June 27, 2008

HousingPANIC Quote by a Corrupt United States Congressman of the Day

"The alternative to having the banks as participants was a massive federal bailout. They [the banks] benefit, but they benefit by losing less."

- Congressman Barney Frank, stupidly admitting what we all knew was true about the Dodd-Shelby BofA/Countrywide Housing Gambler Bailout Bill, June 2008

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Criminal

Anonymous said...

The alternative was do nothing and let the market correct

Michael said...

Democrats - Spending money like they didn't earn it since 1828.

What BAFFLES me is HOW they get elected...

Simple, convince "them" the rich will pay for it. But guess what, they are tapping the middle class now. This is why McCain will take the election.

Reality said...

"Losing less"? These are the same bankers who took home billions of dollars bonuses in January! This past January! Five short months ago! They can cough up those bonuses first, then give back all the bonuses that they received over the past 5 years for underwriting those high interest high risk loans, before any bailout at taxpayer expense. After all, isn't the justification for higher interest precisely the high risks? It's time to pay up for the risks.

Can I go into the market everyday for the next month at 15-to-1 leverage, take home the money when I win and have the government pay if I have losses at the end of each day? okay, covering only 85% of my losses will be fine. I don't even need several years; I only need one month . . . to make myself filthy rich!

Anonymous said...

He is a liberal lisping jackasss

Edgar Alpo said...

Frank, ha! I wish that greaseball POS would choke on it.

penguindev said...

Talk about a false dichotomy. Just like the Republican - Democrat Warfare/Welfare dichotomy.

I did hilary and chelsea said...

He has his head up someones ass.

Has anyone ever ate at the waffle house?

Do you guys wamu is a long term buy right now.It hink it is under 5 bucks now.

Time for a cold budweiser.

Anonymous said...

March on the Capital in opposition to Dodds bailout!!

Anonymous said...

I listened to a CSPAN braodcast back in April where B. Frank is giving a speech to the REIC. What a lovefest. Frank gives credit to the REIC for econimic expansion but not the consumption. Also I found out that Frank also accepted donations from the debt collection industry. Frank then pushed through some very minor changes to the FDCPA for the debt collector scum.
Frank is looking less and less gay and more & more anti-consumer just to stay in office. Throw the bum out now

Anonymous said...

The Democrats in Congress just approved another $146 BILLION for the Iraq War. Oil is also up $70/bbl the past two years. Aren't you glad you put them into power in 2006?

Anonymous said...

Michael:

Here is the problem. People reflectively need someone to tell them that their problems aren't their own faut.

When you aren't rich, it makes you feel better to hear that it is because the rich have somehow taken advantage of you. It makes you feel better for someone to tell you that they are going to be Robin Hood and take from the rich to make your life suck less.

People fall for it every time. What doesn't make sense is that nobody ever asks people that are making at least 165,000 annually why THEY aren't just giving some of that back to the budget. Most of them are millionaires. But that would be insulting. It is less insulting to FORCIBLY TAKE money from others than to VOLUNTARILY GIVE money.

I think of it this way. Democrats want you to work harder so there is more money to give to those who work less.

Tucson Collapse said...

Agree with penguindev. Rep/Dem is like chosing which arm you want cut off...all corporate crooks with varying allegiances. What did you expect? Bring on the 3rd parties and instant runoff elections and get rid of the scum.

Anonymous said...

Barney just wants the rest of us non-gays to know what it feels like to take it up the butt. I, for one, don't like it - it feels so, well, unnatural, like something that shouldn't be happening...

Anonymous said...

i just found a web that helps you evaluate all markets in the US.
Check it out.
www.mastermarkettiming.com

Anonymous said...

Congress should send a big tub of K-Y to every household in America.

BARNEY FRANK has just F'd us all!!

SENATE FOA COMMITTEE said...

HANG ON JOE SIX PACK!!!

OPEC IS PUMPING MORE FUEL TO YOU!!!

SHOULD GET THERE ANYTIME NOW!!!

AND PAULSON SAYS THERE'S NO SPECULATORS TO STOP THE FLOW!!!

OIL AT $141.01!!!

DOPES!!!

SWAN!!!

ANON!!!

Paul E. Math said...

Why in the world would a 'massive federal bailout' even be an option?

I say we let the banks fail. When they have all collapsed someone will step in and form new banks to provide us with financial services and they will do a much better job than the last group of greedy incompetents. Just like the monolines - if you let them fail then Warren Buffett will step in and provide a much safer and more secure guarantee to all kinds of bonds.

This is creative destruction in action, survival of the fittest. This is how free-markets work and how our standard of living has increased throughout the last several centuries.

If you mess with it then you are messing with a very fragile ecosystem.

fast actin tinactin said...

Change we can be shocked at.

If Obama makes the White House you can be sure this will go through.

Anonymous said...

I say we let the banks fail. When they have all collapsed someone will step in and form new banks to provide us with financial services and they will do a much better job than the last group of greedy incompetents.

The Chinese have the same word for crisis and opportunity. I learned that from the Simpsons

bickerer said...

paul e. math said:

>I say we let the banks fail. When they have all collapsed someone will step in and form new banks...


Yes, and HPers will be in on the ground floor of their replacements. Shiiit dog, I might even have a high-rise Manhattan office currently occupied by some Citi fat cat.

wc said...

someone said:
"I think of it this way. Democrats want you to work harder so there is more money to give to those who work less."
-----------------------------
I say:
Many people that make more than $165K/year (not due to dual income) do not necessarily work that hard or even at all and some of them even only pay 15% on their taxes while I work 40-50 hours per week and pay 30%. Several people in my office work 2nd jobs during the week as well as weekend or other occasional jobs. While there will always be people that take advantage of welfare - many people actually want to do something fulfilling with their lives. That's why people like Bill Gates (well - bad example but he's still going to work philanthropically and remain as Chairman) make millions and still continue to work - that's why in Holland, anyone can go on welfare - but not everyone IS on welfare. It's not that we want to tax the wealthy MORE - it's that we want them to pay their fair share. The tax breaks during the current administration have favored the wealthy heavily - which only lead to rampant greed which hurts everyone. Look at the mess we're in now. The working poor need help. The middle class are sliding backwards on the economic scale while the rich just get richer and care less. Except for my brother-in-law who makes multi-million dollar bonuses and is still a Democrat - his rationale is "I have to vote with my conscience and not with my pocketbook" - but even he - though more enlightened than most - doesn't really understand how hard it's gotten so rapidly

Anonymous said...

who will the bill benefit, the borrowers or the banks?

lets ask Barney frANK!

Reality said...

wc,

"Many people that make more than $165K/year (not due to dual income) do not necessarily work that hard or even at all"

Most people in the $165-350k, that's the overwhelming majority of people making more than $165k/yr (top 5% cut-off is around $150k, top 1% cut-off is $350k, so 80% of above-$165k make less than $350k) are professionals like doctors and small business owners. Most of them work much much more than 40hrs a week. The standard hours for a doctor is 60-80hrs a week; as a small business owner, I have averaged more than 100hrs a week in some years.

"It's not that we want to tax the wealthy MORE - it's that we want them to pay their fair share."

What is their "fair share" anyway? Why is it better for someone working 80hrs a week and making $165k to pay $70-80k in taxes so that one third a person can be supported by welfare (only $9-10k) plus one bureacrat ($40-50k) can be verifying the taxes and welfare eligibility and all the paper allocation in between, with all the rest lost to lobbyists and bankers for fancy programs like building a bridge to nowhere, blowing up bridges in Iraq and rebuilding it, while useful bridges in this country fall apart so taxes can be raised yet again.

Why is it better that way, than say, if the same person working 80hrs making $165k, instead of having that $70-$80k taxed away, spend that money on goods and services locally? Say, $30k for a domestic help, so the high income person can be more productive in his/her specialty and make his/her clients happier? Why is it better to eliminate two of those private sector jobs, and put the would-be low-income employees on welfare, while supporting a gaggle of paper pushers and programs that produce nothing at all?

"Except for my brother-in-law who makes multi-million dollar bonuses and is still a Democrat."

That's because he knows exactly which side of his bread gets buttered. Much of his multi-million dollar financial industry bonus comes from ripping off the poor who can't have a job because money is taxed away to pay for "national" debt, which is just government taking money from ordinary citizens at gun point to pay the bankers. After taking his multi-million dollar bonus a few months ago, guess who are proposing to rip off American taxpayers to bailout his employer and consequently his multi-million dollar retirement plan? Yes, the Democrats.

"The middle class are sliding backwards on the economic scale while the rich just get richer."

That's the precise intended result of ilks like your brother-in-law! They want government coercion to take away otherwise productive jobs from the poor and middle class, run up huge a huge government and government debt, then rob the middle class yet again to pay the rich bankers. That's why the poor and middle class are sliding backwards. What else do you expect when a $30k job is eliminated so the person can get $9-10k in welfare payment?

Reality said...

wc,

That $70-80k collected in taxes from a $165k/yr person is also money that would have been spent on local businesses like restaurants, laundromat, landscaping, car dealership, etc. etc. that would have created even more jobs, not to mention charity organizations. Now instead of all of that, we are supposed to believe that the government will spend that money more wisely, despite the initial handicaps in the cost of tax-collectors and welfare case workers, and despite all the lobbying to waste the money on some pet projects or one boondongle or another for one favored industry or another.

There's no wonder why, as the government grows, the middle class and poor face harder and harder lives, while the super rich like your brother-in-law get to play with more and more forcibly collected public money because of their political connections to that coercive robbery process.

Lost Cause said...

Did anybody ever get rich off of a bank?

Americans are better off not dealing with these criminals.