Financial collapse Part Deux
 

I'm meaning that the places that have rent control are worse off. Not in the development area, but rent control is supposed to help the poor people. The ones that can afford to pay the $500 a month may save money, but it largely displaces poorer families (ironically) who have to suffer with longer waiting lists for these apartments and the possibility that they won't be able to get into a home. I'm to believe that based on Economics nothing will come out of a price ceiling such as that. This drives up prices for nicer places without controls, since there is an incentive to keep them nice.


I'm to believe that if the minimum wage goes really far out of whack, say it becomes $14 eventually, it will have a higher impact than what is felt right now.

I'm saying it's lowered standards of what has been expected normally. I haven't really talked about the HMDA. Mainly that just says home mortgages become public data, so I'm focusing on the CRA. It was enacted to encourage a bank to meet the "credit needs" of that community. How the bank interprets that, give out a loan, see how it goes. I don't place blame on an act for doing what Congress tells it to do. Now, there was supposed to be a redress of this: [url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00190:@@@P[/url] which didn't occur because Repubs said, "No"

From previous thread:
The concrete way forward is for the government to do nothing - the bad debts have to be written off and flushed from the system. The point of any bailout is to stop this from happening (for the moment) so that the principal players can get their stake out before the whole thing falls apart around them.

Of course, nobody is actually considering not doing the thing that absolutely shouldn't be done, so the details really don't matter. It's Iraq War / FISA / Why I Won't Vote For Democrats Again part the millionth.

I'm just awfully surprised that Bush and his Cabinet have thrown up a desperate Hail Mary pass that reeks of "screwing over Main Street," to borrow Obama's favored terminology, and yet so many Democrats are actually chewing on the bit to pass this.

I mean if anything I sort of assumed that Democrats were more likely then Republicans to realize the truism that "Bush's Ideas = Sucks." This is the perfect opportunity for Democrats to absolutely humiliate Bush one last time by sticking it to him on an issue when Bush is actually (well, in my opinion) unfathomably wrong, and yet the Democrats have...become all economically conservative on us? Favoring "Wall Street" over "Main Street" and trying to postpone an inevitable depression by saddling us with even more debt?

I mean I know there's a minority of Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) who seem to be retaining some degree of sanity over this issue, but I don't know, I still feel rather disappointed. I thought the idea of having the opposing party controlling the House and the Senate was to help us prevent the President from making bad decisions "on our behalf?"

SS, Bush has little, if anything, to do with this.

Our Treasurer Henry Paulson came up with the 700 Billion dollar fund to help out F&F. But I kinda tire with the Bush bashing. Now, it's all up to our Representatives in Congress to figure out exactly what's going to happen and if it's going to be a bailout.

Wasn't Henry Paulson appointed by Bush? And hasn't Bush rather explicitly approved of this idea?
I mean what, should I disavow Bush any responsibility for his Cabinet choices? Did Paulson force Bush into approving of the bailout against his own will? And doesn't Bush have the opportunity to veto this bill, anyway, even if the Senate and House pass it?

...then yeah, I can be angry at Bush about this.

EDIT: You know, I was thinking a bit more about this mortgage crisis and this is what I decided should be done. We the taxpayers should allow the government to spend our $700 billion dollars...
So long as we the taxpayers have the right to craft up our own deal, in writing, as to how the government is going to repay us.
And the best part of this is?
We can craft the legal terminology to mirror that of the flawed cronies of the housing market!
It'll be the ultimate in terrribly manipulative hijinks. We'll hire the best lawyers to screw them over with loaning rules including all the same kinds of small print present in those egregious mortgage deals. We'll be the crooked mortgage brokers, and they'll be the regular ol' folk paying up us back with monthly rates up their asses. I'm talking exponential growth in interest variables, with lots of hidden clauses demanding additional money be forked over at prespecified times, so that taxpayers make enormous profits at their expense.

...and then when they can't afford us to pay us back, they'll finally know how it feels!
Maybe we can foreclose their businesses!
Man I am bitter on this issue, aren't I?

It seems more like "There's a problem with job security in Michigan"

"It's Bush's fault!"

"My house in Nevada is crumbling from the sea wall"

"Bush did it!"

All I'm saying, all that the executive branch can do is advocate legislature. He's suggested all this but Congress has to pass the laws. Which is why the fight in Congress between Democrat and Repub is better than pointing fingers at a figurehead with no power other than executing what was already there.

-Edit- I have no problems with Bush bashing if there's info behind it. If there's something more than "HE did it!" that'd be better because I know the belief is backed up by something.

Congressional Republicans are making noises about opposing it so when the Dems push it through over their "objections" they'll take the fall. This leads to my favourite thing about this whole shitpile: Democrats demanding that Republicans obey Bush.

PS: It's totally George Bush's fault.

The fun political game. The Democrats have finally a situation where they can actually get something significant passed for the first time since taking charge (their control gives them barely enough authority to wipe themselves without Republican OK, really), and the republicans finally have an issue that matches their claimed philosophy to distance themselves from the president in an election year.

Since the issue is toxic with voters however, neither side is willing to go fully with it without the other's support. They do have sufficient support to get it passed, but election year politics won't allow them to get into a circumstance where the other party can peg them as "anti-little guy".

http://www.forbes.com/wallstreet/200...0926banks.html

The banks are beginning to sort this out themselves. I believe this is better than the government giving free money.

-Edit- Democrats stop Bush because he's Picking on the little guy
Government should NOT be in any industry, only regulate.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Time to celebrate peoples.