The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Bailout Plans - Clinton's Versus Bush's

. . .I have seen protestors today around where I live that were wanting "the money" sent directly to the people like the check of earlier this year. Somehow they feel that a check to them for a few hundred bucks or even a few thousand (if it were that) would fix everything. The masses don't understand.

It's really too bad that the Bush Admin. failed to understand this basic concept as well. Otherwise, he wouldn't have issued those ridiculous stimulus checks and would've used the money more wisely. :D
 
Alpha1851....Yeah, the Bush Admistration was stupid to dend out those stimulus checks. Now the Democratic controled Congress is just as stupid and want to repeat the disaster! Monkey see, monkey do??
 
Alpha1851....Yeah, the Bush Admistration was stupid to dend out those stimulus checks. Now the Democratic controled Congress is just as stupid and want to repeat the disaster! Monkey see, monkey do??

I take that you're a Republican and are hellbent on blaming the Democrats, b/c I can't fathom how you're managing to tag them as the responsible party.

I also love the phrase, "Democratic controlled Congress." First, the Democrats barely have the majority in both the House and the Senate. Second, they just took control. For the greater part of the last eight years, the Democrats have held less power. Hell, even when Clinton was on his second term, the Democrats held less power.

Frankly, I'm pissed at both parties. Congressmen and women have no clue as to how the majority of us live. We are scrapping by just trying to get enough gas money to get to work while our politicians enjoy private jets which are funded by tax payer money. We are worried that the public school won't have enough money to start up on time, while Bush pushes forward with No Child Left Behind. We are trying to find the money to purchase groceries, while Bush announced (over New Years) that he hoped the year 2008 was just as economically prosperous as the year 2007. We are afraid of loosing our homes, while Congress just voted to raise their own damn salaries.

I know you believe that the common man doesn't understand what's going on. I completely disagree. It doesn't take a MBA from Wharton Business School to understand that the economic bailout, and make no mistake it is a bailout, is intended to protect the affluent who don't need tax payers help. The CEO's, shareholders, and board members have plenty of funds. If I made poor decisions which negatively affected my business, I would be screwed. I would loose my business, I would loose the money I put into it, I would have to start all over with no help from the government.

These banks aren't innocent. Sheer lust for money fueled their poor business decisions. No doubt, we, as American citizens, helped the banks right into the poor house. Young couples ran off to buy houses and bought way more "house" than they could afford. People making minimum wage rushed off to take advantage of "no money down," bank loans. Elderly folks cashed in their savings and jumped on the housing market--flipping homes in order to make a profit. All these people borrowed money. Way more than they could afford. They probably didn't use a real estate agent, they probably didn't have a lawyer look over the contract. When the bank told them they could borrow $100,000 with no money down...and a big balloon payment at the end, they may have not really understood what all that meant. Maybe at that time, the fella had a good job, but a recent divorce took away a great deal of his assets. Maybe an unplanned child hit the scene. Maybe a sudden illness caused financial difficulty. Maybe they just didn't understand all that bank/legal mumbo jumbo. Maybe they thought, "hey if the bank has approved me for $100,00 then I can afford to borrow $100,000. A bank would loan more than I could re-pay or they'd loose out." Wrong. So, yeah, at least some of those who are suffering failed to do their prior planning/education before hand.

Now on the other hand, banks are equally to blame. Let's be honest here, a lot of those banks loaned such a great deal of money b/c they knew damn good and well that the borrower wouldn't be able to pay them back. Sure, the new homer would be able to make a few payments, but at the end of the day, the debt would eventually get to be to much. Now, the bank can foreclose on the home (take it back) AND it gets to keep all the money and home repairs/advancements that the couple made. If the bank is unable to re-sale the home for a fair market value (depending on your state) the bank can file a suit against the foreclosed upon homeowners in order to recoup the banks losses. Pretty snazzy.

Now, I'm not suggesting that all home buyers are ignorant or that all banks/lenders are vile. But, at this time, I'm not willing to bail the banks out...and still allow them to take those homes and keep the payments.

I'm thankful that the bailout failed. It was a poorly thrown together "plan" with very little direction.

I'm not an economist by any means, but I do manage to balance my family budget. Jason and I pay for the business mistakes we make. If only the President, Congress, the CEO's, Shareholders, and Board members could manage to do the same.
 
Alpha1851, I agree with you. You brought up the Stimulus Checks that Bush had sent out and I merely pointed out that the Democrats want to do the same thing. It is a stupid idea. It was stupid in the Spring and it is perhaps even crazier today.

I am not tagging anyone as they are all to blame....collectively the elected representatives and the greed of Wall Street created this. I, like yourself, have no great debt. I live the "pay as I go" way whenever possible. I am even "between jobs" as some would put it, and I prepared for it by paying off even the smallest of debts I had.

This is not a time to party in Washington, but those people are putting "party" first and the people dead last. I live in the famous, if not infamous, District 22.....otherwise known as Tom Delay's old District. Democrat Nick Lampson now has that roll and he voted "no" today. It's an election year for the guy and many in this district hate what they see as "bailout". His Republican opponent had already said he would have voted "yes". Lampson has been doing a decent job in his job, but somehow he lost his balls to vote for what was right.

Now, the House will not vote again Thursday. Hurricane Ike could not bring this area down, but the hot wind in Washington just might .
 
^You made some good points grantt--definitely something to consider.
 
According to my Closeted Replublican Congressman, he voted for the bailout plan yesterday. Here is a copy of his official letter...

Don't ya just find it interesting that, according to him, it was only the Repulicans that were trying to make it better...


Yesterday, I reluctantly voted to approve the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act. This is not a vote I wanted to make, but it is one I ultimately decided was necessary to keep our economic crisis from worsening. The stock market plunge of more than 777 points was a sign that the emergency is real. That doesn’t just hurt Wall Street, it hurts Main Street as well. Our retirements, college funds, small businesses, and homes are being threatened by this crisis. Just yesterday, I heard from a small business owner in the San Gabriel Valley who had lost his line of credit and was concerned about making payroll. That’s what’s at the heart of this crisis – small business owners and consumers facing a potential credit freeze across our economy.

This debate has been a contentious one, and I have heard from a lot of you about your concerns. You, and I, vehemently opposed the Paulson Plan. It was too much of a blank check with no oversight or accountability. Your concerns are what pushed House Republicans to fight for changes to the plan initially put forward by the Treasury Secretary. We fought to make sure the final plan was much tougher on Wall Street, much more punitive for crooks, and had much more protection for every taxpayer. We insisted that there be no golden parachutes for failed corporate executives. There is absolutely no reason failure of this magnitude should be rewarded. We also fought to increase taxpayer protections by ensuring the treasury is repaid in full for its investment in these troubled assets. Some in Congress wanted to divert the recovered money to partisan groups like ACORN instead of directing it to pay down the debt. We said no. We fought to make sure ALL the money went back to the taxpayers. We also worked hard to significantly increase the oversight of this program. In the original version, there was none. By the time it came up for a vote, there were real checks and balances. Was this bill perfect? Absolutely not. Was it dramatically better than what we had originally been asked for? Yes.

The anger about why our economy is in such upheaval is very real and we all are rightfully concerned about the future. To be honest, I’d like to see some of the crooks who caused this crisis thrown in jail. In the meantime, I remain in Washington this week because I am convinced we have to take real steps to get our economy back on track. My vote yesterday was a good faith effort to do that. I don’t believe the blame game is going to help anyone save for retirement or college or keep their home and I’m not interested in playing it. We clearly have more work to do. I am committed to working toward a solution and feel confident that the House will work to come up with a proposal that can win support across party lines and begin to move the country away from the brink of financial disaster.

Please stay in touch with your thoughts and concerns as this process moves forward.
Sincerely,
signature.jpg

David Dreier
Member of Congress

Following is a list of key changes to the original Paulson Plan secured by House Republicans to better protect taxpayers:
Real Accountability to Protect Taxpayers. House Republicans insisted on real accountability in the final bill. In general, the Treasury is limited to purchasing up to $250 billion outstanding at any one time. If the Treasury needs to use another $100 billion, the President must certify this action and report to Congress. Further spending requires congressional action.
Real Oversight to Strengthen Taxpayer Protections. Treasury’s initial proposal had minimal oversight to protect taxpayer dollars and House Republicans rejected it. Instead, we insisted on a more rigorous oversight structure by creating a Financial Stability Oversight Board, a Special Inspector General, and a Bipartisan Congressional Oversight Panel.
No Tax Increases. House Republicans insisted that the final measure include NO tax increases. The proposed compromise simply requires a proposal from the Administration to recoup any losses after five years. In fact, the final measure includes tax cuts for struggling community banks.
Equity Stake for Taxpayers. Because of House Republicans, any AIG-type deals in the future require mandatory equity interest in order to provide taxpayers with potential future benefits. All auctions require a percentage of equity or debt based on the level of participation in the program.
Another Option to Limit Taxpayer Exposure: House Republicans insisted that Treasury be given multiple options to deal with the current economic crisis. Under the final measure, Treasury must create an insurance program that protects the taxpayers and requires companies that participate in this program to pay risk-based premiums.
No Pet Projects for the Special Interests. House Republicans insisted that the bill not contain the pet projects initially slipped in to reward special interests like ACORN. The original Frank-Dodd proposal created an affordable housing slush fund and directed 20 percent of net benefits from the program to be directed to ACORN-type organizations. The final measure directs all net benefits back to the Treasury to pay down the national debt.
Blocking Trial Lawyer Pork. House Republicans insisted the bill lose the so-called “cramdown” provisions allowing bankruptcy judges to reduce mortgage principals under the guise of helping those at risk of foreclosure. This would have been a bonanza for trial lawyers and undercut the effectiveness of any economic recovery effort by making it even harder to value mortgage-backed securities.
 
What the HELL?

Look at all of the junk they are putting in the bailout!


TAX CUTS!!!! Are we ever going to create a plan to decrease the amount of debt the government has???

This just sounds so irresponsible to me....

I do agree with increasing the amount that is insured. I don't think that it has ever changed.


Senate to vote on rescue plan with added tax cut

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081001/ap_on_bi_ge/financial_meltdown







.
 
Let me get this straight, Hilary's plan wants to reward the people who were irresponsible and bought houses they couldn't afford by allowing them to keep an artificially low interest rate. Meanwhile I have to pay the full interest and pay taxes to subsidize these people. That's absolutely the worst plan I have ever heard of. I guess it's a good thing she won't be President
 
Back
Top