Posted by Deb on 9/30/2008, 5:18 pm, in reply to "And even before that ..."
I totally agree. Plus it sends a message that the government will bail anyone out of anything.
I admit to not being very well educated on this whole subject... what are the implications if the government doesn't bail the companies out? What does it mean for the economy as a whole, and taxpayers individually?
--Previous Message--
: ... Republicans as early as 2000 and before
: had been asking to do something about it.
: It all goes back to the 1977 Community
: Reinvestment Act that basically forced banks
: and lenders to make loans to people who
: could not pay then back. The CRA was
: expanded during the 90's to include higher
: risk loans as well.
:
: Despite the threat of prosecution from then
: Attorney General Janet Reno, the banks could
: have said "No" and the
: Congressional Republicans could have backed
: the banks up. But they didn't and the
: Republicans wouldn't.
:
: There is definitely plenty of blame to go
: around.
:
: I just don't want to see the American
: taxpayer held responsible for someone else's
: irresponsibility.
:
: Tom L.
: Class of '84
:
: --Previous Message--
: And don't get me wrong, I am NO Bush fan,
: but
: Bush had been asking Congress to do
: something about this for a while, and they
: did nothing.
:
: --Previous Message--
: I can't stand Pelosi OR Bush. And a lot of
: the blame for the current mess goes back to
: the Clinton years, though the blame falls on
: both Republicans and Democrats. Anyone who
: thinks ANY politician (on either side of the
: fence) is truly concerned about his/her
: welfare is fooling him/herself.
:
: I'm just going to vote for the one I think
: will screw me less.
:
: JR
:
:
:
:
:
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread