Hmmmm

I see what you are saying but the problem with your idea, as I see it, is that it legitimizes bad purchasing decisions on the part of the consumer. The government shouldn't be in the business of supporting bad behavior. It seems silly to take money from the pockets of those who have acted responsibly and give it to those that haven't by way of federal transfers. That was one of the problems with traditional communism - you penalize the hard workers and those that show initiative and guarantee equal treatment to the sloths - thereby making everybody careless.

IMHO, let the whole rotten structure come tumbling down because responsible lenders and consumers won't be hurt that much - it's the predators and idiots that will suffer. Darwinism :-)


>>I read it; I mean, what do you want? The President to introduce legislation (not really his job), or to rein in the banks through Executive Order (no one would have tolerated it and the Dems would have screamed 'dictator!')
>
>As you said not Bush's job, and better not be; I would not trust him to keep 2 goats drawn on peace of paper {g}
>but yes, financial system obviosely need pair of government dobermans (strict regulation) in safeguarding it.
>
>I agree up to the point with 'Free Market & Less government' philosophy but if this turns into 'No Government'
>then you get exactly what has happened with financial sector. Otoh Free Market should also mean right to 'free fall' (death)
>for those that crossed way to many lines. (Reckless lending)
>
>Imo bailout plan would be worthless if there is no strict regulation that is going to folow it up. What is wrong with government
>temporarily overtaking entire line of troubled banks/orgs under full ownership ? Those who cannot surviwe coping with their own obligations can be forcefully purchased by government for 1USD + (assets - debts) They would die anyway.
>For 700b, taxpayer might prefer actual ownership over those walstreet sharks a$$es rather then having to feed them from their own pocket.
>
>I was more like joking in my other message to Tracy (Sergio's bailout plan {g}) , but really; Why not subsidise mortgage payments to families who actually purchased house to live inn? Say... governnment subsidise them for difference between rent on their house and their montly mortgage ? They would certainly prefer keeping the house then going back on rent (or on the street).
>Government could do that exactly via banks/organisations which their purchased as described above. So money would be practically
>comming back to government (taxpayer) in montly installments just as subsidies are given.
>
>After few years government can sell those banks back on open market, and get some of that bailout money back.
>Even as it is now, government already interveened in a way which is against all principles of free market, by overtaking iteself and
>forcefeeding overtakes to others, so what is the problem if government (fed) actually completely took over both ownership and responsability for all this mess.
>
>Families already pay badly inflated prices of their properties, so this subsidy on montly payments within bailout plan
>would actually help the real victims of this monkey business, that was alowed to happen by this and previous administration.
>(Fed actually)
>To reflect on my earlier message, IMO All this mess culminated exactly because families could not keep up
>with their payments. So why not do exactly that... - help them keeping up with their monthly payments!
>
>Personally I don't see any point in just spoon-feeding walstreet sharks with 700 tons of imported frozen tuna.
>Why, to make them bigger and less in numbers? They are already bigger then dinosaurs. And how is this going to help
>'Nemo' & 'the Reef' {g}
>
>IMO helping families keeping up with their payments as part of that bailout plan, will help financial eco-system get healthy
>much better then anything else. If it is 'bailout' then it should be for families (people) as well.
>Actually First & Foremost. (Unless government have some other priorities.)
>
>But naah... This aint going to happen 'For the people, by the people... It sounds way to 'left' {g}
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>OK, Srdjan,
>>>>
>>>>Name for me which specific actions of Bush caused the current fiscal crisis. Specific. Details.
>>>
>>>Did you read message at all ?
>>>
>>>While root of these crisis migh go way back, before Bush administration even got into white hose
>>>>last 8 years did not help situation at all. Perhaps they just helped this glass break way sooner then it normally would.