" Yeah! I want the government to help pay MY mortgage! And my car payment! And I want them to buy my BEER too! (That would REALLY help the economy!) Just because I made a bad choice and bought the EXPENSIVE beer by mistake, it shouldn't be MY FAULT... "

" one of the questions last nights debate was from a call in, " what are you going to ask the American people to sacrifice during these difficult times" neither of the candidate really answered the question. Here is my answer... Top executives from all the companys we bailed out, like AIG have absolutely no excuse at all to go to one of the most "exclusive resorts in the nation and ring up a tab of $400k worth of spa treatments, wine and food and entertainment one week after we bailed htem out. What is wrong with people? Our nation is suffering and you want to go out and wine and dine after your company was just resue by the people? What is wrong with people. No more retreats" for these top executives until their companies repair Wall street. "

" So now that those of us who have lived within our means are going to subsidize deadbeats who got mortgages they couldn't afford, and that's supposed to be a good thing...???

Socialism slips in so easily, and is so hard to get rid of... Remember that the Berlin wall was taken down from the inside, not the outside, and it took them 70-years to realize that socialism had failed... "

" One Republican-enabler can always be depended on to defend giving hundreds of billions to billionaire crooks instead of taking care of their victims.

What the Republican enablers always forget is that the 'little people' are the customers who now can not afford to buy anything because they are underwater in their mortgage.

For example, let's take somebody who got a good job with a 'stable employer', moved to Napa and bought a home within their budget in 2005. And they have made their payments on time.
But now they are getting laid off at, say, the Queen, or Dey Labs.

And they are unable to sell their home because they owe more than they can get for it.

Are these people asking for BEER money?

What a ridiculous notion... and from a person who wants to bite the finger off of anybody who would criticize him for buying a house with the same kind of mortgage terms as the people he mocks.

~Ruff "

" Well, Ruff, what's your solution? Buy people's homes for them? Subsidize their loans? Or, encourage them to find another job or two? Which is better? "

" It would be a nightmare for the government to get involved in deciding who is worthy of help with their mortgage and who is not worthy. You think we have a large and meddling bureaucracy now, just wait until the Mortgage Bureau starts digging through your financial affairs! "

" Government should not be buying homes. They should not enter the business of real estate. This is dangerous territory.

Let's say someone paid $500,000. for a home that is now worth $300,000. The government buys the house for $300,000. and resells it to the original buyer. The financial institute takes a $200,000 loss? Let's say that the home further decreases to $200,000. and the buyer walks away because the losses are overwhelming and since the buyer has no real stake in the loss, what difference does it make? Now, the government is stuck with a house that they might not be able to sell. They might rent it out but who's going to manage all of these rentals? And who pays for the costs of potential loss?

Bad bad bad idea which will carry us further into debt. Sometimes it's better to let everyone just pay consequences and get over it. Allow the market to settle on it's own. If prices decrease enough (they were ridiculously over inflated to begin with) perhaps people who were priced out of the market will have a chance to get in. "

" Ruff-

Maybe if you call the Obama campaign and ask for Raines, GArelick, or Johnson (former CEOs of Fannie\Freddie) they can give you a loand of the millions of dollars they stole while there as Clintoon appointments. "

" Great idea let them eat cake, while they play modern day robbing hood for wall street, "

" fp56 - I don't need a loan, but millions of other American families are upside down in their home mortgages.

Just like a Republican to change the subject from how to help millions of Americans weather the storm caused by Phil Gramm's deregulation bill to trying to blame Obama for it.

Fact is that ALL American families who are upside down in their mortgages are now removed from the 'customer base' and can only service debt.

Those tens of billions of dollars are going to keep the economy from recovering... making America a double victim of Banana Republican ideology.

~Ruff "

" Am I incorrect, or is it true that without a presidential signature, Gramm's deregulation bill would not have become law? And that president was who?
There's blame on both sides. Partisanship played a huge role in leading us to this fiasco. It will not get us out of harm's way and to continue a partisan debate is pointless and useless. "

" as I recall the bill was passed with veto-proof margins so even if the prez had refused to sign it, it would have been passed over his veto. "

" Cadence - there are a few Republican parrots around here who are more than happy to squawk repeatedly that the financial meltdown is the Democrat's fault.

So while my heart bleeds for Republican sensibilities I'll still stand by the fact that Phil Gramm, John Dubya McCain's primary financial advisor, a lobbyist for UBS and author of the deregulation bill is largely responsible for it's passage.

And also, Phil Gramm is the gentlemen who told all the folks caught up in this debacle that they are a bunch of 'whiners'.

Republicans OWN this mess!

But there's ALWAYS plenty of money for corporate tax breaks in John Dubya McBush-onomics while the middle class folks who lose their homes are just 'on their own' AGAIN.

~Ruff "

" I think you are wrong, Ruff, and I am not a Republican. As I have mentioned before, history assigns ownership of legislation to the president who signs the legislation. That signing president IS THE ONLY ONE who could have derailed the legislation but he did not.
There is blame on both sides and to continue trumpeting senselessly divisive, partisan comments adds nothing to potential solutions.
Instead, this behavior raises hackles and further stymies any hope of cooperation. "

" so explain how you derail legislation that passes one house of congress with 90 yea votes and a veto proof majority in the other...he vetoes it ...it passes anyway...so you judge is the fight worth the political capital...and by that time in the second term, he didnt have a lot of capital left... "