Jack & Jill Politics

The republicans don't have ethics…they will say whatever and do whatever to gain power.

This is repub 101…duh!!!!

I also say, own the banks. nationlize.

we already own them with our tax dollars….stop the charade

linsday graham just looks like an asshole. i live in ga and i swear ga and south carolina have 4 of the dumbest white guy senators in america.

Lindsey Graham strikes me as someone who was in drama club or took up theater in college. Pure theatrics!

RAT BASTARD!

rikyrah: SPEAKIN' of BANKS:

Don't miss a credit card payment, or the APR could soar

Even in the best of times, carrying a balance on your credit card is a risky — and costly — proposition. These days, it can be downright foolish, at least if there's a chance you might miss a payment or two.

Millions of cardholders have recently received letters from the likes of Citibank, Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co. and American Express Co. notifying them that their interest rates are going up, in some cases to 30% if a single payment is missed.
JPMorgan Chase & Co., the nation's largest issuer of plastic, has begun charging hundreds of thousands of cardholders a $10 monthly fee for having carried large balances for more than a couple years.

Why? In part it's because default rates are rising and banks are dealing with additional risk. But lawmakers and consumer advocates say the higher rates also reflect banks' massive losses from betting wrong on the housing boom, and they're basically sticking credit card customers with the tab.

At a Senate Banking Committee hearing last week, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), the committee chairman, said lenders are “gouging” customers to boost their bottom lines.

Annnnnnnnnd, soma the CEO'S got their BONUSES!! HOW CURIOUS!!!

Ima haul MY butt to ona their houses 'cause I/WE paid 4 IT!! :>) :>)

To the ?: NO!

BWA HA HA HA!!! OMG It's classc.

I live in NC and when it comes to SC, even their campaign ads are dumb and the STILL get elected. It boggles the mind!

TRANSLATION: Damn that Obama for foiling our plans to screw with the census!

Yep. …. President Obama is always on his game! Woo Hoo.

There's a point at which there is no other option — and that's when republicans have to start acting sensible.

rikyrah: BWAHAHAHAHA! NOW THIS IS PURE COMEDY! :>)

MAN – O' – STEELE SAYS BUSH INHERITED A RECESSION

Is that HIS MOUTH MOVIN'??? B4 he engaged his BRAIN!??? :>) :>)

DANG! Ima suggest that he join the SCARE CROW and GO TO OZ :>) :>)

Other countries have nationalized their banks months ago to try to stabilize their economies. Yet here we are in the US still a day late and billions short.

*sighs* We are in trouble, but I have the utmost confidence in our President … but I agree, when the free market Republican bozo's are talking nationalize banks … the shit has hit the fan, big time.

Thanks Reagan and Bush, great job!

Actually Myth, if my memory serves me correctly, McCain brought forth this proposal after moving all over the place…and when he did mention the plan, he made sure to note that he asked Hillary Clinton for her advice on it, since it was basically her idea…and then he actually name-dropped her hoping to get votes in places like PA.

matter-of-factly Myth I found an article from during the campaign

McCain Channels Hillary
October 15, 2008
John McCain McCain found someone else in the debate who he liked almost as much as Joe the Plumber: Hillary Clinton.

First, he cited her Homeowners Mortgage Enterprise idea to keep people in their homes.

“During the Depression era, we had a thing called the Homeownership Loan Corporation, and they went out and bought up these mortgages, and people were able to stay in their homes,” McCain said, arguing his case for buying up bad mortgages. “And eventually the values of those homes went up and they actually made money. And by the way, this was a proposal made by Sen. Clinton not too long ago.”

He is correct that she made the proposal, but we’re sure Clinton would note that her idea makes banks share in the pain, while McCain would pay full face value on distressed mortgages, leaving taxpayers to pick up the full difference.

http://nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2008/10/mccain-…

McCain's idea to bailout mortgages was sheer subterfuge! Who gets the mortgage money? The banks, the banks with toxic assets. This is nothing but semantics. McCain might have said it but he did not have the political finesse to get it done. After all this is the man who was involved in the biggest S&L default in the nations history as part of Keating Five.

Whether McCain came up with it first is not just doubtful but highly unlikely as Phil Gramm was his advisor who just so happens to have helped engineer the Enron debacle. Gramm also said we are a nation of whiners. What Gramm's plan was, was to buy up toxic mortgages thus throwing goood money after bad as the derivatives had bundled the mortages for securitization of the debts to magnify the wealth and leverage greater risk all of which was nothing but a house of cards.

Gramm and McCain were simply going to bailout their banking industry buddies NOT help homeowners. Buying up mortgages does not help homeowners it helps the bank appear to be more solvent but the homeowner is still on the hook.

Wrong.
People know that Mark Sanford is governor.
Unfortunately some of those people think Mark Sanford is doing a good job.

Other people think Mark Sanford hasn't done anything since becoming governor, other than carrying shitting pigs in the State House to make a point about the legislators and pork.

LOL@ USDA approved IDIOTS! Good one, I'm coppin it!

I am trying to understand your thoughts. If the goverment pays off my mortgage or even pays $15k on my mortgage, how is that not benefitting me. These are not loans, this is a point blank bailout, payout, give to me. Yes it goes on to the bank but if they can't make enough money from the direct benefit to the taxpayer, then they deserve to be nationalized. Maybe I am missing something that you can help me understand. How is the homeowner still on the hook?

I am not disagreeing or agreeing with anyone's idea, and quite frankly I am still learning more each day about the economic crisis and it is complicated. But hey, I am pissed as hell to that after these greedy ass executives were careless are still partying it up and laughing to the bank.

The problem I think some have with just buying up bad mortgages is that, many communities around the country have seen home values plummet……of course the high percentage of foreclosed homes is detrimental to the values of those residents still in their homes. And the the trend in downward values has probably not even hit the bottom yet…so the question is…what do you fairly pay for homes in depreciating markets.

Even now I am house-hunting, and I am contemplating about what is a fair and smart offer on many of the homes I've seen since many sellers today are actually selling for 20-25% less than what they paid in 2005 or 2006, or some are just selling way below the property assessment. A very lare majority of Americans now owe more on their home than what is worth….so I'm wondering do you think we should offer some assistance to most of them, even if they are able to pay.

Because paying x-amount of dollars TODAY for a home, when quite frankly a year from now that same home maybe half of the amount is also wasteful. And now instead of the usual scenario of home values appreciating, we now have many depreciating because their values were artificially propped during the housing boom and now shit is bust.

And then you add to that the fact that housing inventories are not moving much in general..and of course that is not good for a housing market, so what do you do.

I think there needs to be more loan modification for those already in their home…put a halt to homeowners nearly facing foreclosure…but again if a person who was not quite eligible to afford a home in their area in the first place, how do you midify something that they still may not be able to afford….and if you lower their mortgage balance to low, then it affects the value of the neighbor's home…and you are still left with a declining market.

Like I said, it is a complicated matter…..I loved science in school, economics is NOT my thing :>)

The banks are not forgiving you your mortgage. The government is not giving money to you the debtor. They are giving the money to the bank. The bank MAY restructure your financing but are not obligated to do so. The banks primary interest is their own solvency, not yours.

Unless I am missing something. You remain on the hook.

I didn't mean nationalizing the banks vs just “bailing” them out. I mean nationalizing the banks vs let them fail altogether.

If nationalizing the banks is the best thing to do, then we should do. No doubt about it. I just think the present CEOs should be fired and that the banks should have to come clean with how bad their balance sheets are.

Question – If we nationalize the banks, will the CEOs lose their jobs? I don't want people to lose their homes by letting the banks fail. I just want the people who caused the bulk of the trouble out. That's all.

They don't know what they're doing. The bad mortgages totalled several hundred million. Everyone who's having trouble shouldn't automatically be entitled to a bail out though. We all have to live with our poor choices. Of course others still get rewarded despite that cuz life isn't fair.

I hear that! I was a science major and economics is not at all like science…it is a pseudoscience, part psycobabble and part mathmatical model which is a faux measure since human beings do not always act like the model…but in economics, the model is always right…even if it don't work…cause the premise the model is based on is still valid…they can't help if human beings don't act like those variables.

i am like yeah…riiiiiight…whatEVER!!

but I feel ya about science vs. econ

Nationalization doesn't have to be forever. You can nationalize a bank, restore it to health, then de-nationalize it. I don't understand why, but let's face it, many banks are simply not going to give out much credit to any actual people, not in the forseeable future. If a bank can't make loans, and needs taxpayer money just to keep its doors open, why not nationalize it, and get to work on straightening it out. I'm surprised, but it's pretty obvious that Wall Street can't do the job.