Reply With Quote
of course they shouldn't, but this leads all the way back to the front steps of "The Good Ol' Boys Club".
The proposed Barney Frank housing bail out would greatly help people in Southern CA who are real estate speculators, investors & just plain LA folks who overpaid for their house in the 1st place…According to analysts, the bail out will not do much for responsible people in places like Salt Lake Utah, San Antonio Texas or Seattle Washington…
The proposed Democratic housing bail out would give people in So Cal, government paid built in home equity & discounted loans…At the expense of YOU the taxpayers of course…
Is this a good idea? Shouldn’t the government help out when people are irresponsible? What do you all think?
of course they shouldn't, but this leads all the way back to the front steps of "The Good Ol' Boys Club".
I just wonder if people from wealthy & more affluent neighborhoods are not “More Deserving” of Free Government Money…
And who are these "good ol' boy club members". Congress?
They are the ones who pushed the lenders to find a way
for the these poor folks could afford housing (?) like they
were living on the streets. And like Sport said, Congress
in all their wisdom always leaves holes in every bill that
the smart set can make a buck. Now who is bailing out
who?
What do you mean "wonder?" That's a plank in the 2008 GOP platform.
Nobody in the housing market should be bailed out. I heard some interesting numbers before this started. At any time anout 1.5% of the properties were in some stage of forclosure. Since this started it is still less than 2%, but close. That suggests the rates of forclosure actions increased by only 25% to 33%. With it still under 2%, that is hardly a crisis.
Congress is just trying to by votes again, and with our tax dollars!
All of the homeowners in danger of foreclosure should join together to form a massive, publicly traded corporation...then they go from "irresponsible plebes" to "too-big-to-fail pillar of capitalism".
I don't think we need to bail anybody out. There are a few things that would make things better without costing us anything. One is to cap interest rates and penalties on these loans. Another is to allow bankruptcy courts flexibility to change the terms of the loans. Finally, the Justice Department needs to prosecute fraudulent lenders and start putting them in jail. Currently, the lenders are hoping their debtors will be cash cows, and the debtors are hoping Congress will come up with the cash. With a little motivation, I think they can come to reasonable terms without our help.
i'm glad that bush is against this
You know what I love. Congress could really help everyone out with
one simple law that wont cost one cent of the taxpayers money. They
could allow Oil Companies to drill for oil and build new refineries.
But that would piss off their left wing buddies in the environmental
business. Wouldn't it?
Just think how many low income people this would help. How it
would help the truckers who are transporting our goods. And
better yet, we could tell some of those folks in ME we don't need
all their oil.
Just a little something to think about.
yeah, right, the oil companies would sell to the US for cheap instead of selling it to other countries for top dollar. could you dumb down any farther mr. fossil?
You know clam if you had a brain you would take it out
and play with it. Dumb is what dumb is and you fit the
bill in every way.
nice retreat, old fart. can you not sense your stupidity regarding drilling and adding refineries? they've been making record profits on our tail, mate. you think that would change?
That's true, most of the oil from Alaska goes to Japan, and estimates are that drilling in ANWR would result in a one penny decrease in the price of gas in 2012
You're right Clam, they will sell it for top dollar. However, more supply in the market means the pice comes down. Economics 101.
LOL... I don't believe that. Especially since you rarely have reliable sources.
Yes, it will likely go to the closest buyers. So F'n what? Oil is a world commodity.
I think you are mixing up data with our strategic reserves. Best I heard was it would lower the price by something like 3 cents for a week or two if we released it. Then our emergency oil would be gone!
it's not in the oil companies interest to lower the price of oil.
what are you people thinking?
No, you must know better that the dept. of Energy....
Faux NewsEven with instant approval for drilling, it will take 10 years before the oil from ANWR will be brought to market, and another 10 years after that to get to 1 million barrels pumped per day.
"The Department of Energy says that drilling in ANWR will do little in the near term and very little in the long term, reducing gas prices by only one penny," Cantwell said.
Really? Maybe I should try to verify this now. I heard a figure that recounted different oil comany aspects, and our USA oil companies comprise of only 6% of the world oil production. They can hardly hurt themself in profit by increasing production as much as they are capable of. If they double their oil production and the price drops by 25%, they win big!
Your point being? Never drill because it will take time to
reach market. Poor decision making on your part and
Bill Clintons when he veto'd a bill to allow just that about
10 years ago. It could be on the market today.
Yeah, clam, allowing them to provide more of what we
need is absolutely the worst thing we could do. You are
so right. How could I have ever doubted your astute
observation of world market conditions and our need for
a commodity. Let me take this opportunity to offer my
apology for even thinking of questioning you,
that is an absolute impossibility for them to double their production, so, i don't get where you're going with this.
No, I don't. The article didn't quote the department of energy. It quoted a senator, Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), an enviromnental whacho. I don't trust her words as being accurate. Do you trust politicians that much?
Look at this from her wiki enrty:
I hear about her antics from time to time on radio programs here in the Northwest.Environmental record
Cantwell received the highest rating possible from the League of Conservation Voters for her environmental voting record. She is known for supporting alternative energy research and for protecting Washington's forests from logging and the construction of paved roads and has earned endorsement from various prominent environmental advocacy groups.[15] and other environmental groups[16][17] She has opposed drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on multiple occasions, has voted to reduce oil usage by 40% by 2025, and has opposed legislation to relax or terminate CAFE standards.[18] The Seattle Times has described Cantwell's environmental record as "pristine"[19] and The Wilderness Society has described Cantwell as an "environmental champion".[20]
I modified the text to imbed the links for each note number rather than taking you to a wiki note.
Wait a minute. US oil companies only have 6% of the world oil on tap and the USA sit on humongoius reserves that they are not allowed to touch. I'd say it is very easy to double their oil production if they were allowed to. If we were a bigger player in the world market, the price would come down!
they can't double their production, period.
anyway, Bush has shielded the biggest US banks from the mortgage meltdown, so, congress has their president along for the ride.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
