Perhaps the government should guarantee refinancing of the homes at a 50 or 100 year mortgage or until those who bit off more than they could chew can catch-up. 

I don’t believing in giving those compund interest peddlers of loans a free break with tax dollars, it’s a business and if they are stupid enough to allow a bad loan under a dubious contract they should suffer the wrath of making a bad business decision.

It happens in the private sector every day.

People don’t care, they just want the government to bail them out of their bad decisions.  This is the same for a corporation that made bad business decisions to a would-be homeowner who bit off more than they could chew.

There are no innocents in this debacle.  It’s infuriating that our government is essentially taking my money to pay the bills of some fool.  Even worse in the bargain, they are only doing it to by votes

It’s sad, but some chips need to fall with this crisis, and Bear-Sterns should have been at the top of the list. Just because a lot of people want something, doesn’t mean it is a necessity. Lots of people want Hummers and Ferrari too.

Glad you put some perspective on this issue because people need to know we don’t have any damn money anymore to bail out half the nation. I wish we didn’t give the big guys a break either, but it would be hard to undo now.

What people really mean (though they may not even know it) when they say that they want the government to bail them out of their troubles…be they middle class homeowners or giant investment banks…is that they want their children and grand children to bail them out.

All the bailing out money and all the ‘stimulus’ money (hell, all the money) is borrowed.  It will need to be paid back, plus interest.

Who will bail out the grandchildren?

•  “But she said her decision to vote for Clinton was based on different factors: “I don’t know that much about Barack Obama. I’m a lifelong Democrat and, heck, I’m a woman,” she said.”

Just not a very smart woman. Note the words..’doesn’t know very much about Barack Obama.’ If that is true, then she DOESN’T WANNA KNOW, and hasn’t attempted to find out. It’s not like he hasn’t made his positions clear, or that the media and the republicans haven’t vetted him thoroughly via racking him over the coals, even if it’s been on bullshit stuff. So, to say that one is voting on ‘different factors’ other than what she’s mentioned as the most important issue…the state of the economy, but rather because she’s a lifelong democrat and a woman, is downright stupid.

Clinton isn’t even a lifelong Democrat herself, even though she did ‘switch’ a long time ago from being one of the Goldwater Girls. As for her being a woman, I’ve yet to figure out why so many women seem unaware of the fact that it doesn’t guarantee a damn thing. Just because a person –any person- be it a boss, co-worker, leader, whatever, whatever, happens to be part of one’s own demographic group, does NOT mean they’re gonna necessarily support the interests of that group.

I don’t know why more people don’t get that…at least older adults whom I believe would have some experience by now. I leaned this in my late 20’s, after re-locating to Chicago, where I believed the environment to be more progressive for people of color and women of color. It was the only place –at the time- where my company employed at least one manager of color, (a man) and a few slightly lower level supervisors of color, one of them a woman.

Now, this was back in the late 70’s, and in my estimation, that was far more ‘progressive’ than the atmosphere that existed within the same corporate structure, even in LA. HA! The joke was on me. The guy was a super-sexist wanna be womanizer, and the woman was an Auntie Tom, competitive, back-stabbing bitch who automatically designated any OTHER women of color as her worst enemies. Gee. What an education.

Anyway, when people say stuff like this…the most important issue is the economy, and then proceed to say that they’re gonna vote for whomever they vote for because of party/age/gender preferences, I know why we’re as jacked-up as we are.

Here’s another oxymoron..

•  “Among Pennsylvania Democratic voters who believe that trade hurts the economy, 48% said they planned to vote for Clinton, 42% for Obama. Among the minority of Democratic voters who believe trade helps the economy, 54% said they planned to vote for Obama, 38% for Clinton.”

Which of these candidates, just between the two of them, is MORE RESPONSIBLE for trade, regardless of whether they think trade is good or bad for the economy? THAT is a no brainer! Barack Obama isn’t old enough, and hasn’t been in politics for long enough, to have had anything to do with the trade policies that have developed over the past 3 decades, most notably with the policies of NAFTA that Bush I ushered in, and that BOTH CLINTONS made ‘official’ and that gave away the flippin’ store.

Hello out there…does anybody get it? Hillary Clinton = Wal-Mart AND NAFTA! Barack Obama, (for anyone who’s been paying even a little bit of attention) has consistently sited this trade thing as the reason for the jacked-up economy. So fine, if they think ‘trade is good’ I would expect them to favor Hillary. If they think it has hurt the economy, it seems that logic would follow that they would favor Obama. Since that’s not what these statistics indicate, are Americans just stupid, or are we simply uninformed? Maybe both?

Or, is it me? Maybe I don’t ‘get it’. Or maybe I’m just breaking it down between the difference of FAIR trade, (good) and FREE trade (very nasty).