so disconnected that you fail to see? Liberal points of view make civilization progress. Conservative points of view want to stand pat and regress as times change.

meanoldconservatives's picture
Submitted by meanoldconservatives on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 12:37pm.

By the way, did you get that Jesus/PP/Rudy quote from the liberal talking points? Or did you forget to credit Rep. Steve Cohen - Dem from Tennessee saying the exact same thing on the House floor? Or maybe Joe Biden plagiarized it from somebody else????


meanoldconservatives's picture
Submitted by meanoldconservatives on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 10:02am.

Jesus Christ was a Community Organizer. Pontius Pilate was a governor. Is it only you and Rudy Giuliani who don't see the connection? Or, are you so disconnected that you fail to see?

So, Barry is Jesus and Sarah Palin is Pontius Pilate? My guess is you're the only one who sees that connection. Unless you mean her presence on the Republican ticket costing the Messiah his Presidency. In that case, I feel ya.

Also, before you get all tingly inside....Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones and Charles Manson were Community Organizers too.


Fyt35's picture
Submitted by Fyt35 on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 8:17am.

“Or, are you so disconnected that you fail to see?”. Wow, how ironic, you need to look in the mirror! Are you so disconnected that you have compared Barack Hussein Obama to Jesus Christ? I will pray for you this evening; that is scary. What an insult, you must buy into the Jeremiah Wright doctrine. I don’t see the connection and anyone that does has drank the Kool Aid just as you did.

People like you are the ones that scare me when they cast their votes. You are willing to vote for a man we know nothing about, who has been part of the Chicago political establishment to cover his rear end and waffles on every issue without offering solutions, just a bunch of speeches that sound “pretty cool” to the average liberal.

• You say “that every American would benefit from him being in office”.
Sure more taxation for companies, that way we keep losing our jobs to companies overseas because the tax advantages are better in other countries.

• Universal healthcare – a failure in Europe but we want implement it here without a sound plan to pay for it.

• Sit down with our enemies without guidelines or demands, great approach, let just bow down right now and turn the flag over!


Submitted by wheeljc on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 7:40am.

One phenomenon that has received little discussion is the possibility
of 'one party control'. Given the historical low ratings of the Congress (currently led by the Democrats), I shutter to think of the mischief Washington could conjure up if one party controlled both the executive and legislative branches. Even today, they seem to have little reluctance to saddle future generations with potential tax liabilities from their 'bailouts'. Split control provides for checks and balances. One party control equals more 'unchecked' burdens for citizens.

yardman5508's picture
Submitted by yardman5508 on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 12:28pm.

is this thing on? Where have you been the last seven years? Starting in 2000, the entire government from top to bottom was under the control of the Republicans. Not only the legislature and executive, but you throw in the judicial branch also, mix in a majority of the states, and then stir in something like 75% of local governments. And is it any wonder we are in the state we are in today.

One party rule is, as you implied, WRONG. It does not matter which party you are talking about. What is the difference between this country and, say, The Soviet Union under Communist rule? We, the citizens, had best pay heed to what is happening, locally, statewide, and nationally, least we end up "behind the eight ball" governmentally speaking. Keep the faith.


Submitted by eldergent on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 12:36pm.

This election season dramatically shows the depths to which two party politics has sunk. Republicans don’t care if John McCain is a foul mouthed old man and Sarah Palin a total unknown until a few days ago. Likewise, Democrats don’t care that Barrack Obama has done nothing politically except promote himself and that Joe Biden has never had an original thought in his lackluster Senate career. The only thing that matters is that ‘their” team wins. What America need is one American Party so the candidates speak the truth like they do during primary debates, skip all the spin, red and blue state crap and just vote for whoever makes the most sense.

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 09/10/2008 - 7:12am.

Liberal points of view make civilization progress. Conservative points of view want to stand pat and regress as times change.

Define "progress."

Presumably, it means a change for the better. But whether this occurs can only be determined by reference to a standard that is itself fixed and thus not subject to change. And "liberals" tend to be suspicious of any and all appeals to such standards.

Ironically, only those who are staunchly "conservative" with regard to the claim that there are absolute moral standards are in a position to speak of progress in any meaningful or substantive sense.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue


Git Real's picture
Submitted by Git Real on Tue, 09/09/2008 - 9:06pm.

McCain's age.. Blah, Blah, Blah... Palin.... Blah, Blah, Blah, Blah Blah, Blah, Blah...........


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.