Thread: Should we activate our network to oppose the bail out?

]One thing I do believe is, we can blame the greed of lenders to allow so many people to have loans who should not have qualified for them, including illegals. We know a lot of these foreclosures have to have been made to people who shouldn't even be in our country. So for now we ought to put emphasis on that part imo.[/quote][/b]

In regards to the loans to illegals: it seems they have a "right" to everything in this country and there are special committees to provide services especially to immigrants - legal or not. In New Mexico, there is one service in Ruidoso that actually advertises what they do and provide. It's enough to make one ill. Seems just by the luck of the draw they are Mexican, and as such, are qualified for a special immigrant loan that is available only to them. Wish I could have qualified for a $250,000 house on what they pay the illegal Mexicans who work in Mescalero, NM at the Inn of the Mountain Gods. And it's not just on the rez. Go to just about any hotel in the area around Ruidoso or Alamogordo or Cloudcroft, probably anywhere in the southwest I'll bet, and you will find no one that even remotely speaks English cleaning the rooms. If you don't habla, you don't get extra toillas if you need them. Heaven forbid if I needed a blanket. I don't know how to say that. *nervous giggle* SD

There HAS to be very STRICT conditions imposed as to whom will benefit from any bailout and, quite frankly, ANYONE who would not have qualified for a mortage under the previous strict standards, those who cannot prove sufficient income, and those ILLEGALLY present in this country, should not be eligible for assistance in keeping their homes.

ABSOLUTELY. ALTHOUGH I THINK THERE WERE SOME BORROWERS IN THE MIX WHO JUST FINALLY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO BUY A HOUSE, AND NEVER COULD GET IN BEFORE. THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD SELL A HOUSE AT A PROFIT IN TWO YEARS AND FINALLY HAVE A DOWN PAYMENT FOR A REGULAR LOAN. I FEEL SORRY FOR THESE PEOPLE, BECAUSE UNDER OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THEY MAY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO JUST THAT.

BUT.......THERE WERE ALSO PEOPLE WHO IN NO WAY COULD AFFORD A HOUSE. IF THESE PEOPLE ARE BAILED OUT, THEY WILL HIT SOME OTHER BUMP IN THE ROAD AND DEFAULT ANYWAY. THEY SIMPLY CANT AFFORD IT. BAIL OUT MONEY SHOULD NOT BE WASTED ON THEM AS IT USES UP MONEY THAT COULD BE USED TO BAIL OUT THOSE BORROWERS THAT CAN MAKE IT WITH SOME FLEXIBILITY PUT INTO PLACE.

AS FOR ILLEGALS. THEY SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED AT ALL. BAILOUT MONEY SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN TO ILLEGALS IN PLACE OF HELPING CITIZENS. THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH MONEY. PLUS MANY OF THEM ARE USING FAKE ID SO WE DONT REALLY KNOW WHO THEY ALL ARE. AND THEIR CHANCES OF GETTING DEPORTED ARE VERY HIGH. THIS IS ANOTHER REASON NOT TO BAIL THEM OUT.

This isn't a "bail out," it's a "sell out" of this country and its people. I believe that these entities got into trouble by dirty business practices and they deserve to go under and the main players need to go to prison.

I'm tired of this administration making me and other taxpaying Americans, "Accomplices" in their illegal activities such as aiding and abetting illegal aliens in this country with OUR tax dollars and now loaning money to criminals to "bail them out," when they need to have their businesses go belly up and their CEO's put into PRISON!

ALL Americans need to get on the horn to Congress and tell them in NO uncertain terms that we are Not going to bail out businesses who are dishonest and got themselves into trouble driven by nothing more than greed!

IMO the only way things will change is if their method of screwing us over fails, and we are the only ones who can make sure it fails by refusing to be their pawns.

Everyone E-Verify gets attention, too. THIS WEEK WILL FLY BY ......

I guess EVERYONE must decide in their own heart concerning the Bailout but we did not bailout ENRON.

I found this article that has some interesting stuff in it. Maybe someone could be kind enough to paste the article..I couldn't get it to work right.
I knew the situation was bad, but this paints a picture of the possible fallout. Plus, it is unknown if the bailout will totally work.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/22/news/ec ... /index.htm

Jean wrote:

Thank you MW for your kind comment.

You're welcome, however, no thanks are really necessary because I strongly support your position on having a wait and see attitude.

What is being put forth for consideration is very important because it would mean diverting some of our attention away from the immigration issue during what I think is a very critical phase. I'm just not sure it is a distraction we need right now, especially with so many other logs in the fire (E-verify, 287(g), elections, border fence, visa increase attempts, amnesty, tuition for illegal fights, illegal alien driver's licenses, etc.).

If I was forced to vote today on whether we should get involved in the "bail out" issue, I'd have to vote no. I think its better we stay on message and concentrate on the issue that brought us all together. Just my opinion.

I copied and pasted it for you mbrown!

Sizing up the economic threat
What's the real danger propelling the largest government intervention in history? The bailout is expensive. But so may be the cost of inaction.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Helping Main Street or sticking it to Main Street?

That's the question taxpayers are asking when told their representatives in Congress are likely to pass a bill that would allow the Treasury to spend up to $700 billion to buy up toxic assets from financial institutions.

To listen to what CNNMoney.com readers are saying, they're more in the "sticking it to Main Street" camp and they're none too pleased.

It certainly is unfair that Wall Street couldn't take care of its own mess without asking taxpayers to step in and save the day.

But like a house on fire that's threatening to spread quickly through the neighborhood, the first priority is to put the fire out - not yell at the arsonist - supporters of the bailout would contend.

To hear Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke tell it, if something isn't done quickly to address the frozen credit markets, the U.S. economy is at risk of seizing up and squeezing the financial bejesus out of everyone.

The two men made their case to lawmakers last week, and judging from lawmakers' response, it worked. When Paulson and Bernanke finished, "there was dead silence in the room for five to 10 seconds. The oxygen went out of the room," Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., told CNN.

So what visions of economic peril knocked the wind out of them? Nothing less than the decimation of three staples of Americans' financial security: jobs, homes and savings.

"The biggest help we can give the American people is to stabilize our financial system right now and to prevent the system from clogging up, because if it does clog up, this is going to have an adverse effect on people's abilities to get jobs, on their budgets, on their retirement savings, on lending for small businesses. And so, that's where the first priority has got to be," Paulson said on Sunday.

The economy without a bailout
There's risk involved no matter what lawmakers decide to do eventually. And Bernanke, an expert on the Great Depression, has said that the economy could suffer badly if the government doesn't do something quickly.

Last week, the commercial paper market - the place businesses go to get very short-term loans to fund their daily business operations - froze. The money spigot, in essence, shut off. More episodes of that would mean companies could come very close to not being able to meet payroll or pay their bills within a few weeks or months, said economist Mark Zandi.

Left without paychecks, workers would stop paying as much tax to the federal, state and local governments. Instead, they would be drawing on government subsidies, such as unemployment benefits, and pushing government spending up at exactly the same time revenues go down.

Consumers and small businesses wouldn't be able to get loans because banks would stop lending and that would slow economic growth. Corporate profits would fall, which would hit government coffers as well.

At the local level, if housing prices continued to fall, so too would property taxes collected by counties and towns. What would that mean? Less funding for schools and municipal services.

The commercial paper market froze for a host of reasons, but key among them was a loss of confidence in the system. The risk going forward for the economy is "a complete psychological breakdown," Zandi said. "There's a reasonably high probability the system would shut down."

And that could extract a much larger toll on Americans long-term than pledging to spend up to $700 billion today.

Zandi suspects the government may not end up spending the full $700 billion for a couple of reasons.

First, not everyone with mortgage assets will want to sell to Uncle Sam. Second, there may not be $700 billion worth of unsavory mortgage assets left to buy since banks have already written down $600 billion worth of them.

He noted that the markdowns taken have included very few for losses on commercial mortgages. "The program could be very helpful in this regard. But not $700 billion worth. This is as much symbolic as it is substantive," Zandi said. "It sends a strong message that the government is backstopping the financial system."

That's the optimistic scenario. Since putting out its original proposal to Congress early Saturday morning, the Treasury has since amended its request to allow for authority to buy up not just troubled mortgage assets, but troubled assets period.

"Removing troubled assets will begin to restore the strength of our financial system so it can again finance economic growth," according to a statement on the Treasury Web site.

How could a bailout hurt?
That doesn't mean a bailout wouldn't extract a price, too.

Zandi thinks the government will eventually make money on its investments in AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But if there ends up being a net cost to taxpayers from all the bailouts Paulson and Bernanke have orchestrated since last March he thinks it will be in the range of $100 billion to $200 billion.

"That's a lot of money and it's certainly painful," Zandi said. "It's money that won't go into bridges and schools. It's a huge opportunity cost."

And it will add to the deficit, which will add to the country's fiscal problems - most notably, the long-term funding challenges posed by Medicare and Social Security.

The potential net cost to taxpayers could be higher, if in fact the Treasury opts to buy troubled non-mortgage-related assets, such as car loans, which have been showing increasing default rates.

But, Zandi believes, "the cost of doing nothing is immeasurably greater."

Am I the 'ONLY' one who sees that this was planned from the beginning to push through the AMERO and take what little wealth the taxpayers have managed to scratch together in spite of the system.

When did they plan the amero?
When did we start protesting the amero?
When did the banks start flinging open their gates to the unqualified (illegals)?

Thank you very, very much April !!