Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest 100% free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
But also the loan companies have a LOT of BLAME in this mess.. In other words.. THEY TRIED TO CHEW MORE THAT THEY COULD SWALLOW...!! They got greedy.. So, YES , A GREAT PART OF THIS IS THEIR OWN FAULT. The problem is that WE have to pay the price.. ALL OF US..!!
Little of this would have been possible without Congress passing laws that allowed,and in some cases required, that risky loans be made.
Sure Mr. tallskier.. THAT IS TRUE.!! The problem is also, that WE, the people, have something to say in the matter... IF WE HAD TOLD OUR REPRESENTATIVES WHAT WE WANTED, They would have paid a little bit of attention to us.. BECAUSE THEY WORK FOR US..!! WE PAY THE SOB's.. !! But some of them are so rogue and full of themselves, that they will stop at nothing just to show that they are the "bosses" !!! I think is time to "CHANGE" that and put "COUNTRY FIRST". I WANT A FIRING SQUAD..!! WHERE IS IT..?? I would like to have the opportunity to SHOOT everyone in congress and the white house..
IF WE HAD TOLD OUR REPRESENTATIVES WHAT WE WANTED, They would have paid a little bit of attention to us.. BECAUSE THEY WORK FOR US..!!
But we didn't.
We don't even want to be bothered to find out just what was in the bill Congress failed to pass today. A lot of folks think it was just "giving money to banks" with nothing in return.
YES..!! but there is still TIME to CHANGE that..!! Get on the phone, fax. e-mail, smoke signals.. etc etc. etc. get eve Your dog to call and DEMAND that THEY REVERSE their decision.. Time is of the essence here... PEOPLE... GETTT MOOOVVVIIINNNGGGG....!!!!!!
The Federal Reserve is to blame for this mess. They dictate the bubbles and bursts of the economy. Fine mess the crooks got us into. It's nice to know the bail-out was rejected. Who would go for such a thing when there's no guarantee? A temporary fix? A gamble at our expense! Why should the taxpayers bail out these ***holes who've been leading people around by the nose for so many years? We need a sound monetary system - something they aren't offering. So let it fail and fall so we can lock the criminals up where they belong and start over with those less greedy who have our interests at heart. Their empire is falling ...
Absolutely correct....In no way should the taxpayer have to pay for any of the mess bad policies and greed from Wallstreet have created. Any bill passed by Congress should only be one created to help the actual victims of this debacle NOT bail out the perpetrators. Buy out the failed mortages and restructure the loans so that the victims can afford to repay the loan. Anything other than that would amount to giving a pass to the people whose greed caused this. Instead FINE the CEOs and strip THEM of their MILLIONS bilked from our coffers at our expense.
Absolutely correct....In no way should the taxpayer have to pay for any of the mess bad policies and greed from Wallstreet have created. Any bill passed by Congress should only be one created to help the actual victims of this debacle NOT bail out the perpetrators. Buy out the failed mortages and restructure the loans so that the victims can afford to repay the loan. Anything other than that would amount to giving a pass to the people whose greed caused this. Instead FINE the CEOs and strip THEM of their MILLIONS bilked from our coffers at our expense.
Don't hold me to this, but I think I agree with what you said up ^^^ there...sheesh...
I am thinking back to the immigration issue and a position that many people took on it. They were against any amnesty, or increased work visa's, until we could control our borders. I took that to mean that until you can stop the flow of illegal immigrants in our country how can you deal with the issue. It does have some merit, we would need to control the flow across our borders to be able to have any meaningful immigration policy.
I think the same can be said of our handling of this financial mess. First we need to control the abuses on Wall Street. Arrest the executives that committed fraud, lied to the shareholders, created financial instruments that they knew were not worth anything, etc. And seize their assets so they cannot profit from their abuses. The we need to create stronger regulations with the resources to enforce them in a timely matter. I doubt the executives would abuse the markets again if they know people who have done this went to jail and loss all their ill gained assets.
After we set in motion the above, then we can put taxpayers money in the markets to get them going again. I think the American people would be fine with that, knowing the Wall Street was not getting away with cheating us out of money and then asking for more to fix the mess they made.
Thank you, OneBlend, for those news clips of Rep Marcy Kaptur! I’m now hoping that she’s more action than talk. And ditto for every Member of Congress! Folks, we must write to our representatives! We must tell them to stop this bailout action, prevent billions more from falling into the greedy hands of the super-wealthy, and specifically address the economic needs of WE, THE PEOPLE.
I am thinking back to the immigration issue and a position that many people took on it. They were against any amnesty, or increased work visa's, until we could control our borders. I took that to mean that until you can stop the flow of illegal immigrants in our country how can you deal with the issue. It does have some merit, we would need to control the flow across our borders to be able to have any meaningful immigration policy.
You may not realize these two problems are connected.
Two ICE agents on KHOW Boyles show,( if you would care to listen to the pod cast) claim over 5 million illegals owe on homes. 20,ooo in Denver. These are the walk aways.
From Dailkos today; I am only citing part of it as it way too long but a very interesting read,
"Yes, I read the bill. And here is what I found most shocking: Follow along, so you know I am not making this up: http://financialservices.house.gov/... So here is the bill. Kindly download and turn to page 83. The following passage: 13 SEC. 128. ACCELERATION OF EFFECTIVE DATE. 14 Section 203 of the Financial Services Regulatory Re- 15 lief Act of 2006 (12 U.S.C. 461 note) is amended by strik- 16 ing ‘‘October 1, 2011’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 2008’’. This made me almost cry for my country. Looks pretty innocuous, just sitting there, looking all legal. Sitting pretty if you will. No one will ever see it, buried so deep. Well, I did. So what is Title 12 of the Financial Services Regulatory Relief Act of 2006, proudly passed by the Republican-lead Congress? You remember that gang, don’t you? Surely they would have our best interests at heart. What’s in Sec. 203? http://www.govtrack.us/... SEC. 203. EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this title shall take effect October 1, 2011. Oh well, that’s fine. But what’s in the amendment? SEC. 202. INCREASED FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD TO ESTABLISH RESERVE REQUIREMENTS. Section 19(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 461(b)(2)(A)) is amended-- (1) in clause (i), by striking `the ratio of 3 per centum' and inserting `a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero)'; and (2) in clause (ii), by striking `and not less than 8 per centum,' and inserting `(and which may be zero),'. Wow, looks like somebody is taking a ratio to zero. I wonder what that ratio is? I bet you in the back already know. Let’s go to 12 U.S.C. 461, and see exactly what is is we are adjusting. Let’s see here, Section 2, Subnote A of 12 U.S.C. 461. How is that for obscure! Let’s see what we got here. http://www.law.cornell.edu/... (2) (A) Each depository institution shall maintain reserves against its transaction accounts as the Board may prescribe by regulation solely for the purpose of implementing monetary policy— (i) in the ratio of 3 per centum for that portion of its total transaction accounts of $25,000,000 or less, subject to subparagraph (C); and (ii) in the ratio of 12 per centum, or in such other ratio as the Board may prescribe not greater than 14 per centum and not less than 8 per centum, for that portion of its total transaction accounts in excess of $25,000,000, subject to subparagraph (C). You dirty apes. You mean to tell me that each depository institution can maintain zero reserves against its transaction accounts? You put it right there in writing! Sure you buried it across three bills, but you are now allowing for the possibility that banks can hold zero reserves! This is how the bank code would have read had the bill passed today: Each depository institution shall maintain reserves against its transaction accounts as the Board may prescribe by regulation solely for the purpose of implementing monetary policy— (i) in a ratio of not greater than 3 percent (and which may be zero) for that portion of its total transaction accounts of $25,000,000 or less, subject to subparagraph (C); and (ii) in the ratio of 12 per centum, or in such other ratio as the Board may prescribe not greater than 14 per centum and which may be zero, for that portion of its total transaction accounts in excess of $25,000,000, subject to subparagraph (C). So you plan on restoring confidence in the banks by allowing the banks not to have any reserves to match people’s checking and savings accounts? What, was the FDIC just going to cover that all? Wait, don’t answer that, I already know the answer.
But remember the effective date! The original Relief Act of 2006 called for a date of October 1, 2011 to allow banks zero reserves, if the Federal Reserve Board thought it fit. This bill would have moved that up to tomorrow! Tomorrow people! Do you hear me! Tomorrow we could have all woken up to the possibility of zero holdings in our banks and it being legally allowed! And you dare cheerlead for this bill? These two items, among other things, must be stricken from this bill. It is an affront to any decent citizen in this country and should be hung as a mark of shame on any fellow citizen who voted for it today. Zero reserves and artificially high energy prices, brilliant. Just brilliant."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Is this the October surprise they have been cheering about?Thanks for the info the part where they actually move the date.Goes to show ya that they planned and orchestrated this crash.Why? to influence an election? to suspend an election?to pave the way for the NAU?
I can see why they're lessening reserve restrictions in this bill. Even though I personally think that it was the weakening of regulations like this that lead to the current crisis.
The main goal is to free up credit in the system. Right now, nobody is lending to anybody. That's why the original bill was only 3 pages - they wanted to allow any institution to sell bad loans so there would be no stigma attached.
Both the people and the legislators felt this was a bad idea. So if an institution wants to take advantage they have to meet certain requirements. It's not unreasonable, but it is different than the original plan.
It's weird that all the leaders on both sides recognize the need, but when it failed the Republicans immediately blamed Pelosi. She gave a short speech mostly praising bipartisanship, with a mild rebuke to Bush. This is the same Bush that pleaded with legislators to pass the bill. But any word of criticism apparently motivated Republicans to ignore his bill and his wishes in order to defend his honour and vote against it. Strange logic.
"Buy out the failed mortages and restructure the loans so that the victims can afford to repay the loan."
I thought this was a big part of the plan that got voted down. In the explanation it was the paying of these restructured loans that was going to pay back the monies....
Indeed, any amount of the monies ... which would be from loans like the paying of the war is from loans ... that was not repaid in 5 years would have to be paid by the corporations that opted into this restructuring program.
Over 100 pages of how to do this so I could have missed some parts.
" But remember the effective date! The original Relief Act of 2006 called for a date of October 1, 2011 to allow banks zero reserves, if the Federal Reserve Board thought it fit. This bill would have moved that up to tomorrow! Tomorrow people! Do you hear me! Tomorrow we could have all woken up to the possibility of zero holdings in our banks and it being legally allowed! And you dare cheerlead for this bill? These two items, among other things, must be stricken from this bill. It is an affront to any decent citizen in this country and should be hung as a mark of shame on any fellow citizen who voted for it today. Zero reserves and artificially high energy prices, brilliant. Just brilliant.""
How about a quick tutorial on why zero reserves is a bad thing.
Isn't a ratio a division formula? Wouldn't a zero value create a divide by zero error?
Sorry to dissappoint you but NOONE has been cheering for this bill save our less than effective congress!! Please note that the HOUSE who must vote according to their constituents voted this down in short order. Believe me the look on Pelosi"s face was PRICELESS!!. In fact today I think the entire congress got a wake-up call as to what the people actually think of them and the BS they have been handing down. I do stand by my previous statement in that it would be the only way to handle the situation by buyin up the mortages and restructuring the loans so that all the victims of the bull can afford to repay the mortgage. Grant you congress likes this not at all but guess what? Congress hasnt done anything worthwhile in so long I think cobwebbs are growing over the seats!
We the people as is all of us as citizens should not have to foot the bill for bad corporate decisions and fraud. End of statement no need for further explanation.
I wonder… does anyone grasp how much a TRILLION dollars is?!? Sure makes me cringe.
Consider a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is the value of all goods and services produced by a nation in one year. All the cars sold, all the burgers sold, all the computers sold, etc., etc., etc. …in one year!
A trillion dollar is something a little less than 10% of the United States’ GDP! (US GDP is approximately $14 Trillion. source = www.ustreas.gov) Only 12 nations in the entire world have a greater GDP than a TRILLION dollars! But, what the heck? Our national debt is already $10 TRILLION. What’s another trillion amoung friends?
If you earned a million dollars a year, it would take a million years to reach a trillion!
Another way to think about it: a trillion dollars is something like buying a new car for every person in the US! (Hey, I’m rounding-off.)
And this is the power that the Treasury Secretary wanted to have to himself.
This is what the House rightfully shot-down and the Senate is now voting on to give to the bankers.
Now I see the plan for getting this bailout to pass ... IS ADDING MORE PORK to it: raise FDIC insurance from $100k to $250k; tax cuts for big businesses; more and more tax cuts and programs for companies and people who don't need it. Brilliant! Apparently these House Republicans who were balking at spending $700 billion, just want to spend more ... and more.
Senator John McCain’s campaign manager was paid more than $30,000 a month for five years as president of an advocacy group set up by the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to defend them against stricter regulations, current and former officials say.
and Obama's principal advisor on economic matters made 90 million working for Fruadie. Fact of the matter is it was democrats who resisted reform of Freddie & Fanny in 2005 and 2007. It was Barney Frank, Maxine Watters, Nancy Pelosi, Chris Dodd, et al who pushed for an elimination of red-lining, a lower of mortagage qualifications, and an increase in the limit from 80% of appraised valuve to in some instances 100%. All because the "mortagage system" wasn't fair. It didn't let their deadbeat core constituancy get mortagages. Then after using groups like ACORN to threaten lawsuits, boycotts, etc. and railing against racist mortagage companies in congress, it was democrats who protected FNM and FRE from reforms which whould have shut the sub-prime business down two years ago. Why do you think they are so insistant that protecting the deadbeat nare-do-well democratic base is so important to them? Thank godness my money is in offshore accounts.
Home
login 
